August 23, 2022

Emotet Resurgence: Cross-Industry Analysis

Technical insights on the Emotet resurgence in 2022 across various client environments, industries, and regions.

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

Eugene Chua

Cyber Security Analyst

Aug 2022

Introduction

Last year provided further evidence that the cyber threat landscape remains both complex and challenging to predict. Between uncertain attribution, novel exploits and rapid malware developments, it is becoming harder to know where to focus security efforts. One of the largest surprises of 2021 was the re-emergence of the infamous Emotet botnet. This is an example of a campaign that ignored industry verticals or regions and seemingly targeted companies indiscriminately. Only 10 months after the Emotet takedown by law enforcement agencies in January, new Emotet activities in November were discovered by security researchers. These continued into the first quarter of 2022, a period which this blog will explore through findings from the Darktrace Threat Intel Unit.

Dating back to 2019, Emotet was known to deliver Trickbot payloads which ultimately deployed Ryuk ransomware strains on compromised devices. This interconnectivity highlighted the hydra-like nature of threat groups wherein eliminating one (even with full-scale law enforcement intervention) would not rule them out as a threat nor indicate that the threat landscape would be any more secure.

When Emotet resurged, as expected, one of the initial infection vectors involved leveraging existing Trickbot infrastructure. However, unlike the original attacks, it featured a brand new phishing campaign.

Figure 1: Distribution of observed Emotet activities across Darktrace deployments

Although similar to the original Emotet infections, the new wave of infections has been classified into two categories: Epochs 4 and 5. These had several key differences compared to Epochs 1 to 3. Within Darktrace’s global deployments, Emotet compromises associated to Epoch 4 appeared to be the most prevalent. Affected customer environments were seen within a large range of countries (Figure 1) and industry verticals such as manufacturing and supply chain, hospitality and travel, public administration, technology and telecoms and healthcare. Company demographics and size did not appear to be a targeting factor as affected customers had varying employee counts ranging from less than 250, to over 5000.

Key differences between Epochs 1-3 vs 4-5

Based on wider security research into the innerworkings of the Emotet exploits, several key differences were identified between Epochs 4/5 and its predecessors. The newer epochs used:

· A different Microsoft document format (OLE vs XML-based).

· A different encryption algorithm for communication. The new epochs used Elliptic Curve Cryptograph (ECC) [1] with public encryption keys contained in the C2 configuration file [2]. This was different from the previous Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) key encryption method.

· Control Flow Flattening was used as an obfuscation technique to make detection and reverse engineering more difficult. This is done by hiding a program’s control flow [3].

· New C2 infrastructure was observed as C2 communications were directed to over 230 unique IPs all associated to the new Epochs 4 and 5.

In addition to the new Epoch 4 and 5 features, Darktrace detected unsurprising similarities in those deployments affected by the renewed campaign. This included self-signed SSL connections to Emotet’s new infrastructure as well as malware spam activities to multiple rare external endpoints. Preceding these outbound communications, devices across multiple deployments were detected downloading Emotet-associated payloads (algorithmically generated DLL files).

Emotet Resurgence Campaign

Figure 2: Darktrace’s Detection Timeline for Emotet Epoch 4 and 5 compromises

1. Initial Compromise

The initial point of entry for the resurgence activity was almost certainly via Trickbot infrastructure or a successful phishing attack (Figure 2). Following the initial intrusion, the malware strain begins to download payloads via macro-ladened files which are used to spawn PowerShell for subsequent malware downloads.

Following the downloads, malicious communication with Emotet’s C2 infrastructure was observed alongside activities from the spam module. Within Darktrace, key techniques were observed and documented below.

2. Establish Foothold: Binary Dynamic-link library (.dll) with algorithmically generated filenames

Emotet payloads are polymorphic and contain algorithmically generated filenames . Within deployments, HTTP GET requests involving a suspicious hostname, www[.]arkpp[.]com, and Emotet related samples such as those seen below were observed:

· hpixQfCoJb0fS1.dll (SHA256 hash: 859a41b911688b00e104e9c474fc7aaf7b1f2d6e885e8d7fbf11347bc2e21eaa)

· M0uZ6kd8hnzVUt2BNbRzRFjRoz08WFYfPj2.dll (SHA256 hash: 9fbd590cf65cbfb2b842d46d82e886e3acb5bfecfdb82afc22a5f95bda7dd804)

· TpipJHHy7P.dll (SHA256 hash: 40060259d583b8cf83336bc50cc7a7d9e0a4de22b9a04e62ddc6ca5dedd6754b)

These DLL files likely represent the distribution of Emotet loaders which depends on windows processes such as rundll32[.]exe and regsvr32[.]exe to execute.

