October 3, 2024

From Call to Compromise: Darktrace’s Response to a Vishing-Induced Network Attack

When a remote user fell victim to a vishing attack, allowing a malicious actor to gain access to a customer network, Darktrace swiftly detected the intrusion and responded effectively. This prompt action prevented any data loss and reinforced trust in Darktrace’s robust security measures.

Written by

Rajendra Rushanth

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

Rajendra Rushanth

Cyber Analyst

Oct 2024

What is vishing?

Vishing, or voice phishing, is a type of cyber-attack that utilizes telephone devices to deceive targets. Threat actors typically use social engineering tactics to convince targets that they can be trusted, for example, by masquerading as a family member, their bank, or trusted a government entity. One method frequently used by vishing actors is to intimidate their targets, convincing them that they may face monetary fines or jail time if they do not provide sensitive information.

What makes vishing attacks dangerous to organizations?

Vishing attacks utilize social engineering tactics that exploit human psychology and emotion. Threat actors often impersonate trusted entities and can make it appear as though a call is coming from a reputable or known source. These actors often target organizations, specifically their employees, and pressure them to obtain sensitive corporate data, such as privileged credentials, by creating a sense of urgency, intimidation or fear. Corporate credentials can then be used to gain unauthorized access to an organization’s network, often bypassing traditional security measures and human security teams.

Darktrace’s coverage of vishing attack

On August 12, 2024, Darktrace / NETWORK identified malicious activity on the network of a customer in the hospitality sector. The customer later confirmed that a threat actor had gained unauthorized access through a vishing attack. The attacker successfully spoofed the IT support phone number and called a remote employee, eventually leading to the compromise.

Figure 1: Timeline of events in the kill chain of this attack.

Establishing a Foothold

During the call, the remote employee was requested to authenticate via multi-factor authentication (MFA). Believing the caller to be a member of their internal IT support, using the legitimate caller ID, the remote user followed the instructions and confirmed the MFA prompt, providing access to the customer’s network.

This authentication allowed the threat actor to login into the customer’s environment by proxying through their Virtual Private Network (VPN) and gain a foothold in the network. As remote users are assigned the same static IP address when connecting to the corporate environment, the malicious actor appeared on the network using the correct username and IP address. While this stealthy activity might have evaded traditional security tools and human security teams, Darktrace’s anomaly-based threat detection identified an unusual login from a different hostname by analyzing NTLM requests from the static IP address, which it determined to be anomalous.

Observed Activity

On 2024-08-12 the static IP was observed using a credential belonging to the remote user to initiate an SMB session with an internal domain controller, where the authentication method NTLM was used
A different hostname from the usual hostname associated with this remote user was identified in the NTLM authentication request sent from a device with the static IP address to the domain controller
This device does not appear to have been seen on the network prior to this event.

Darktrace, therefore, recognized that this login was likely made by a malicious actor.

Internal Reconnaissance

Darktrace subsequently observed the malicious actor performing a series of reconnaissance activities, including LDAP reconnaissance, device hostname reconnaissance, and port scanning:

The affected device made a 53-second-long LDAP connection to another internal domain controller. During this connection, the device obtained data about internal Active Directory (AD) accounts, including the AD account of the remote user
The device made HTTP GET requests (e.g., HTTP GET requests with the Target URI ‘/nice ports,/Trinity.txt.bak’), indicative of Nmap usage
The device started making reverse DNS lookups for internal IP addresses.

Figure 2: Model alert showing the IP address from which the malicious actor connected and performed network scanning activities via port 9401.

Figure 3: Model Alert Event Log showing the affected device connecting to multiple internal locations via port 9401.

Lateral Movement

The threat actor was also seen making numerous failed NTLM authentication requests using a generic default Windows credential, indicating an attempt to brute force and laterally move through the network. During this activity, Darktrace identified that the device was using a different hostname than the one typically used by the remote employee.

