ブログ
/
Cloud
/
January 13, 2025

Agent vs. Agentless Cloud Security: Why Deployment Methods Matter

Cloud security solutions can be deployed with agentless or agent-based approaches or use a combination of methods. Organizations must weigh which method applies best to the assets and data the tool will protect.
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
Kellie Regan
Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
13
Jan 2025

The rapid adoption of cloud technologies has brought significant security challenges for organizations of all sizes. According to recent studies, over 70% of enterprises now operate in hybrid or multi-cloud environments, with 93% employing a multi-cloud strategy[1]. This complexity requires robust security tools, but opinions vary on the best deployment method—agent-based, agentless, or a combination of both.

Agent-based and agentless cloud security approaches offer distinct benefits and limitations, and organizations often make deployment choices based on their unique needs depending on the function of the specific assets covered, the types of data stored, and cloud architecture, such as hybrid or multi-cloud deployments.

For example, agentless solutions are increasingly favored for their ease of deployment and ability to provide broad visibility across dynamic cloud environments. These are especially useful for DevOps teams, with 64% of organizations citing faster deployment as a key reason for adopting agentless tools[2].

On the other hand, agent-based solutions remain the preferred choice for environments requiring deep monitoring and granular control, such as securing sensitive high-value workloads in industries like finance and healthcare. In fact, over 50% of enterprises with critical infrastructure report relying on agent-based solutions for their advanced protection capabilities[3].

As the debate continues, many organizations are turning to combined approaches, leveraging the strengths of both agent-based and agentless tools to address the full spectrum of their security needs for comprehensive coverage. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of these methods is critical to building an effective cloud security strategy that adapts to evolving threats and complex infrastructures.

Agent-based cloud security

Agent-based security solutions involve deploying software agents on each device or system that needs protection. Agent-based solutions are great choices when you need in-depth monitoring and protection capabilities. They are ideal for organizations that require deep security controls and real-time active response, particularly in hybrid and on-premises environments.

Key advantages include:

1. Real-time monitoring and protection: Agents detect and block threats like malware, ransomware, and anomalous behaviors in real time, providing ongoing protection and enforcing compliance by continuously monitoring workload activities.  Agents enable full control over workloads for active response such as blocking IP addresses, killing processes, disabling accounts, and isolating infected systems from the network, stopping lateral movement.

2. Deep visibility for hybrid environments: Agent-based approaches allow for full visibility across on-premises, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments by deploying agents on physical and virtual machines. Agents offer detailed insights into system behavior, including processes, files, memory, network connections, and more, detecting subtle anomalies that might indicate security threats. Host-based monitoring tracks vulnerabilities at the system and application level, including unpatched software, rogue processes, and unauthorized network activity.

3. Comprehensive coverage: Agents are very effective in hybrid environments (cloud and on-premises), as they can be installed on both physical and virtual machines.  Agents can function independently on each host device onto which they are installed, which is especially helpful for endpoints that may operate outside of constant network connectivity.

Challenges:

1. Resource-intensive: Agents can consume CPU, memory, and network resources, which may affect performance, especially in environments with large numbers of workloads or ephemeral resources.

2. Challenging in dynamic environments: Managing hundreds or thousands of agents in highly dynamic or ephemeral environments (e.g., containers, serverless functions) can be complex and labor-intensive.

3. Slower deployment: Requires agent installation on each workload or instance, which can be time-consuming, particularly in large or complex environments.  

Agentless cloud security

Agentless security does not require software agents to be installed on each device. Instead, it uses cloud infrastructure and APIs to perform security checks. Agentless solutions are highly scalable with minimal impact on performance, and ideal for cloud-native and highly dynamic environments like serverless and containerized. These solutions are great choices for your cloud-native and multi-cloud environments where rapid deployment, scalability, and minimal impact on performance are critical, but response actions can be handled through external tools or manual processes.

Key advantages include:

1. Scalability and ease of deployment: Because agentless security doesn’t require installation on each individual device, it is much easier to deploy and can quickly scale across a vast number of cloud assets. This approach is ideal for environments where resources are frequently created and destroyed (e.g., serverless, containerized workloads), as there is no need for agent installation or maintenance.

2. Reduced system overhead: Without the need to run local agents, agentless security minimizes the impact on system performance. This is crucial in high-performance environments.

3. Broad visibility: Agentless security connects via API to cloud service providers, offering near-instant visibility and threat detection. It provides a comprehensive view of your cloud environment, making it easier to manage and secure large and complex infrastructures.