3. Establish Foothold: Outbound SSL connections to Emotet C2 servers

A clear network indicator of compromise for Emotet’s C2 communication involved self-signed SSL using certificate issuers and subjects which matched ‘CN=example[.]com,OU=IT Department,O=Global Security,L=London,ST=London,C=GB’ , and a common JA3 client fingerprint (72a589da586844d7f0818ce684948eea). The primary C2 communications were seen involving infrastructures classified as Epoch 4 rather than 5. Despite encryption in the communication content, network contextual connection details were sufficient for the detection of the C2 activities (Figure 3).

Figure 3: UI Model Breach logs on download and outbound SSL activities.

Outbound SSL and SMTP connections on TCP ports 25, 465, 587

An anomalous user agent such as, ‘Microsoft Outlook 15.0’, was observed being used for SMTP connections with some subject lines of the outbound emails containing Base64-encoded strings. In addition, this JA3 client fingerprint (37cdab6ff1bd1c195bacb776c5213bf2) was commonly seen from the SSL connections. Based on the set of malware spam hostnames observed across at least 10 deployments, the majority of the TLDs were .jp, .com, .net, .mx, with the Japanese TLD being the most common (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Malware Spam TLDs observed in outbound SSL and SMTP

Plaintext spam content generated from the spam module were seen in PCAPs (Figure 5). Examples of clear phishing or spam indicators included 1) mismatched personal header and email headers, 2) unusual reply chain and recipient references in the subject line, and 3) suspicious compressed file attachments, e.g. Electronic form[.]zip.

Figure 5: Example of PCAP associated to SPAM Module

4. Accomplish Mission

The Emotet resurgence also showed through secondary compromises involving anomalous SMB drive writes related to CobaltStrike. This consistently included the following JA3 hash (72a589da586844d7f0818ce684948eea) seen in SSL activities as well as SMB writes involving the svchost.exe file.

Darktrace Detection

The key DETECT models used to identify Emotet Resurgence activities were focused on determining possible C2. These included:

· Suspicious SSL Activity

· Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

· Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Possible Outbound Spam

File-focused models were also beneficial and included:

· Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location

· EXE from Rare External Location

Darktrace’s detection capabilities can also be shown through a sample of case studies identified during the Threat Research team’s investigations.

Case Studies

Darktrace’s detection of Emotet activities was not limited by industry verticals or company sizing. Although there were many similar features seen across the new epoch, each incident displayed varying techniques from the campaign. This is shown in two client environments below:

When investigating a large customer environment within the public administration sector, 16 different devices were detected making 52,536 SSL connections with the example[.]com issuer. Devices associated with this issuer were mainly seen breaching the same Self-Signed and Spam DETECT models. Although anomalous incoming octet-streams were observed prior to this SSL, there was no clear relation between the downloads and the Emotet C2 connections. Despite the total affected devices occupying only a small portion of the total network, Darktrace analysts were able to filter against the much larger network ‘noise’ and locate detailed evidence of compromise to notify the customer.

Darktrace also identified new Emotet activities in much smaller customer environments. Looking at a company in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sector, from mid-March 2022 a single internal device was detected making an HTTP GET request to the host arkpp[.]com involving the algorithmically-generated DLL, TpipJHHy7P.dll with the SHA256 hash: 40060259d583b8cf83336bc50cc7a7d9e0a4de22b9a04e62ddc6ca5dedd6754b (Figure 6).

Figure 6: A screenshot from VirusTotal, showing that the SHA256 hash has been flagged as malicious by other security vendors.

After the sample was downloaded, the device contacted a large number of endpoints that had never been contacted by devices on the network. The endpoints were contacted over ports 443, 8080, and 7080 involving Emotet related IOCs and the same SSL certificate mentioned previously. Malware spam activities were also observed during a similar timeframe.

The Emotet case studies above demonstrate how autonomous detection of an anomalous sequence of activities - without depending on conventional rules and signatures - can reveal significant threat activities. Though possible staged payloads were only seen in a proportion of the affected environments, the following outbound C2 and malware spam activities involving many endpoints and ports were sufficient for the detection of Emotet.

If present, in both instances Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology, RESPOND, would recommend or implement surgical actions to precisely target activities associated with the staged payload downloads, outgoing C2 communications, and malware spam activities. Additionally, restriction to the devices’ normal pattern of life will prevent simultaneously occurring malicious activities while enabling the continuity of normal business operations.

Conclusion

· The technical differences between past and present Emotet strains emphasizes the versatility of malicious threat actors and the need for a security solution that is not reliant on signatures.

· Darktrace’s visibility and unique behavioral detection continues to provide visibility to network activities related to the novel Emotet strain without reliance on rules and signatures. Key examples include the C2 connections to new Emotet infrastructure.

· Looking ahead, detection of C2 establishment using suspicious DLLs will prevent further propagation of the Emotet strains across networks.

· Darktrace’s AI detection and response will outpace conventional post compromise research involving the analysis of Emotet strains through static and dynamic code analysis, followed by the implementation of rules and signatures.

Thanks to Paul Jennings and Hanah Darley for their contributions to this blog.

Appendices

Model breaches

· Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

· Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Possible Outbound Spam

· Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Anomalous Connection / Repeated Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Expired SSL

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

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

· Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

· Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / New or Repeated to Unusual SSL Port

· Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days

· Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

· Compromise / Suspicious Spam Activity

· Compromise / Suspicious SSL Activity

· Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

· Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints

· Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

· Device / New User Agent

· Device / New User Agent and New IP

· Device / SMB Session Bruteforce

· Device / Suspicious Domain

· Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

‍

For Darktrace customers who want to know more about using Darktrace to triage Emotet, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

References

[1] https://blog.lumen.com/emotet-redux/

[2] https://blogs.vmware.com/security/2022/03/emotet-c2-configuration-extraction-and-analysis.html

[3] https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2022/05/04/attacking-emotets-control-flow-flattening/

執筆者

Eugene Chua

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Eugene Chua

Cyber Security Analyst

•

July 10, 2026

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

•

July 13, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

July 13, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Three shifts have reshaped what it means to defend an enterprise securely.

First, exploitation often begins before defenders have a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifier, a security advisory, or an entry in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Secondly, the trust boundary has moved beyond the network edge into identities, tokens, APIs, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) workflows.

Third, an increasing share of business activity is executed through automation, integrations, and AI agent-like systems that can act faster than teams can verify intent.

If your security model still relies on detecting known bad artefacts, triaging isolated alerts, and waiting for confirmation before acting, you are already behind the threat.

This is not a failure of security teams; it’s a failure of the operating model to keep pace with how the environment has changed.

A SOC built around alerts and signatures assumes that malicious activity will eventually surface as an event. In real incidents, however, the decisive evidence is rarely a single event. Instead, it is a chain of individually explainable actions that only appears malicious once you connect the dots across identity, non-human identity, cloud, email, SaaS, operational technology (OT), and network telemetry.

The defenders succeeding today observe behaviors, link them into sequences, understand what those sequences mean, and contain impact before the full story unfolds. That is the operating model the current threat environment demands.

Exploitation before disclosure

The first shift is the straightforward: the time to exploit has dropped to nearly zero.

In one example, Darktrace observed a sequence of subtle but strategically significant anomalies within a customer environment that later aligned with exploitation of CVE‑2025‑0994 in Trimble Cityworks by likely Chinese-nexus threat actors. Behavioral indicators were visible at least 18 days before public disclosure, with related anomalies emerging 40 to 50 days earlier during the intrusion window.

This case illustrates a familiar pattern: clusters of weak‑signal anomalies combing to form an actionable picture of intrusion long before a CVE is published. Such activity reflects long‑horizon, option‑preserving operator models often associated with mature state‑linked activity.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of malicious exploitation of CVE 2025-0994, later tied to Chinese-nexus threat actors targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the US, weeks before public disclosure.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, Darktrace has continued to observe the value of anomaly-based detections across a range of incidents.