Cyber AI Analyst

In addition to the detection by Darktrace / NETWORK, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst launched an autonomous investigation into the ongoing activity. The investigation was able to correlate the seemingly separate events together into a broader incident, continuously adding new suspicious linked activities as they occurred.

Upon completing the investigation, Cyber AI Analyst provided the customer with a comprehensive summary of the various attack phases detected by Darktrace and the associated incidents. This clear presentation enabled the customer to gain full visibility into the compromise and understand the activities that constituted the attack.

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst displaying the observed attack phases and associated model alerts.

Darktrace Autonomous Response

Despite the sophisticated techniques and social engineering tactics used by the attacker to bypass the customer’s human security team and existing security stack, Darktrace’s AI-driven approach prevented the malicious actor from continuing their activities and causing more harm.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology is able to enforce a pattern of life based on what is ‘normal’ and learned for the environment. If activity is detected that represents a deviation from expected activity from, a model alert is triggered. When Darktrace’s Autonomous Response functionality is configured in autonomous response mode, as was the case with the customer, it swiftly applies response actions to devices and users without the need for a system administrator or security analyst to perform any actions.

In this instance, Darktrace applied a number of mitigative actions on the remote user, containing most of the activity as soon as it was detected:

Block all outgoing traffic
Enforce pattern of life
Block all connections to port 445 (SMB)
Block all connections to port 9401

Figure 6: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response actions showing the actions taken in response to the observed activity, including blocking all outgoing traffic or enforcing the pattern of life.

The growing threat of vishing in a remote workforce

This vishing attack underscores the significant risks remote employees face and the critical need for companies to address vishing threats to prevent network compromises. The remote employee in this instance was deceived by a malicious actor who spoofed the phone number of internal IT Support and convinced the employee to perform approve an MFA request. This sophisticated social engineering tactic allowed the attacker to proxy through the customer’s VPN, making the malicious activity appear legitimate due to the use of static IP addresses.

Despite the stealthy attempts to perform malicious activities on the network, Darktrace’s focus on anomaly detection enabled it to swiftly identify and analyze the suspicious behavior. This led to the prompt determination of the activity as malicious and the subsequent blocking of the malicious actor to prevent further escalation.

While the exact motivation of the threat actor in this case remains unclear, the 2023 cyber-attack on MGM Resorts serves as a stark illustration of the potential consequences of such threats. MGM Resorts experienced significant disruptions and data breaches following a similar vishing attack, resulting in financial and reputational damage [1]. If the attack on the customer had not been detected, they too could have faced sensitive data loss and major business disruptions. This incident underscores the critical importance of robust security measures and vigilant monitoring to protect against sophisticated cyber threats.

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 Rajendra Rushanth (Cyber Security Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Threat Content Lead)

Darktrace Model Detections

Device / Unusual LDAP Bind and Search Activity
Device / Attack and Recon Tools
Device / Network Range Scan
Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity
Device / RDP Scan
Device / UDP Enumeration
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches
Device / Network Scan
Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches (Enhanced Monitoring)
Device / Reverse DNS Sweep
Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Non-Admin)

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type – Description

/nice ports,/Trinity.txt.bak - URI – Unusual Nmap Usage

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – ID – Technique

INITIAL ACCESS – T1200 – Hardware Additions

DISCOVERY – T1046 – Network Service Scanning

DISCOVERY – T1482 – Domain Trust Discovery

RECONNAISSANCE – T1590 – IP Addresses

T1590.002 – DNS

T1590.005 – IP Addresses

RECONNAISSANCE – T1592 – Client Configurations

T1592.004 – Client Configurations

RECONNAISSANCE – T1595 – Scanning IP Blocks

T1595.001 – Scanning IP Blocks

T1595.002 – Vulnerability Scanning

References

[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/securing-helpdesks-from-hackers-what-we-can-learn-from-the-mgm-breach/

執筆者

Rajendra Rushanth

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Rajendra Rushanth

Cyber Analyst

Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS

•

February 13, 2026

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 11, 2026

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

What is NetSupport Manager?