Challenges

1. Infrastructure-level monitoring: Agentless solutions rely on cloud service provider logs and API calls, meaning that detection might not be as immediate as agent-based solutions. They collect configuration data and logs, focusing on infrastructure misconfigurations, identity risks, exposed resources, and network traffic, but lack visibility and access to detailed, system-level information such as running processes and host-level vulnerabilities.

2. Cloud-focused: Primarily for cloud environments, although some tools may integrate with on-premises systems through API-based data gathering. For organizations with hybrid cloud environments, this approach fragments visibility and security, leading to blind spots and increasing security risk.

3. Passive remediation: Typically provides alerts and recommendations, but lacks deep control over workloads, requiring manual intervention or orchestration tools (e.g., SOAR platforms) to execute responses. Some agentless tools trigger automated responses via cloud provider APIs (e.g., revoking permissions, adjusting security groups), but with limited scope.

Combined agent-based and agentless approaches

A combined approach leverages the strengths of both agent-based and agentless security for complete coverage. This hybrid strategy helps security teams achieve comprehensive coverage by:

  • Using agent-based solutions for deep, real-time protection and detailed monitoring of critical systems or sensitive workloads.
  • Employing agentless solutions for fast deployment, broader visibility, and easier scalability across all cloud assets, which is particularly useful in dynamic cloud environments where workloads frequently change.

The combined approach has distinct practical applications. For example, imagine a financial services company that deals with sensitive transactions. Its security team might use agent-based security for critical databases to ensure stringent protections are in place. Meanwhile, agentless solutions could be ideal for less critical, transient workloads in the cloud, where rapid scalability and minimal performance impact are priorities. With different data types and infrastructures, the combined approach is best.

Best of both worlds: The benefits of a combined approach

The combined approach not only maximizes security efficacy but also aligns with diverse operational needs. This means that all parts of the cloud environment are secured according to their risk profile and functional requirements. Agent-based deployment provides in-depth monitoring and active protection against threats, suitable for environments requiring tight security controls, such as financial services or healthcare data processing systems. Agentless deployment complements agents by offering broader visibility and easier scalability across diverse and dynamic cloud environments, ideal for rapidly changing cloud resources.

There are three major benefits from combining agent-based and agentless approaches.

1. Building a holistic security posture: By integrating both agent-based and agentless technologies, organizations can ensure that all parts of their cloud environments are covered—from persistent, high-risk endpoints to transient cloud resources. This comprehensive coverage is crucial for detecting and responding to threats promptly and effectively.

2. Reducing overhead while boosting scalability: Agentless systems require no software installation on each device, reducing overhead and eliminating the need to update and maintain agents on a large number of endpoints. This makes it easier to scale security as the organization grows or as the cloud environment changes.

3. Applying targeted protection where needed: Agent-based solutions can be deployed on selected assets that handle sensitive information or are critical to business operations, thus providing focused protection without incurring the costs and complexity of universal deployment.

Use cases for a combined approach

A combined approach gives security teams the flexibility to deploy agent-based and agentless solutions based on the specific security requirements of different assets and environments. As a result, organizations can optimize their security expenditures and operational efforts, allowing for greater adaptability in cloud security use cases.

Let’s take a look at how this could practically play out. In the combined approach, agent-based security can perform the following:

1. Deep monitoring and real-time protection:

  • Workload threat detection: Agent-based solutions monitor individual workloads for suspicious activity, such as unauthorized file changes or unusual resource usage, providing high granularity for detecting threats within critical cloud applications.
  • Behavioral analysis of applications: By deploying agents on virtual machines or containers, organizations can monitor behavior patterns and flag anomalies indicative of insider threats, lateral movement, or Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs).
  • Protecting high-sensitivity environments: Agents provide continuous monitoring and advanced threat protection for environments processing sensitive data, such as payment processing systems or healthcare records, leveraging capabilities like memory protection and file integrity monitoring.

2. Cloud asset protection:

  • Securing critical infrastructure: Agent-based deployments are ideal for assets like databases or storage systems that require real-time defense against exploits and ransomware.
  • Advanced packet inspection: For high-value assets, agents offer deep packet inspection and in-depth logging to detect stealthy attacks such as data exfiltration.
  • Customizable threat response: Agents allow for tailored security rules and automated responses at the workload level, such as shutting down compromised instances or quarantining infected files.

