August 27, 2024

Decrypting the Matrix: How Darktrace Uncovered a KOK08 Ransomware Attack

In May 2024, a Darktrace customer was affected by KOK08, a ransomware strain commonly used by the Matrix ransomware family. Learn more about the tactics used by this ransomware case, including double extortion, and how Darktrace is able to detect and respond to such threats.

Written by

Christina Kreza

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Christina Kreza

Cyber Analyst

Aug 2024

What is Matrix Ransomware?

Matrix is a ransomware family that first emerged in December 2016, mainly targeting small to medium-sized organizations across the globe in countries including the US, Belgium, Germany, Canada and the UK [1]. Although the reported number of Matrix ransomware attacks has remained relatively low in recent years, it has demonstrated ongoing development and gradual improvements to its tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

How does Matrix Ransomware work?

In earlier versions, Matrix utilized spam email campaigns, exploited Windows shortcuts, and deployed RIG exploit kits to gain initial access to target networks. However, as the threat landscape changed so did Matrix’s approach. Since 2018, Matrix has primarily shifted to brute-force attacks, targeting weak credentials on Windows machines accessible through firewalls. Attackers often exploit common and default credentials, such as “admin”, “password123”, or other unchanged default settings, particularly on systems with Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) enabled [2] [3].

Darktrace observation of Matrix Ransomware tactics

In May 2024, Darktrace observed an instance of KOK08 ransomware, a specific strain of the Matrix ransomware family, in which some of these ongoing developments and evolutions were observed. Darktrace detected activity indicative of internal reconnaissance, lateral movement, data encryption and exfiltration, with the affected customer later confirming that credentials used for Virtual Private Network (VPN) access had been compromised and used as the initial attack vector.

Another significant tactic observed by Darktrace in this case was the exfiltration of data following encryption, a hallmark of double extortion. This method is employed by attacks to increase pressure on the targeted organization, demanding ransom not only for the decryption of files but also threatening to release the stolen data if their demands are not met. These stakes are particularly high for public sector entities, like the customer in question, as the exposure of sensitive information could result in severe reputational damage and legal consequences, making the pressure to comply even more intense.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Matrix Ransomware

Internal Reconnaissance and Lateral Movement

On May 23, 2024, Darktrace / NETWORK identified a device on the customer’s network making an unusually large number of internal connections to multiple internal devices. Darktrace recognized that this unusual behavior was indicative of internal scanning activity. The connectivity observed around the time of the incident indicated that the Nmap attack and reconnaissance tool was used, as evidenced by the presence of the URI “/nice ports, /Trinity.txt.bak”.

Although Nmap is a crucial tool for legitimate network administration and troubleshooting, it can also be exploited by malicious actors during the reconnaissance phase of the attack. This is a prime example of a ‘living off the land’ (LOTL) technique, where attackers use legitimate, pre-installed tools to carry out their objectives covertly. Despite this, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI had been continually monitoring devices across the customers network and was able to identify this activity as a deviation from the device’s typical behavior patterns.

Figure 1: The ‘Device / Attack and Recon Tools’ model alert identifying the active usage of the attack and recon tool, Nmap.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst Investigation into the ‘Scanning of Multiple Devices' incident.

Darktrace subsequently observed a significant number of connection attempts using the RDP protocol on port 3389. As RDP typically requires authentication, multiple connection attempts like this often suggest the use of incorrect username and password combinations.

Given the unusual nature of the observed activity, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability would typically have intervened, taking actions such as blocking affected devices from making internal connections on a specific port or restricting connections to a particular device. However, Darktrace was not configured to take autonomous action on the customer’s network, and thus their security team would have had to manually apply any mitigative measures.

Later that day, the same device was observed attempting to connect to another internal location via port 445. This included binding to the server service (srvsvc) endpoint via DCE/RPC with the “NetrShareEnum” operation, which was likely being used to list available SMB shares on a device.