NetSupport Manager is a legitimate IT tool used by system administrators for remote support, monitoring, and management. In use since 1989, NetSupport Manager enables users to remotely access and navigate systems across different platforms and operating systems [1].

What is NetSupport RAT?

Although NetSupport Manager is a legitimate tool that can be used by IT and security professionals, there has been a rising number of cases in which it is abused to gain unauthorized access to victim systems. This misuse has become so prevalent that, in recent years, security researchers have begun referring to NetSupport as a Remote Access Trojan (RAT), a term typically used for malware that enables a threat actor to remotely access or control an infected device [2][3][4].

NetSupport RAT activity summary

The initial stages of NetSupport RAT infection may vary depending on the source of the initial compromise. Using tactics such as the social engineering tactic ClickFix, threat actors attempt to trick users into inadvertently executing malicious PowerShell commands under the guise of resolving a non-existent issue or completing a fake CAPTCHA verification [5]. Other attack vectors such as phishing emails, fake browser updates, malicious websites, search engine optimization (SEO) poisoning, malvertising and drive-by downloads are also employed to direct users to fraudulent pages and fake reCAPTCHA verification checks, ultimately inducing them to execute malicious PowerShell commands [5][6][7]. This leads to the successful installation of NetSupport Manager on the compromised device, which is often placed in non-standard directories such as AppData, ProgramData, or Downloads [3][8].

Once installed, the adversary is able to gain remote access to the affected machine, monitor user activity, exfiltrate data, communicate with the command-and-control (C2) server, and maintain persistence [5]. External research has also highlighted that post-exploitation of NetSupport RAT has involved the additional download of malicious payloads [2][5].

Figure 1: Attack flow diagram highlighting key events across each phase of the attack phase [2][5].

Darktrace coverage

In November of 2025, suspicious behavior indicative of the malicious abuse of NetSupport Manager was observed on multiple customers across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and the Americas (AMS).

While open-source intelligence (OSINT) has reported that, in a recent campaign, a threat actor impersonated government entities to trick users in organizations in the Information Technology, Government and Financial Services sectors in Central Asia into downloading NetSupport Manager [8], approximately a third of Darktrace’s affected customers in November were based in the US while the rest were based in EMEA. This contrast underscores how widely NetSupport Manager is leveraged by threat actors and highlights its accessibility as an initial access tool.

The Darktrace customers affected were in sectors including Information and Communication, Manufacturing and Arts, entertainment and recreation.

The ClickFix social engineering tactic typically used to distribute the NetSupport RAT is known to target multiple industries, including Technology, Manufacturing and Energy sectors [9]. It also reflects activity observed in the campaign targeting Central Asia, where the Information Technology sector was among those affected [8].

The prevalence of affected Education customers highlights NetSupport’s marketing focus on the Education sector [10]. This suggests that threat actors are also aware of this marketing strategy and have exploited the trust it creates to deploy NetSupport Manager and gain access to their targets’ systems. While the execution of the PowerShell commands that led to the installation of NetSupport Manager falls outside of Darktrace's purview in cases identified, Darktrace was still able to identify a pattern of devices making connections to multiple rare external domains and IP addresses associated with the NetSupport RAT, using a wide range of ports over the HTTP protocol. A full list of associated domains and IP addresses is provided in the Appendices of this blog.

Although OSINT identifies multiple malicious domains and IP addresses as used as C2 servers, signature-based detections of NetSupport RAT indicators of compromise (IoCs) may miss broader activity, as new malicious websites linked to the RAT continue to appear.

Darktrace’s anomaly‑based approach allows it to establish a normal ‘pattern of life’ for each device on a network and identify when behavior deviates from this baseline, enabling the detection of unusual activity even when it does not match known IoCs or tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs).

In one customer environment in late 2025, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device initiating new connections to the rare external endpoint, thetavaluemetrics[.]com (74.91.125[.]57), along with the use of a previously unseen user agent, which it recognized as highly unusual for the network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of HTTP POST requests to a suspicious URI and new user agent usage.