At the same time, agentless cloud security provides complementary benefits such as:

1. Broad visibility and compliance:

  • Asset discovery and management: Agentless systems can quickly scan the entire cloud environment to identify and inventory all assets, a crucial capability for maintaining compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA, which require up-to-date records of data locations and usage.
  • Regulatory compliance auditing and configuration management: Quickly identify gaps in compliance frameworks like PCI DSS or SOC 2 by scanning configurations, permissions, and audit trails without installing agents. Using APIs to check configurations across cloud services ensures that all instances comply with organizational and regulatory standards, an essential aspect for maintaining security hygiene and compliance.
  • Shadow IT Detection: Detect and map unauthorized cloud services or assets that are spun up without security oversight, ensuring full inventory coverage.

2. Rapid environmental assessment:

  • Vulnerability assessment of new deployments: In environments where new code is frequently deployed, agentless security can quickly assess new instances, containers, or workloads in CI/CD pipelines for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations, enabling secure deployments at DevOps speed.
  • Misconfiguration alerts: Detect and alert on common cloud configuration issues, such as exposed storage buckets or overly permissive IAM roles, across cloud providers like AWS, Azure, and GCP.
  • Policy enforcement: Validate that new resources adhere to established security baselines and organizational policies, preventing security drift during rapid cloud scaling.

Combining agent-based and agentless approaches in cloud security not only maximizes the protective capabilities, but also offers flexibility, efficiency, and comprehensive coverage tailored to the diverse and evolving needs of modern cloud environments. This integrated strategy ensures that organizations can protect their assets more effectively while also adapting quickly to new threats and regulatory requirements.

Darktrace offers complementary and flexible deployment options for holistic cloud security

Powered by multilayered AI, Darktrace / CLOUD is a Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solution that is agentless by default, with optional lightweight, host-based server agents for enhanced real-time actioning and deep inspection. As such, it can deploy in cloud environments in minutes and provide unified visibility and security across hybrid, multi-cloud environments.

With any deployment method, Darktrace supports multi-tenant, hybrid, and serverless cloud environments. Its Self-Learning AI learns the normal behavior across architectures, assets, and users to identify unusual activity that may indicate a threat. With this approach, Darktrace / CLOUD quickly disarms threats, whether they are known, unknown, or completely novel. It then accelerates the investigation process and responds to threats at machine speed.

Learn more about how Darktrace / CLOUD secures multi and hybrid cloud environments in the Solution Brief.

References:

1. Flexera 2023 State of the Cloud Report

2. ESG Research 2023 Report on Cloud-Native Security

3. Gartner, Market Guide for Cloud Workload Protection Platforms, 2023

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
Kellie Regan
Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

May 18, 2026

AI Insider Threats: How Generative AI is Changing Insider Risk

Default blog imageDefault blog image

How generative AI changes insider behavior

AI systems, especially generative platforms such as chatbots, are designed for engagement with humans. They are equipped with extraordinary human-like responses that can both confirm, and inflate, human ideas and ideology; offering an appealing cognitive partnership between machine and human.  When considering this against the threat posed by insiders, the type of diverse engagement offered by AI can greatly increase the speed of an insider event, and can facilitate new attack platforms to carry out insider acts.  

This article offers analysis on how to consider this new paradigm of insider risk, and outlines key governance principles for CISOs, CSOs and SOC managers to manage the threats inherent with AI-powered insider risk.

What is an insider threat?

There are many industry or government definitions of what constitutes insider threat. At its heart, it relates to the harm created when trusted access to sensitive information, assets or personnel is abused bywith malicious intent, or through negligent activities.  

Traditional methodologies to manage insider threat have relied on two main concepts: assurance of individuals with access to sensitive assets, and a layered defense system to monitor for any breach of vulnerability. This is often done both before, and after access has been granted.  In the pre-access state, assurance is gained through security or recruitment checks. Once access is granted, controls such as privileged access, and zero-trust architecture offer defensive layers.

How does AI change the insider threat paradigm?

While these two concepts remain central to the management of insider threats, the introduction of AI offers three key new aspects that will re-shape the paradigm:.  

AI can act as a cognitive amplifier, influencing and affecting the motivations that can lead to insider-related activity. This is especially relevant for the deliberate insider - someone who is considering an act of insider harm. These individuals can now turn to AI systems to validate their thinking, provide unique insights, and, crucially, offer encouragement to act. With generative systems hard-wired to engage and agree with users, this can turn a helpful AI system into a dangerous AI hype machine for those with harmful insider intent.  

AI can act as an operational enabler. AI can now develop and increase the range of tools needed to carry out insider acts. New social engineering platforms such as vishing and deepfakes give adversaries a new edge to create insider harm. AI can generate solutions and operational platforms at increasing speeds; often without the need for human subject matter expertise to execute the activities. As one bar for advanced AI capabilities continues to be raised, the bar needed to make use of those platforms has become significantly lower.