CVE	CVE Public Disclosure Date	Darktrace Detection Date	Days Between Detection of Exploitation and CVE Public Disclosure
CVE 2025 0994 (Trimble City Works)	2025-02-06	2025-01-19	18 Days
CVE 2025-24183 (Apache)	2025-03-10	2025-02-18	20 days
CVE 2025-10035 (Fortra GoAnywhere)	2025-09-18	2025-09-11	7 days

Identity is the real control plane

The second shift is that identity has replaced perimeter as the primary control plane. As Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026 illustrated, identity remains the main challenge in defending against modern intrusions. A clear example is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) case published by Darktrace in December 2025. A phishing email led to the compromise of an Office 365 account. Session hijacking bypassed multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the compromised account was used for follow-on phishing and persistence activities including the creation of malicious email rules.

Every step in that sequence mattered. A successful login alone does not prove legitimacy. An inbox rule, on its own, may not appear catastrophic. Mail activity, viewed in isolation, may seem operationally normal. But the behavioral chain tells a different story: credential theft, token abuse, persistence, and onward compromise through a trusted identity.

This is why the question is no longer “Did the user authenticate successfully”. The more important question is, “Does this identity action make sense right now, in this context, given what came before it?” The AiTM case shows how identity can be compromised. In practice, however, attacks rarely remained confined to identity alone.

In another Darktrace case, a compromised SaaS account triggered activity across the email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. Viewed in isolation, none of these events were decisive. Together, however, they formed a behavioral sequence that revealed the intrusion, with the full attack story automatically correlated and surfaced to defenders by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the incident, including other users who connected to the suspicious redirect link after outbound phishing emails were sent.

AI accelerates the threat

The third shift is the one many teams still underestimate: trusted tooling, integrations, and AI agent-like systems can create actions that appear legitimate but are strategically dangerous.

The shift becomes clearer when examining how governments are now framing AI risk. In 2026, guidance published by CISA, UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Five Eyes partners warned that agentic systems expand attack surfaces, accumulate privilege, and can behave in ways that are difficult to predict or explain [1]. The advice is simple: assume unexpected behavior and design controls around it.

The real risk is not AI usage. It is unknown autonomy: systems with credentials, data access, and action paths that can execute workflow steps without sufficient behavioral validation, traceability, or human oversight. Darktrace’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) risk analysis provides a useful framework for understanding this challenge. Over-privileged agents, content injection, and tool abuse become high-consequence risks when connected systems can dynamically retrieve data, execute actions, and communicate externally.

Whether security teams like it or not, AI is already in the enterprise. It will help drive innovation, but it will also be abused, whether accidentally or maliciously. In each of the cases below, AI either scaled the attacker, built the tooling, or existed within the environment as something to exploit or misuse.

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

In one campaign targeting Mexican government entities, a single operator used commercial AI platforms to generate exploits, automate reconnaissance, and process large volumes of data, compressing work that would traditionally have required an entire team into a single workflow [2].

Darktrace is also observing this trend further down the stack. In one case, Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, where an attacker used a Large Language Model (LLM) to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale.

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com] ‍

2. AI as an Attack Surface

Attempted AI exploitation is now appearing within customer environments. In one case involving an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was seemingly used as a stepping stone to access additional AI services. When that attempt failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining.

What is clear is that the AI layer has already become an asset worth probing, exploiting, and pivoting through. It is also clear that defenders benefit from rapidly understanding how these activities connect. In this case, Cyber AI Analyst automatically pieced together the intrusion, while Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted to the customer, enabling the activity to be contained before it could progress further.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst's investigation into a compromised LLM proxy that was abused for cryptomining activity.

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

This does not require a cinematic vision of “rogue AI.” The Salesloft incident provides a more grounded example, where AI and automation operate with legitimate access but served malicious intent. In that case, attackers abused compromised OAuth tokens associated with the Drift AI chat agent to export significant volumes of data from Salesforce environments.

The activity resembled legitimate API usage and relied on trusted SaaS integrations rather than malware or other obvious signs of intrusion. That is precisely the challenge. Traditional security controls are good at detecting forced entry, but far less effective when a trusted application integration behaves in a way that is technically permitted yet operationally harmful.

In these scenarios, the security challenge shifts from validating access to validating behavior.