Darktrace identified that user agent present in connections to this endpoint was the ‘NetSupport Manager/1.3’, initially suggesting legitimate NetSupport Manager activity. Subsequent investigation, however, revealed that the endpoint was in fact a malicious NetSupportRAT C2 endpoint [12]. Shortly after, Darktrace detected the same device performing HTTP POST requests to the URI fakeurl[.]htm. This pattern of activity is consistent with OSINT reporting that details communication between compromised devices and NetSupport Connectivity Gateways functioning as C2 servers [11].

Conclusion

As seen not only with NetSupport Manager but with any legitimate or open‑source software used by IT and security professionals, the legitimacy of a tool does not prevent it from being abused by threat actors. Open‑source software, especially tools with free or trial versions such as NetSupport Manager, remains readily accessible for malicious use, including network compromise. In an age where remote work is still prevalent, validating any anomalous use of software and remote management tools is essential to reducing opportunities for unauthorized access.

Darktrace’s anomaly‑based detection enables security teams to identify malicious use of legitimate tools, even when clear signatures or indicators of compromise are absent, helping to prevent further impact on a network.

Credit to George Kim (Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS), Anna Gilbertson (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Alerts

· Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

· Compromise / New User Agent and POST

· Device / New User Agent

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)

· Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)

· Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

· Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

· Compromise / POST and Beacon to Rare External

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Indicator Type Description

/fakeurl.htm URI NetSupportRAT C2 URI

thetavaluemetrics[.]com Connection hostname NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

westford-systems[.]icu Connection hostname NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

holonisz[.]com Connection hostname NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

heaveydutyl[.]com Connection hostname NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

nsgatetest1[.]digital Connection hostname NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

finalnovel[.]com Connection hostname NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

217.91.235[.]17 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

45.94.47[.]224 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

74.91.125[.]57 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

88.214.27[.]48 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

104.21.40[.]75 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

38.146.28[.]242 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

185.39.19[.]233 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

45.88.79[.]237 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

141.98.11[.]224 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

88.214.27[.]166 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

107.158.128[.]84 IP NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

87.120.93[.]98 IP Rhadamanthys C2 Endpoint

References‍

‍

About the author

George Kim

Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS

Blog

Cloud

March 5, 2026

Inside Cloud Compromise: Investigating Attacker Activity with Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

Investigating Cloud Attacks with Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation™ is the industry’s first truly automated forensic solution purpose-built for the cloud. This blog will demonstrate how an investigation can be carried out against a compromised cloud server in minutes, rather than hours or days.

The compromised server investigated in this case originates from Darktrace’s Cloudypots system, a global honeypot network designed to observe adversary activity in real time across a wide range of cloud services. Whenever an attacker successfully compromises one of these honeypots, a forensic copy of the virtual server's disk is preserved for later analysis. Using Forensic Acquisition & Investigation, analysts can then investigate further and obtain detailed insights into the compromise including complete attacker timelines and root cause analysis.

Forensic Acquisition & Investigation supports importing artifacts from a variety of sources, including EC2 instances, ECS, S3 buckets, and more. The Cloudypots system produces a raw disk image whenever an attack is detected and stores it in an S3 bucket. This allows the image to be directly imported into Forensic Acquisition & Investigation using the S3 bucket import option.

As Forensic Acquisition & Investigation runs cloud-natively, no additional configuration is required to add a specific S3 bucket. Analysts can browse and acquire forensic assets from any bucket that the configured IAM role is permitted to access. Operators can also add additional IAM credentials, including those from other cloud providers, to extend access across multiple cloud accounts and environments.

*Figure 1: Forensic Acquisition & Investigation import screen.*

Forensic Acquisition & Investigation then retrieves a copy of the file and automatically begins running the analysis pipeline on the artifact. This pipeline performs a full forensic analysis of the disk and builds a timeline of the activity that took place on the compromised asset. By leveraging Forensic Acquisition & Investigation’s cloud-native analysis system, this process condenses hour of manual work into just minutes.

*Figure 2: Successful import of a forensic artifact and initiation of the analysis pipeline.*

Once processing is complete, the preserved artifact is visible in the Evidence tab, along with a summary of key information obtained during analysis, such as the compromised asset’s hostname, operating system, cloud provider, and key event count.

*Figure 3: The Evidence overview showing the acquired disk image.*

Clicking on the “Key events” field in the listing opens the timeline view, automatically filtered to show system- generated alarms.

The timeline provides a chronological record of every event that occurred on the system, derived from multiple sources, including:

Parsed log files such as the systemd journal, audit logs, application specific logs, and others.
Parsed history files such as .bash_history, allowing executed commands to be shown on the timeline.
File-specific events, such as files being created, accessed, modified, or executables being run, etc.

This approach allows timestamped information and events from multiple sources to be aggregated and parsed into a single, concise view, greatly simplifying the data review process.

Alarms are created for specific timeline events that match either a built-in system rule, curated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team or an operator-defined created at the project level. These alarms help quickly filter out noise and highlight on events of interest, such as the creation of a file containing known malware, access to sensitive files like Amazon Web Service (AWS) credentials, suspicious arguments or commands, and more.

*Figure 4: The timeline view filtered to alarm_severity: “1” OR alarm_severity: “3”, showing only events that matched an alarm rule.*

In this case, several alarms were generated for suspicious Base64 arguments being passed to Selenium. Examining the event data, it appears the attacker spawned a Selenium Grid session with the following payload:

"request.payload": "[Capabilities {browserName: chrome, goog:chromeOptions: {args: [-cimport base64;exec(base64...], binary: /usr/bin/python3, extensions: []}, pageLoadStrategy: normal}]"

This is a common attack vector for Selenium Grid. The chromeOptions object is intended to specify arguments for how Google Chrome should be launched; however, in this case the attacker has abused the binary field to execute the Python3 binary instead of Chrome. Combined with the option to specify command-line arguments, the attacker can use Python3’s -c option to execute arbitrary Python code, in this instance, decoding and executing a Base64 payload.

Selenium’s logs truncate the Arguments field automatically, so an alternate method is required to retrieve the full payload. To do this, the search bar can be used to find all events that occurred around the same time as this flagged event.

*Figure 5: Pivoting off the previous event by filtering the timeline to events within the same window using timestamp: [“2026-02-18T09:09:00Z” TO “2026-02-18T09:12:00Z”].*

Scrolling through the search results, an entry from Java’s systemd journal can be identified. This log contains the full, unaltered payload. GCHQ’s CyberChef can then be used to decode the Base64 data into the attacker’s script, which will ultimately be executed.[NJ9]

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

デモを予約

Check out this article by Darktrace: From Call to Compromise: Darktrace’s Response to a Vishing-Induced Network Attack

From Call to Compromise: Darktrace’s Response to a Vishing-Induced Network Attack

What is vishing?

What makes vishing attacks dangerous to organizations?

Darktrace’s coverage of vishing attack

Establishing a Foothold

Observed Activity

Internal Reconnaissance

Lateral Movement

Cyber AI Analyst

Darktrace Autonomous Response

The growing threat of vishing in a remote workforce

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

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

How AI is redefining cybersecurity and the role of today’s CIO

ブログをお楽しみ頂けましたか？

More in this series

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

CVE-2026-1731: How Darktrace Sees the BeyondTrust Exploitation Wave Unfolding

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

Blog

Network

March 11, 2026

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

What is NetSupport Manager?

What is NetSupport RAT?

NetSupport RAT activity summary

Darktrace coverage

Conclusion

Blog

Cloud

March 5, 2026

Inside Cloud Compromise: Investigating Attacker Activity with Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

Investigating Cloud Attacks with Forensic Acquisition & Investigation