AI can act as a semi-autonomous insider, particularly when agentic AI systems or non-human identities are provided broad levels of autonomy; creating a vector of insider acts with little-to-no human oversight or control. As AI agents assume many of the orchestration layers once reserved for humans, they do so without some of the restricted permissions that generally bind service accounts. With broad levels of accessibility and authority, these non-human identities (NHIs) can themselves become targets of insider intent.  Commonly, this refers to the increasing risks of prompt injection, poisoning, or other types of embedded bias. In many ways, this mirrors the risks of social engineering traditionally faced by humans. Even without deliberate or malicious efforts to corrupt them, AI systems and AI agents can carry out unintended actions; creating vulnerabilities and opportunities for insider harm.

How to defend against AI-powered insider threats

The increasing attack surfaces created or facilitated by AI is a growing concern.  In Darktrace’s own AI cybersecurity research, the risks introduced, and acknowledged, through the proliferation of AI tools and systems continues to outstrip traditional policies and governance guardrails. 22% of respondents in the survey cited ‘insider misuse aided by generative AI’ as a major threat concern.  And yet, in the same survey, only 37% of all respondents have formal policies in place to manage the safe and responsible use of AI.  This draws a significant and worrying delta between the known risks and threat concerns, and the ability (and resources) to mitigate them.

What can CISOs and SOC leaders do to protect their organization from AI insider threats?  

Given the rapid adaptation, adoption, and scale of AI systems, implementing the right levels of AI governance is non-negotiable. Getting the correct balance between AI-driven productivity gains and careful compliance will lead to long-term benefits. Adapting traditional insider threat structures to account for newer risks posed through the use of AI will be crucial. And understanding the value of AI systems that add to your cybersecurity resilience rather than imperil it will be essential.

For those responsible for the security and protection of their business assets and data holdings, the way AI has changed the paradigm of insider threats can seem daunting.  Adopting strong, and suitable AI governance can become difficult to introduce due to the volume and complexity of systems needed to be monitored. As well as traditional insider threat mitigations such as user monitoring, access controls and active management, the speed and autonomy of some AI systems need different, as well as additional layers of control.  

How Darktrace helps protect against AI-powered insider threats

Darktrace has demonstrated that, through platforms such as our proprietary Cyber AI Analyst, and our latest product Darktrace / SECURE AI, there are ways AI systems can be self-learning, self-critical and resilient to unpredictable AI behavior whilst still offering impressive returns; complementing traditional SOC and CISO strategies to combat insider threat.  

With / SECURE AI, some of the ephemeral risks drawn through AI use can be more easily governed.  Specifically, the ability to monitor conversational prompts (which can both affect AI outputs as well as highlight potential attempts at manipulation of AI; raising early flags of insider intent); the real-time observation of AI usage and development (highlighting potential blind-spots between AI development and deployment); shadow AI detection (surfacing unapproved tools and agents across your IT stack) and; the ability to know which identities (human or non-human) have permission access. All these features build on the existing foundations of strong insider threat management structures.  

How to take a defense-in-depth approach to AI-powered insider threats

Even without these tools, there are four key areas where robust, more effective controls can mitigate AI-powered insider threat.  Each of the below offers a defencce-in-depth approach: layering acknowledgement and understanding of an insider vector with controls that can bolster your defenses.  

Identity and access controls

Having a clear understanding of the entities that can access your sensitive information, assets and personnel is the first step in understanding the landscape in which insider harm can occur.  AI has shown that it is not just flesh and bone operators who can administer insider threats; Non-Human Identities (such as agentic AI systems) can operate with autonomy and freedom if they have the right credentials. By treating NHIs in the same way as human operators (rather than helpful machine-based tools), and adding similar mitigation and management controls, you can protect both your business, and your business-based identities from insider-related attention.

Visibility and shadow AI detection

Configuring AI systems carefully, as well as maintaining internal monitoring, can help identify ‘shadow AI’ usage; defined as the use of unsanctioned AI tools within the workplace1 (this topic was researched in Darktrace’s own paper on "How to secure AI in the enterprise". The adoption of shadow AI could be the result of deliberate preference, or ‘shortcutting’; where individuals use systems and models they are familiar with, even if unsanctioned. As well as some performance risks inherent with the use of shadow AI (such as data leakage and unwanted actions), it could also be a dangerous precursor for insider-related harm (either through deliberate attempts to subvert regular monitoring, or by opening vulnerabilities through unpatched or unaccredited tooling).

Prompt and Output Guardrails

The ability to introduce guardrails for AI systems offers something of a traditional “perimeter protection” layer in AI defense architecture; checking prompts and outputs against known threat vectors, or insider threat methodologies. Alone, such traditional guardrails offer limited assurance.  But, if tied with behavior-centric threat detection, and an enforcement system that deters both malicious and accidental insider activities, this would offer considerable defense- in- depth containment.  

Forensic logging and incident readiness response

The need for detection, data capture, forensics, and investigation are inherent elements of any good insider threat strategy. To fully understand the extent or scope of any suspected insider activity (such as understanding if it was deliberate, targeted, or likely to occur again), this rich vein of analysis could prove invaluable.  As the nature of business increasingly turns ephemeral; with assets secured in remote containers, information parsed through temporary or cloud-based architecture, and access nodes distributed beyond the immediate visibility of internal security teams, the development of AI governance through containment, detection, and enforcement will grow ever more important.

Enabling these controls can offer visibility and supervision over some of the often-expressed risks about AI management. With the right kind of data analytics, and with appropriate human oversight for high-risk actions, it can illuminate the core concerns expressed through a new paradigm of AI-powered insider threats by:

  • Ensuring deliberately mis-configured AI systems are exposed through regular monitoring.
  • Highlighting changes in systems-based activity that might indicate harmful insider actions; whether malicious or accidental.
  • Promoting a secure-by-design process that discourages and deters insider-related ambitions.
  • Ensuring the control plane for identity-based access spans humans, NHIs and AI models, and:
  • Offering positive containment strategies that will help curate the extent of AI control, and minimize unwanted activities.

Why insider threat remains a human challenge

At its root, and however it has been configured, AI is still an algorithmic tool; something designed to automate, process and manage computational functions at machine speed, and boost productivity.  Even with the best cybersecurity defenses in place, the success of an insider threat management program will still depend on the ability of human operators to identify, triage, and manage the insider threat attack surface.  

AI governance policies, human-in-the-loop break points, and automated monitoring functions will not guard against acts of insider harm unless there is intention to manage this proactively, and through a strong culture of how to guard against abuses of trust and responsibility.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jason Lusted
AI Governance Advisor

Blog

/

Network

/

May 18, 2026

中国系APTキャンペーン、アップデートされたFDMTPバックドアで企業を狙う

Default blog imageDefault blog image

ダークトレースは、中国系グループの活動と一致する動きを特定しました。これは、主にアジア太平洋および日本(APJ)地域の顧客環境を標的としたTwill Typhoonに関連するキャンペーンです。

2025年9月下旬から、影響を受けた複数のホストが、YahooやApple関連のサービスを装ったインフラを含む、コンテンツ配信ネットワーク(CDN)を偽装したドメインへのリクエストを行っていることが観察されました。これらの事例において、ダークトレースは一貫した動作のパターンを特定しました。それは、正当なバイナリと悪意あるダイナミックリンクライブラリ(DLL)を同時に取得し、モジュラー型の.NETベースのリモートアクセス型トロイの木馬(RAT)フレームワークのサイドローディングと実行を可能にするものでした。

これらはダークトレースが先日発表した中国系オペレーションについてのレポート、 Crimson Echoで説明されているパターンとも一致しています。このケースでは、正規のソフトウェア上にモジュラー型の侵入チェーンが構築され、ステージングされたペイロードの投下が見られました。脅威アクターは正当なバイナリをコンフィギュレーションファイルや悪意あるDLLとともに取得することにより、.NETベースのRATのサイドローディングを可能にしました。

キャンペーンの確認

これらのケースには同じ順序のシーケンスが現れています:(1) 正規の実行可能ファイルの取得、(2) 対応する .config ファイルの取得、(3) 悪意あるDLLの取得、(4) DLLの繰り返しダウンロード、(5) コマンド&コントロール(C2)通信。 正規のバイナリは正規のプロセスを提供しますが、.config ファイルは悪意あるバイナリを取得します。

ダークトレースは、この活動が公に報告されているTwill Typhoonの手法と一致していると中程度の確信を持って評価しています。FDMTPの使用、DLLサイドローディング、および重複するインフラストラクチャが観察されたことは、以前に見られた作戦と一致していますが、これは特定の単一のアクターに固有のものではありません。アトリビューションには可視性による制限があります。初期アクセスは直接確認されませんでしたが、侵入のパターンは同様の作戦で報告されている既知のフィッシングによる侵入手法と一致しています。

Darktraceによる観測

2025年9月下旬より、Darktraceは複数の顧客環境において良く知られたプラットフォームの“CDN”エンドポイントと称するインフラ(YahooやAppleを偽装したものを含む)に対してHTTP GETリクエストが行われていることを観測しました。これらのケースでは、影響を受けたホストは正当な実行形式、対応する.configファイル(同じベース名)、そしてサイドローディング用DLLを取得しています。正当なバイナリ+コンフィギュレーション+DLLのシーケンスは中国系の攻撃キャンペーンで見られているものです。

いくつかのケースでは、ホストはさらに/GetClusterエンドポイントへのアウトバウンドリクエストを発行しており、protocol=Dotnet-Tcpdmtpパラメータも含まれていました。このアクティビティの後繰り返しDLLコンテンツの取得が行われ、その後これが正当なプロセス内でサーチオーダー杯ジャッキングに使われました。

2025年9月~10月に見られた多くのケースで、Darktraceのアラートは初期段階の登録およびC2セットアップ動作を識別しました。その後同じ外部ホストからのDLL(Client.dll等)取得(一部のケースでは複数日に渡って繰り返し)が続き、これは実行チェーンの確立と維持を示すものでした。2026年4月、金融セクターの顧客のエンドポイントがyahoo-cdn[.]it[.]comに対して一連のGETリクエストを開始し、最初に正当なバイナリ(vshost.exeおよびdfsvc.exeを含む)を取得し、その後11日間にわたり関連するコンフィギュレーションファイルおよびDLLコンポーネント(dfsvc.exe.configおよびdnscfg.dllを含む)を繰り返し取得しました。Visual Studio ホスティングと OneClick(dfsvc.exe)のパスの使用はどちらも、マルウェアをターゲット環境で実行できるようにするためのものです。

技術分析

初期ステージングおよび実行

最初のアクセスはわかっていませんが、ダークトレースの研究者はマルウェアを含む複数のアーカイブを特定しました。

代表的なサンプルには以下を含むZIPアーカイブ(“test.zip”)が含まれていました:

  • 正規の実行形式:biz_render.exe(Sogou Pinyin IME)
  • 悪意あるDLL: browser_host.dll

"test.zip" という名前のzipアーカイブには、正規のバイナリ"biz_render.exe" が含まれており、これは人気のある中国語IMEであるSogou Pinyinです。

正規のバイナリと共に ”browser_host.dll” という悪意のあるDLLがあります。</x1>この正規のバイナリは ”browser_host.dll”という正規のDLLを、LoadLibraryExWを介して読み込みますが、悪意のあるDLLにも同じ名前がつけられることにより、biz_render.exeに悪意のあるDLLをサイドロードします。同名の悪意あるDLLを提供することで、攻撃者は実行フローを乗っ取り、信頼されたプロセス内でペイロードを実行することができます。

図1.Biz_render.exe による browser_host.dll のローディング

正規のバイナリは、サイドロードされた"browser_host.dll"から関数GetBrowserManagerInstanceを呼び出し、その後、埋め込まれた文字列に対してXORベースの復号化(キー 0x90)を実行して、mscoree.dllを解決し動的にロードします。

このDLLは、ネイティブバイナリのみに依存するのではなく、Windowsの共通言語ランタイム(CLR)を使用することにより、プロセス内で管理された.NETコードを実行します。実行中、ローダーはペイロードを.NETアセンブリとして直接メモリにロードし、メモリ内での実行を可能にします。

C2 登録

GETリクエストが以下に対して実行されます:

GET /GetCluster?protocol=DotNet-TcpDmtp&tag={0}&uid={1}

カスタムヘッダ:

Verify_Token: Dmtp

これは、後の通信に使用されるIPアドレスをbase64でエンコードし、gzipで圧縮したものを返します。

図2.デコードされたIP

ステージングされたペイロードの取得

その後のアクティビティには、yahoo-cdn.it[.]comからの複数のコンポーネントの取得が含まれます。以下のGETリクエストが行われます:

/dfsvc.exe

/dnscfg.dll

/dfsvc.exe.config

/vhost.exe

/Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll

/config.etl

ClickOnceおよびAppDomainのハイジャッキング

Dfsvc.exeは正当なWindowsのClickOnceエンジンであり、ClickOnceアプリケーションの更新に使用される.NETフレームワークの一部です。付随するdfsvc.exeには、アプリケーションのコンフィギュレーションデータを保存するために使用されるdfsvc.exe.configファイルが含まれています。しかし、このケースではマルウェアが正規のdfsvc.exe.configをC:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319のサーバーから取得したものと置き換えます。