This is what that looks like in practice: AI-linked identities executing legitimate actions that require behavioral validation rather than access validation.

Figure 4: Darktrace / SECURE AI highlights anomalous activity across AI identities, surfacing critical behavior that requires validation and containment.

Early observations from Darktrace / SECURE AI deployments reinforce this reality. Across Darktrace's observed fleet, AI service connections per deployment increased 13% during the first half of 2026, reaching over 16 million connections overall. The typical organisation now interacts with seven different AI providers, evidence that AI is no longer operating at the edges of the enterprise. It is increasingly woven into day-to-day business activity.

The most common risks are not compromised models or advanced AI attacks. Instead, they stem from employees and business functions exposing sensitive information through entirely legitimate-looking interactions. Darktrace has observed repeated submission of personally identifiable information (PII), tax information, identification documents, and medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread use of unsanctioned (shadow) AI services and growing AI activity from mobile devices.

For defenders, the challenge is increasingly one of context: understanding when legitimate business use crosses into material risk, while preserving privacy and user trust.

Conclusion

Across all three shifts, the pattern is the same: behavior precedes understanding. Security teams are not losing because adversaries have become invisible. An increasingly outdated security model assumes that malicious activity will reveal itself cleanly and early. It no longer does.

In 2026 and beyond, defenders win by understanding behavioral sequences, continuously validating trust, and acting before certainty becomes hindsight. That is security after signatures. That is security in the AI era.

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

[1] https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services

[2]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-26/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-ai-to-steal-mexican-government-data

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

AI

July 10, 2026

AIインフラがアタックサーフェスの一部に

AIインフラとアタックサーフェスの進化

多くの組織が生成AIを実運用環境に導入するなかで、企業のクラウド環境内に新たなインフラのレイヤーが出現しています。それはAIゲートウェイです。AIゲートウェイはユーザー、アプリケーション、基盤モデルの間に位置し、多くの場合クラウドの特権アクセスを保持し、さまざまなAIサービスへのアクセスを大規模に管理しています。

AIゲートウェイとは？

AIゲートウェイはユーザー、アプリケーション、基盤モデルの間に位置し、多くの場合クラウドの特権アクセスを保持し、さまざまなAIサービスへのアクセスを大規模に管理しています。

こうした役割から、AIゲートウェイは企業のアタックサーフェスのますます重要な一部になりつつあります。AIゲートウェイが侵害されれば、攻撃者に対して計算リソースへのアクセスだけでなく、クラウドアイデンティティ、モデルサービス、機密性の高いプロンプト、そして他の接続されたシステムへのアクセスも提供してしまいます。

このブログでは、Amazon Bedrock サービスに接続されたAIゲートウェイが侵害され、その後暗号通貨マイニングインフラとの通信が観測された事例をダークトレースがどのように調査したかを解説します。問題のインスタンスは、その構成、ならびに関連するIAM（Identity and Access Management）ロールから、Amazon BedrockでホスティングされるAIサービスへのゲートウェイとして機能していることがわかりました。疑わしい侵害アクティビティが発生した後、このホストは既知の暗号通貨マイニングインフラに繰り返し通信を行い、その後シャットダウンされた様子が観測されました。Darktrace はこのアクティビティを検知し、Enhanced MonitoringおよびManaged Threat Detectionサービスを通じてエスカレーションを行いました。

この事例では最終的影響は不正な暗号通貨マイニングでしたが、このインシデントが注目に値するのはその発生場所です。侵害されたアセットは、クラウドインフラ、アイデンティティ、各種AIサービスの交差する場所に位置していました。最近の調査では、LiteLLM等のAIゲートウェイが、認証情報、モデルへのアクセス、クラウド権限を中央管理するその能力から、攻撃者にとって魅力的な標的となる可能性が明らかになっています。このアクティビティと公開されているLiteLLM脆弱性を直接結びつける証拠は見つかっていませんが、このインシデントは、AIインフラを個別のアプリケーション層として見るのではなく、重要なアタックサーフェスの一部として扱う必要性があることを表しています[1]。

暗号通貨マイニングがクラウド侵害後のアクティビティとしてよく見られる背景

暗号通貨マイニングはクラウド環境において、侵害後のアクティビティとして収益性の高いものとなり得ます。クラウド資産にアクセスできるようになった後、攻撃者はマイニングソフトウェアを展開して被害者の計算リソースを悪用し金銭的利益を得ることができます。この種のアクティビティは多くの場合機会主義的なものであり、露出したサービス、弱い認証情報、漏洩したアクセスキー、脆弱なアプリケーション、あるいはクラウドワークロードの設定ミスなどを標的として実行されます。

典型的なクラウド上での暗号通貨マイニング侵入には次のようなアクティビティが含まれます：

露出したあるいは脆弱なクラウドインフラの特定
露出したサービス、認証情報、またはアプリケーションの脆弱性を通じたアクセスの獲得
マイニングソフトウェアのダウンロードおよび実行
マイニングプールインフラへのアウトバウンド接続を繰り返し確立
アクティビティが検知され停止されるまで継続して計算リソースを消費

‍

この事例において注目すべき要素は暗号通貨マイニングだけではありません。それが発生した場所が、AI関連アクティビティをサポートするクラウドインフラ上だったことです。この事例は、AIサービスを実現するためのアセットも、よくあるクラウド侵害リスクにさらされる可能性があることを示しています。

Amazon Bedrockに接続されたAIゲートウェイの侵害を調査

2026年6月12日、DarktraceはLiteLLM-Proxyという名前のAmazon Web Service (AWS) EC2インスタンスから暗号通貨マイニング発生中とみられるアクティビティを観測しました。このインスタンスはLiteLLMアクティビティをサポートしており、Amazon Bedrockリソースへのアクセス権を有するインスタンスプロファイルと関連付けられていました。

AIゲートウェイは大規模言語モデルへのアクセスを中央管理するよう設計されており、多くの場合AIアプリケーションに対する認証、ルーティング、ログ、ポリシー適用を扱っています。セキュリティの視点から見ると、クラウド権限、モデルアクセス、アプリケーションワークフローを単一の制御ポイントに集約する役割も果たしています。その結果、AIゲートウェイの侵害は、侵害されたホストだけにとどまらない影響を及ぼす可能性があります。

確定的な初期アクセスベクトルは確認できませんでしたが、このアクティビティはインターネットに接続されているシステムの侵害でよく見られる次のような順序に従っていました。ブルートフォースアクセス、ペイロードの投下、そしてマイニングプールインフラに対する繰り返しのアウトバウンド接続です。

ステージ1: インターネットに露出したSSHからの初期アクセス

暗号通貨マイニングアクティビティが観測される前、LiteLLM-Proxy EC2インスタンスはSSH（ポート22）が0.0.0.0/0に対して開かれ、外部に公開されていました。

*図1：EC2インスタンスがSSHポート22に対してすべてのインバウンドトラフィックを許可している設定ミスをDarktraceが警告*

暗号通貨マイニングアクティビティに先立って、Darktraceはこのインスタンスに対する大量のインバウンド接続の試みが外部IPアドレス（主に145.241.123[.]102）からポート22に対して行われていることを観測しました。これはブルートフォースアクティビティを示唆するものです [2]。これらの接続の多くは短命であり、数秒しか続いておらず、スキャニングまたはログインの失敗を示していました。

*図2：Darktraceがデバイスのポート22に対する不審なインバウンド接続試行を検知*

入手できたテレメトリーではこれらのインバウンドSSH接続のいずれかが認証の成功につながったかどうかの確認に至らず、このアクティビティが初期アクセスベクトルであると断定することはできませんでした。しかしながら、SSHの露出、外部IPアドレスからのインバウンド接続、それに続くマイニングアクティビティは、SSHがアクセス経路の可能性が高いことを示唆しています。

ステージ2: AIゲートウェイへのXMRigマルウェアのダウンロード

最初に観測されたマイニングプールへの接続の後、このEC2インスタンスは3.42 MBのデータをポート80上のHTTP接続を介して外部エンドポイント185.62.1[.]8にダウンロードしました。このエンドポイントは暗号通貨マイニングマルウェアXMRigを含むZIPファイルをホスティングしていました[3][4]。ホストレベルのログは入手できなかったため、ダークトレースはマイニングツールがどのように実行されたか、あるいは前のSSHアクティビティがペイロード投下を直接的に可能にしたかどうかを確認できませんでした。しかしながら、ダウンロードのタイミングとその後ほどなくマイニングプールへの接続が繰り返されたことは、このインスタンスが侵害されて不正な計算アクティビティに使われたという評価を裏付けています。