Over the following two days, it became clear that the attackers had compromised additional devices and were actively engaging in lateral movement. Darktrace detected two more devices conducting network scans using Nmap, while other devices were observed making extensive WMI requests to internal systems over DCE/RPC. Darktrace recognized that this activity likely represented a coordinated effort to map the customer’s network and identity further internal devices for exploitation.

Beyond identifying the individual events of the reconnaissance and lateral movement phases of this attack’s kill chain, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to connect and consolidate these activities into one comprehensive incident. This not only provided the customer with an overview of the attack, but also enabled them to track the attack’s progression with clarity.

Furthermore, Cyber AI Analyst added additional incidents and affected devices to the investigation in real-time as the attack unfolded. This dynamic capability ensured that the customer was always informed of the full scope of the attack. The streamlined incident consolidation and real-time updates saved valuable time and resources, enabling quicker, more informed decision-making during a critical response window.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst timeline showing an overview of the scanning related activity, while also connecting the suspicious lateral movement activity.

File Encryption

On May 28, 2024, another device was observed connecting to another internal location over the SMB filesharing protocol and accessing multiple files with a suspicious extension that had never previously been observed on the network. This activity was a clear sign of ransomware infection, with the ransomware altering the files by adding the “KOK08@QQ[.]COM” email address at the beginning of the filename, followed by a specific pattern of characters. The string consistently followed a pattern of 8 characters (a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters and numbers), followed by a dash, and then another 8 characters. After this, the “.KOK08” extension was appended to each file [1][4].

Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst Investigation Process for the 'Possible Encryption of Files over SMB' incident.

Cyber AI Analyst Encryption Information identifying the ransomware encryption activity, — Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst Encryption Information identifying the ransomware encryption activity.

Data Exfiltration

Shortly after the encryption event, another internal device on the network was observed uploading an unusually large amount of data to the rare external endpoint 38.91.107[.]81 via SSH. The timing of this activity strongly suggests that this exfiltration was part of a double extortion strategy. In this scenario, the attacker not only encrypts the target’s files but also threatens to leak the stolen data unless a ransom is paid, leveraging both the need for decryption and the fear of data exposure to maximize pressure on the victim.

The full impact of this double extortion tactic became evident around two months later when a ransomware group claimed possession of the stolen data and threatened to release it publicly. This development suggested that the initial Matrix ransomware attackers may have sold the exfiltrated data to a different group, which was now attempting to monetize it further, highlighting the ongoing risk and potential for exploitation long after the initial attack.

Figure 6: External data being transferred from one of the involved internal devices during and after the encryption took place.

Unfortunately, because Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was not enabled at the time, the ransomware attack was able to escalate to the point of data encryption and exfiltration. However, Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) was still able to support the customer through the Security Operations Support service. This allowed the customer to engage directly with Darktrace’s expert analysts, who provided essential guidance for triaging and investigating the incident. The support from Darktrace’s SOC team not only ensured the customer had the necessary information to remediate the attack but also expedited the entire process, allowing their security team to quickly address the issue without diverting significant resources to the investigation.

Conclusion

In this Matrix ransomware attack on a Darktrace customer in the public sector, malicious actors demonstrated an elevated level of sophistication by leveraging compromised VPN credentials to gain initial access to the target network. Once inside, they exploited trusted tools like Nmap for network scanning and lateral movement to infiltrate deeper into the customer’s environment. The culmination of their efforts was the encryption of files, followed by data exfiltration via SSH, suggesting that Matrix actors were employing double extortion tactics where the attackers not only demanded a ransom for decryption but also threatened to leak sensitive information.

Despite the absence of Darktrace’s Autonomous Response at the time, its anomaly-based approach played a crucial role in detecting the subtle anomalies in device behavior across the network that signalled the compromise, even when malicious activity was disguised as legitimate. By analyzing these deviations, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to identify and correlate the various stages of the Matrix ransomware attack, constructing a detailed timeline. This enabled the customer to fully understand the extent of the compromise and equipped them with the insights needed to effectively remediate the attack.