さらに、正当なVisual Studioホスティングプロセスであるvhost.exeがサーバーから取得され、それとともに”Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll”と”config.etl”も取得されます。このDLLは、config.etl内のAESで暗号化されたペイロードを復号してロードするために使用されます。暗号化されたペイロードはdnscfg.dllであり、これはdfsvcの代わりにvshostにロードすることができ、環境が.NETをサポートしていない場合に使用することができます。

図3.ClickOnceのコンフィギュレーション

悪意あるコンフィギュレーションはログ記録を無効にし、アプリケーションがリモートサーバーからdnscfg.dllを読み込むようにし、カスタムのAppDomainManagerを使用してdfsvc.exeの初期化時にDLLが実行されるようにします。永続性を確保するために、%APPDATA%\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\dfsvc.exeのスケジュールされたタスクが追加されます。

コアペイロード

DLL dnscfg.dll は、カスタムTCPベースのプロトコルであるDMTP(Duplex Message Transport Protocol)を使用して通信する、著しく難読化された.NET RAT(Client.TcpDmtp.dll) です。 観察された特徴から、これはFDMTPフレームワーク(v3.2.5.1)の更新版であると思われます。

図4.InitializeNewDomain

ペイロードは:

  • クラスタベースの解決を使用 (GetHostFromCluster)
  • トークン検証を実装
  • 永続的な実行ループに入る (LoopMessage)
  • DMTPを介した構造化されたリモートタスキングをサポート

接続が確立されると、マルウェアは永続的なループ(LoopMessage)に入り、リモートサーバーからのコマンドを受信できるようになります。

図5.DMTP接続関数

値は直接参照するのではなく、実行時に解決されるコンテナを通じて取得されます。文字列値は暗号化されたバイト配列(_0)に格納され、カスタムのXORベースの文字列復号ルーチン(dcsoft)によって復号されます。キーの下位16ビットは0xA61D(42525)とXORされて初期のXORキーが導出され、それに続くビットは文字列の長さと暗号化されたバイト配列へのオフセットを定義します。各文字は2つの暗号化されたバイトから再構成され、増加するキー値とXORされて、ペイロードで使用される平文文字列が生成されます。

図6.復号化された文字列

リソースセクションには複数の圧縮されたバイナリが埋め込まれており、その大多数はライブラリファイルです。

図7: リソース

モジュラー型フレームワークとプラグイン

ペイロードには以下を含む複数の圧縮ライブラリが埋め込まれています:

  • client.core.dll
  • client.dmtpframe.dll

Client.core.dllは、システムプロファイリング、C2通信、およびプラグイン実行に使用されるコアライブラリです。インプラントは、アンチウイルス製品、ドメイン名、HWID、CLRバージョン、管理者権限、ハードウェアの詳細、ネットワークの詳細、オペレーティングシステム、およびユーザーを含む情報を取得する機能を備えています。

図8: Client.Core.Info 関数

さらに、このコンポーネントはプラグインの読み込みを担当しており、バイナリおよびJSONベースのプラグイン実行の両方をサポートしています。これにより、プラグインは実行されるタスクに応じて異なる形式のコマンドやパラメータを受け取ることができます。

このフレームワークがプラグインのハッシュ、メソッド名、タスク識別子、呼び出し元追跡、引数の処理などの詳細を管理し、プラグインを環境内で一貫して実行することができます。実行管理に加えて、このライブラリはログ記録、通信、プロセス処理などの共通のランタイム機能へのアクセスをプラグインに提供します。

図9: Client.core 関数

client.dmtpframe.dllは次を処理します:

  • DMTP通信
  • ハートビートおよび再接続
  • レジストリを通じたプラグイン永続化:

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\IME\{id}

Client.dmtpframe.dllはTouchSocket DMTPネットワーキングライブラリ上に構築されており、リモートプラグインの管理を行います。このDLLは、ハートビートの維持、再接続処理、RPCスタイルのメッセージング、SSLサポート、およびトークンベースの認証を含むリモート通信機能を実装しています。このDLLは、永続化のためにHKCU/Software/Microsoft/IME/{id} のレジストリにプラグインを追加する機能も備えています。  

観測されたプラグイン

使用されたすべてのプラグインは判明していませんが、研究者たちは以下の4つを確認することができました:

  • Persist.WpTask.dll - リモートでスケジュールされたWindowsタスクを作成、削除、トリガーするために使用されます。
  • Persist.registry.dll - レジストリの永続性を管理するために使用され、レジストリ値の作成および削除、隠し永続化キーの操作が可能です。
  • Persist.extra.dll - メインフレームワークの読み込みと永続化に使用されます。
  • Assist.dll - リモートでファイルやコマンドを取得したり、システムプロセスを操作したりするために使用されます。
図10: IME レジストリに格納されたプラグイン
図11: プラグインリソース内の難読化されたスクリプト