ステージ3 – 侵害されたAIゲートウェイが暗号通貨マイニングインフラと通信

わずか数分後、DarktraceはLiteLLM-ProxyEC2インスタンスがHTTPs（ポート443）でホスト名pool.hasvault[.]proに対して接続していることを確認しました。最初の接続の後、同じホスト名に対して繰り返しアウトバウンド接続が観測されました。これは、侵害されたホストがマイニングインフラと通信しワークを受け取り、結果を送信するという、暗号通貨マイニングプールとの通信のパターンと一致しています。

このアクティビティがDarktraceのEnhanced Monitoringモデル“Compromise / HighPriority Crypto Currency Mining”をトリガーし、ダークトレースのSOCにより顧客に対してエスカレーションされました。また、このアクティビティはCyber AI Analystによって分析され、関連するイベントが1つの調査ナラティブにまとめられました。これにより、影響を受けたクラウドアセットからマニングプールへの繰り返しの接続を特定することができました。

*図3：CyberAI Analystによる暗号通貨マイニングアクティビティの調査*

ポート443上のHTTPSの使用にも注目すべきです。なぜならば、単独で見れば、このトラフィックそのものは疑わしく見えないかもしれないからです。しかしこのケースでは、接続先、接続の量、そして類似のアクティビティが他にないことなどが、この通信を疑わしいものとして特定するのに必要な、動作のコンテキストを提供することになりました。

ステージ4: Managed Threat Detectionサービスによるリソース乱用の特定

暗号通貨マイニングアクティビティがダークトレースのManaged Threat Detectionサービスにより検知され、ダークトレースのSOCによりレビューされました。レビューの結果、このアクティビティは顧客向けにエスカレーションされました。このエスカレーションにより、顧客はAWS環境で現在発生中のリソースの乱用について、タイムリーな通知を受けることができました。

ステージ5: クラウド認証情報の不正使用とみられる疑わしいIAMアクティビティ

これとは別に、6月13日、Darktraceは別のIAMユーザーから発生した疑わしいアクティビティを検知しました。

*図4: DarktraceのAdvanced Search機能が別のIAMユーザーが実行した疑わしいアクティビティをハイライト*

まず、このユーザーは “GetSendQuota”イベントを試行している様子が見られました。このアクションは少なくとも過去3か月間にこのアカウントによって実行されたことのないアクションです。また、このコマンドのソースIPアドレスは14.176.1[.]47でした。地理位置情報はベトナムであり、このユーザーのアクティビティがAmazon IPアドレスから最も多く見られた場所です。さらに、このアクティビティに対してAWS CLIが使用されており、これもこのユーザーにとって通常とは異なる振る舞いでした。このことは、Darktraceの“IaaS / Unusual Activity / UnusualAWS CLI Activity”モデルによって検知されました。

*図5: Darktraceによる “GetSendQuota” イベントの検知*

このIAMユーザーからは、長期アクセスキーを使った疑わしいアクティビティがさらに観測されました。中でも、“InvokeModel” および “ListFoundationModels”コマンドの失敗が検知されており、モデル列挙や起動などAmazon Bedrockサービスとのやり取りを試行したことがわかります。これは前日観測されたLiteLLM侵害への関連を思わせますが、2つのイベントを確定的に結びつける証拠は不十分でした。

“CreateUser”コマンドの試行も注目に値します。なぜなら要求されたユーザー名は意味が薄いものであり、新しいアカウントを作成することにより永続性を確立する試みと見られるからです。このアクティビティはDarktraceのモデル“IaaS / Admin / New AWS UserAccount Creation”をトリガーしました。

2つのインシデント間に結びつきは確認できなかったものの、このIAMアクティビティには重要な意味があります。これは、クラウド侵害の調査においてワークロードのテレメトリーとコントロールプレーンのテレメトリーの両方を取り入れることの重要性を表しています。EC2暗号通貨マイニングアクティビティが計算リソースの乱用を示す一方、IAMアクティビティは認証情報の侵害や長期アクセスキーの不正使用、そしてクラウトサービスの不正使用の可能性を示唆しているからです。

AIインフラ保護のための重要な教訓

このインシデントの重大性は暗号通貨マイニングアクティビティそのものではなく、それが発生した場所にあります。侵害されたシステムはAmazon Bedrockサービスへのアクセス権を持つAIゲートウェイとして機能し、クラウドインフラ、アイデンティティ、そしてさまざまなAIオペレーションの交差する場所に位置していました。組織がAI機能を実運用環境に導入していくなかで、これらのプラットフォームは、露出したサービス、認証情報窃取、クラウドの設定ミスなどを通じて攻撃者がすでに狙っているアタックサーフェスの一部となりつつあるのです。

このケースでは詳細な侵入経路は特定されておらず、ワークロードの侵害と調査中に検知された疑わしいIAMアクティビティの間に決定的なつながりは確認されませんでしたが、これらのイベントは全体的な現状を裏付けています。つまり、AIインフラは個別のテクノロジースタックとして扱うのではなく、クラウド環境全体の一部として保護しなければならないとうことです。

このケースでは、最も目立った侵害の兆候は暗号通貨マイニングインフラとの通信でした。しかしここで得られたより重要な教訓は、このインシデントの全貌が理解される前にDarktraceのビヘイビア分析により明らかになった、高い権限を持つAI関連アセットを取り巻くリスクです。AIゲートウェイによりクラウド権限、モデルアクセス、アプリケーションワークフローがますます集約されるなかで、防御者は個別のアラートに集中するよりも、ワークロード、アイデンティティ、サービスの間でどのように動作がつながっているかを理解することに重点を置く必要があるでしょう。

協力：Angel Arribas Lopez (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst)、Nathaniel Jones (Field CISO/VP Threat Research)、Emma Foulger (Global Threat Ops)、Mark Turner(Security Researcher)

編集：Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

付録

Darktraceによるモデル検知結果‍

· Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

· Compromise / Monero Mining

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· IaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual AWS CLI Activity

· IaaS / Admin / New AWS User Account Creation

MITRE ATT&CK マッピング‍

初期アクセス – 外部リモートサービス – T1133

初期アクセス – 有効なアカウント – T1078

実行 – コマンドおよびスクリプトインタプリタ – T1059

永続化 – アカウント作成 – T1136

探索 – クラウドサービス探索 – T1526

影響 – リソースハイジャッキング– T1496

参考資料

[1] https://docs.litellm.ai/blog/security-update-march-2026

[2] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/145.241.123.102

[3] https://urlscan.io/search/#185.62.1.8

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/85de36ff66fae9f4b059cbedf6d36e017ebc26c828f99f911a96e78636f21200/community

About the author

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

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

デモを予約

Emotet Resurgence: Cross-Industry Analysis

Introduction

Key differences between Epochs 1-3 vs 4-5

Emotet Resurgence Campaign

Darktrace Detection

Case Studies

Conclusion

Appendices

AIインフラがアタックサーフェスの一部に

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

ブログをお楽しみ頂けましたか？

More in this series

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

AIインフラがアタックサーフェスの一部に

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

Blog

AI

July 13, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Exploitation before disclosure

Identity is the real control plane

AI accelerates the threat

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

2. AI as an Attack Surface

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

Conclusion

References

Blog

AI

July 10, 2026

AIインフラがアタックサーフェスの一部に

AIインフラとアタックサーフェスの進化

AIゲートウェイとは？

暗号通貨マイニングがクラウド侵害後のアクティビティとしてよく見られる背景

Amazon Bedrockに接続されたAIゲートウェイの侵害を調査

ステージ1: インターネットに露出したSSHからの初期アクセス

ステージ2: AIゲートウェイへのXMRigマルウェアのダウンロード

ステージ3 – 侵害されたAIゲートウェイが暗号通貨マイニングインフラと通信

ステージ4: Managed Threat Detectionサービスによるリソース乱用の特定

ステージ5: クラウド認証情報の不正使用とみられる疑わしいIAMアクティビティ

AIインフラ保護のための重要な教訓

付録

Darktraceによるモデル検知結果‍

MITRE ATT&CK マッピング‍

参考資料