Credit to Christina Kreza (Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Threat Content Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / Attack and Recon Tools

· Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

· Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

· Device / New or Uncommon SMB Named Pipe

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

· Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

· Device / Multiple C2 Model Breaches

· Device / Lateral Movement and C2 Activity

· Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

· Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

· Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

· Unusual Activity / SMB Access Failures

· Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity

· Compromise / Suspicious SSL Activity

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

· .KOK08 - File extension - Extension to encrypted files

· [KOK08@QQ[.]COM] – Filename pattern – Prefix of the encrypted files

· 38.91.107[.]81 – IP address – Possible exfiltration endpoint

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

· Command and control – Application Layer Protocol – T1071

· Command and control – Web Protocols – T1071.001

· Credential Access – Password Guessing – T1110.001

· Discovery – Network Service Scanning – T1046

· Discovery – File and Directory Discovery – T1083

· Discovery – Network Share Discovery – T1135

· Discovery – Remote System Discovery – T1018

· Exfiltration – Exfiltration Over C2 Channer – T1041

· Initial Access – Drive-by Compromise – T1189

· Initial Access – Hardware Additions – T1200

· Lateral Movement – SMB/Windows Admin Shares – T1021.002

· Reconnaissance – Scanning IP Blocks – T1595.001

References

[1] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/matrix-ransomware/

[2] https://www.sophos.com/en-us/medialibrary/PDFs/technical-papers/sophoslabs-matrix-report.pdf

[3] https://cyberenso.jp/en/types-of-ransomware/matrix-ransomware/

[4] https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/10728-matrix-ransomware

執筆者

Christina Kreza

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Christina Kreza

Cyber Analyst

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

•

March 24, 2026

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

In today's threat landscape, blending in to normal activity is the key to success for attackers and the growing reliance on residential proxies shows a significant shift in how threat actors are attempting to bypass IP detection tools.

The increasing dependency on residential proxies has exposed how prevalent proxy services are and how reliant a diverse range of threat actors are on them. From cybercriminal groups to state‑sponsored actors, the need to bypass IP detection tools is fundamental to the success of these groups. One malware that has quietly become notorious for its ability to avoid anomaly detection is GhostSocks, a malware that turns compromised devices into residential proxies.

What is GhostSocks?

Originally marketed on the Russian underground forum xss[.]is as a Malware‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS), GhostSocks enables threat actors to turn compromised devices into residential proxies, leveraging the victim's internet bandwidth to route malicious traffic through it.

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

The malware offers the threat actor a “clean” IP address, making it look like it is coming from a household user. This enables the bypassing of geographic restrictions and IP detection tools, a perfect tool for avoiding anomaly detection. It wasn’t until 2024, when a partnership was announced with the infamous information stealer Lumma Stealer, that GhostSocks surged into widespread adoption and alluded to who may be the author of the proxy malware.

Written in GoLang, GhostSocks utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy protocol, creating a SOCKS5 connection on infected devices. It uses a relay‑based C2 implementation, where an intermediary server sits in between the real command-and-control (C2) server and the infected device.

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

To further increase evasion, the Ghostsocks malware wraps its SOCKS5 tunnels in TLS encryption, allowing its malicious traffic to blend into normal network traffic.

Early variants of GhostSocks do not implement a persistence mechanism; however, later versions achieve persistence via registry run keys, ensuring sustained proxy operational time [1].

While proxying is its primary purpose, GhostSocks also incorporates backdoor functionality, enabling malicious actors to run arbitrary commands and download and deploy additional malicious payloads. This was evident with the well‑known ransomware group Black Basta, which reportedly used GhostSocks as a way of maintaining long‑term access to victims’ networks [1].

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Darktrace observed a steady increase in GhostSocks activity across its customer base from late 2025, with its Threat Research team identifying multiple incidents involving the malware. In one notable case from December 2025, Darktrace detected GhostSocks operating alongside Lumma Stealer, reinforcing that the partnership between Lumma and GhostSocks remains active despite recent attempts to disrupt Lumma’s infrastructure.