Persist.extra.dll は、スクリプト"setup.log"を、読み込みメインフレームワークをロードおよび永続化するために使用されるモジュールです。バイナリのリソースセクションに格納されている難読化されたスクリプトは、.NET COMオブジェクトを作成し、永続化のためにレジストリキーHKCU\Software\Classes\TypeLib\ {9E175B61-F52A-11D8-B9A5-505054503030}\1.0\1\Win64 に追加します。このスクリプトの難読化を解除すると、"WindowsBase.dll”という別のDLLが明らかになります。

図12: スクリプトのレジストリエントリ

バイナリは5分ごとにicloud-cdn[.]netをチェックし、バージョン文字列を取得し、暗号化されたペイロードであるchecksum.binをダウンロードし、ローカルにC:\ProgramData\USOShared\Logs\checksum.etlとして保存し、ハードコードされたキーPOt_L[Bsh0=+@0a.を使用してAESで復号化し、Assembly.Load(byte[])を介して復号化されたアセンブリをメモリから直接ロードします。version.txtファイルは更新マーカーとして機能し、リモートのバージョンが変更された場合にのみ再ダウンロードされるようにします。また、ミューテックスは重複したインスタンスの起動を防ぎます。

図13: USOShared/Logs.

Checksum.etlはAESで復号化され、メモリにロードされ、別の.NET DLLである"Client.dll"がロードされます。このバイナリは前述の"dnscfg.dll"と同じものであり、脅威アクターがバージョンに基づいてメインフレームワークを更新することを可能にします。

まとめ

これらの事例で一貫して観測されたシーケンスは以下の通りです:

  • 正規の実行形式の取得
  • サイドローディング用DLLの取得
  • /GetClusterによるC2登録

侵入は単一の足場に依存しておらず、独立して更新、交換、再読み込みが可能なコンポーネントに分散されています。このアプローチは、中国系脅威アクターの手法と一致しています。Crimson Echoレポートで説明されているように、安定した特徴は技術的なものではなく、動作上の特徴です。インフラストラクチャは変化し、ペイロードも変わりますが、実行モデルは同じです。防御者にとって、その意味は明白です。それは個別の指標に基づく検知は急速に劣化するということです。動作のシーケンスや、アクセスがどのように構築され再確立されるかに基づく検知は、はるかに永続的です。

協力:Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead), Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy)

編集: Ryan Traill (Content Manager)


付録

検知モデルとトリガーされたインジケータのリストをIOCとともに提示します。

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Test.zip - fc3959ebd35286a82c662dc81ca658cb

Dnscfg.dll - b2c8f1402d336963478f4c5bc36c961a

Client.TcpDmtp.dll - c52b4a16d93a44376f0407f1c06e0b

Browser_host.dll - c17f39d25def01d5c87615388925f45a

Client.DmtpFrame.dll - 482cc72e01dfa54f30efe4fefde5422d

Persist.Extra - 162F69FE29EB7DE12B684E979A446131

Persist.Registry - 067FBAD4D6905D6E13FDC19964C1EA52

Assist - 2CD781AB63A00CE5302ED844CFBECC27

Persist.WpTask - DF3437C88866C060B00468055E6FA146

Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll - c650a624455c5222906b60aac7e57d48

www.icloud-cdn[.]net

www.yahoo-cdn.it[.]com

154.223.58[.]142[AP8] [EF9]

MITRE ATT&CK テクニック

T1106 – ネイティブAPI

T1053.005 -スケジュールされたタスク

T1546.16 - コンポーネントオブジェクトモデルハイジャッキング

T1547.001 – レジストリ実行キー

T1511.001 -DLLインジェクション

T1622 – デバッガ回避

T1027 – ファイルおよび情報の難読化解除/復号化解除

T1574.001 - 実行フローハイジャック:DLL

T1620 – リフレクティブコードローディング

T1082 – システム情報探索

T1007 – システムサービス探索

T1030 – システムオーナー/ユーザー探索

T1071.001 - Webプロトコル

T1027.007 - 動的API解決

T1095 – 非アプリケーションレイヤプロトコル

Darktrace モデルアラート

·      Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·      Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

·      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

·      Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

·      Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

·      Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

·      Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

·      Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)

·      Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days

·      Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

·      Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

·      Device / Increased External Connectivity

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