Darktrace’s first detection of GhostSocks‑related activity came when a device on the network of a customer in the education sector began making connections to an endpoint with a suspicious self‑signed certificate that had never been seen on the network before.

The endpoint in question, 159.89.46[.]92 with the hostname retreaw[.]click, has been flagged by multiple open‑source intelligence (OSINT) sources as being associated with Lumma Stealer’s C2 infrastructure [2], indicating its likely role in the delivery of malicious payloads.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious SSL connections to retreaw[.]click, indicating an attempted link to Lumma C2 infrastructure.

Less than two minutes later, Darktrace observed the same device downloading the executable (.exe) file “Renewable.exe” from the IP 86.54.24[.]29, which Darktrace recognized as 100% rare for this network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device downloading the unusual executable file “Renewable.exe”.

Both the file MD5 hash and the executable itself have been identified by multiple OSINT vendors as being associated with the GhostSocks malware [3], with the executable likely the backdoor component of the GhostSocks malware, facilitating the distribution of additional malicious payloads [4].

Following this detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability recommended a blocking action for the device in an early attempt to stop the malicious file download. In this instance, Darktrace was configured in Human Confirmation Mode, meaning the customer’s security team was required to manually apply any mitigative response actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled at the time of the attack, the connections to 86.54.24[.]29 would have been blocked, rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its C2 infrastructure and halting any further malicious communication.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability suggesting blocking the suspicious connections to the unusual endpoint from which the malicious executable was downloaded.

As the attack was able to progress, two days later the device was detected downloading additional payloads from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site (23.106.58[.]48), including “Setup.exe”, “,.exe”, and “/vp6c63yoz.exe”.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a malicious payload being downloaded from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site.

Once again, Darktrace recognized the anomalous nature of these downloads and suggested that a “group pattern of life” be enforced on the offending device in an attempt to contain the activity. By enforcing a pattern of life on a device, Darktrace restricts its activity to connections and behaviors similar to those performed by peer devices within the same group, while still allowing it to carry out its expected activity, effectively preventing deviations indicative of compromise while minimizing disruption. As mentioned earlier, these mitigative actions required manual implementation, so the activity was able to continue. Darktrace proceeded to suggest further actions to contain subsequent malicious downloads, including an attempt to block all outbound traffic to stop the attack from progressing.

Figure 5: An overview of download activity and the Autonomous Response actions recommended by Darktrace to block the downloads.

Around the same time, a third executable download was detected, this time from the hostname hxxp[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront.net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe, along with the file “udppump.exe”.While GhostSocks may have been present only to facilitate the delivery of additional payloads, there is no indication that these CloudFront endpoints or files are functionally linked to GhostSocks. Rather, the evidence points to broader malicious file‑download activity.

Shortly after the multiple executable files had been downloaded, Darktrace observed the device initiating a series of repeated successful connections to several rare external endpoints, behavior consistent with early-stage C2 beaconing activity.

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of additional malicious file downloads from malicious CloudFront endpoints.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst carried out its own autonomous investigation, piecing together seemingly separate events into one wider incident encompassing the first suspicious downloads beginning on December 4, the unusual connectivity to many suspicious IPs that followed, and the successful beaconing activity observed two days later. By analyzing these events in real-time and viewing them as part of the bigger picture, Cyber AI Analyst was able to construct an in‑depth breakdown of the attack to aid the customer’s investigation and remediation efforts.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the sequence of events on the compromised device, highlighting its extensive connectivity to rare endpoints, the related malicious file‑download activity, and finally the emergence of C2 beaconing behavior.

Conclusion

The versatility offered by GhostSocks is far from new, but its ability to convert compromised devices into residential proxy nodes, while enabling long‑term, covert network access—illustrates how threat actors continue to maximise the value of their victims’ infrastructure. Its growing popularity, coupled with its ongoing partnership with Lumma, demonstrates that infrastructure takedowns alone are insufficient; as long as threat actors remain committed to maintaining anonymity and can rapidly rebuild their ecosystems, related malware activity is likely to persist in some form.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Gernice Lee (Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead – APJ)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices