September 20, 2022

Modern Extortion: Detecting Data Theft From the Cloud

Darktrace highlights a handful of data theft incidents on shared cloud platforms, showing that cloud computing can be a vulnerable place for modern extortion.

Written by

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research 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

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research Analyst

Sep 2022

Ransomware Industry

The ransomware industry has benefitted from a number of factors in recent years: inadequate cyber defenses, poorly regulated cryptocurrency markets, and geopolitical tensions have allowed gangs to extort increasingly large ransoms while remaining sheltered from western law enforcement [1]. However, one of the biggest success stories of the ransomware industry has been the adaptability and evolution of attacker TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures). The WannaCry and NotPetya attacks of 2017 popularized a form of ransomware which used encryption algorithms to hold data to ransom in exchange for a decryption key. Last year in 2021, almost all ransomware strains evolved to use double extortion tactics: holding stolen data to ransom as well as encrypted data [2]. Now, some ransomware gangs have dropped encryption entirely, and are using data theft as their sole means of extortion.

Using data theft for extortion is not new. In 2020 the Finnish psychotherapy center Vastaamo had over 40,000 patient records stolen. Impacted patients were told that their psychiatric transcripts would be published online if they failed to pay a Bitcoin ransom. [3]. A later report by BlackFog in May 2021 predicted data theft extortion would become one of the key emerging cybersecurity trends that year [4]. Adoption of offline back-ups and endpoint detection had made encryption harder, while a large-scale move to Cloud and SaaS platforms offered new vectors for data theft. By moving from data encryption to data exfiltration, ransomware attackers pivoted from targeting data availability within the CIA triad (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability) to threatening data confidentiality.

In November 2021, Darktrace detected a data theft incident following the compromise of two SaaS accounts within an American tech customer’s Office365 environment. The client was a longstanding user of Darktrace DETECT/Network, and was in the process of expanding their coverage by trialing Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND/ Apps + Cloud.

Attack Overview

On November 23^rd 2021, an Ask the Expert (ATE) ticket was raised prompting investigation into a breached SaaS model, ‘SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use’, and the activities of a user (censored as UserA) over the prior week.

1. Office365: UserA

The account UserA had been logging in from an unusual location in Nigeria on November 21^st. At the time of the incident there were no flags of malicious activity from this IP in widely used OSINT sources. It is also highly probable the attacker was not located in Nigeria but using Nigerian infrastructure in order to hide their true location. Regardless, the location of the login from this IP and ASN was considered highly unusual for users within the customer’s digital estate. The specific user in question most commonly accessed their account from IP ranges located in the US.

Figure 1: In the Geolocation tab of the External Sites Summary on the SaaS Console, UserA was seen logging in from Nigeria when previous logins were exclusively from USA

Further investigation revealed an additional anomaly in the Outlook Web activity of UserA. The account was using the Firefox browser to access their account for the first time in at least 4 weeks (the maximum period for which the customer stored such data). SaaS logs detailing the access of confidential folders and other suspicious actions were identified using the Advanced Search (AS) query:

@fields.saas_actor:"UserA@[REDACTED]" AND @fields.saas_software:"Firefox"

Most actions were ‘MailItemsAccessed’ events originating from IPs located in Nigeria [5,6] and one other potentially malicious IP located in the US [7].

‘MailItemsAccessed’ is part of the new Advanced Audit functionality from Microsoft and can be used to determine when email data is accessed by mail protocols and clients. A bind mail access type denotes an individual access to an email message [8].

Figure 2: AS logs shows UserA had not used Firefox to access Office365 for at least 4 weeks prior to the unusual login on the 21st November

Below are details of the main suspicious SaaS activities:

· Time: 2021-11-21 09:05:25 - 2021-11-22 16:57:39 UTC

· SaaS Actor: UserA@[REDACTED]

· SaaS Service: Office365

· SaaS Service Product: Exchange

· SaaS Software: Firefox

· SaaS Office365 Parent Folders:

          o   \Accounts/Passwords
          o   \Invoices
         o   \Sent Items
          o   \Inbox
          o   \Recoverable Items\Deletions

· SaaS Event:

          o   MailItemsAccessed
          o   UserLoggedIn
          o   Update

· SaaS Office365 Mail Access Type: Bind (47 times)

· Source IP addresses:

          o   105.112.59[.]83
          o   105.112.36[.]212
          o   154.6.17[.]16
          o   45.130.83[.]129

· SaaS User Agents:

o Client=OWA;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/80.0;
o Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/80.0

· Total SaaS logs: 57

At the start of the month on the 5^th November, the user had also been seen logging in from a potentially malicious endpoint [9] in Europe, performing ‘MailItemsAccessed’ and ‘Updates’ events with subjects and a resource location related to invoices and wire transfers from the Sent items folder. This suggests the initial compromise had been earlier in the month, giving the threat actor time to make preparations for the final stages of the attack.

Figure 3: Event log showing the activity of UserA from IP 45.135.187[.]108

2. Office365: UserB

Looking into the model breach ‘SaaS / Access / Suspicious Credential Use And Login User-Agent’, it was seen that a second account, UserB, was also observed logging in from a rare and potentially malicious location in Bangladesh [7]. Similar to UserA, this user had previously logged in exclusively from the USA, and no other accounts within the digital estate had been observed interacting with the Bangladeshi IP address. The login event appeared to bypass MFA (Multi-factor Authentication) and a suspicious user agent, BAV2ROPC, was used. Against misconfigured accounts, this Microsoft user agent is commonly used by attackers to bypass MFA on Office365. It targets Exchange’s Basic Authentication (normally used in POP3/IMAP4 conditions) and results in an OAuth flow which circumvents the additional password security brought by MFA [10].

During the session, additional resources were accessed which appear to be associated with bill and invoice payments. In addition, on the 4^th November, two new suspicious email rules named “..” were created from rare IPs (107.10.56[.]48 and 76.189.202[.]66). This type of behavior is commonly seen during SaaS compromises to delete or forward emails. Typically, an email rule created by a human user will be named to reflect the change being made, such as ‘Move emails from Legal to Urgent’. In contrast, malicious email rules are often short and undescriptive. The rule “..” is likely to blend in without arousing suspicion, while also being easy for the attacker to create and remember.

Details of these rule changes are as follows:

·      Time: 2021-11-04 13:25:06, 2021-11-05 15:50:00 [UTC]
·      SaaS Service: Office365
·      SaaS Service Product: Exchange
·      SaaS Status Message: True
·      SaaS Source IP addresses: 107.10.56[.]48, 76.189.202[.]66
·      SaaS Account Name: O365
·      SaaS Actor: UserB@[REDACTED]
·      SaaS Event: SetInboxRule
·      SaaS Office365 Modified Property Names:
          o   AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob, Force, Identity, MoveToFolder, Name, FromAddressContainsWords, StopProcessingRules
          o   AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob, Force, Identity, Name, FromAddressContainsWords, StopProcessingRules
·      SaaS Resource Name: ..

During cloud account compromises, attackers will often use sync operations to download emails to their local email client. During the operations, these clients typically download a large set of mail items from the cloud to a local computer. If the attacker is able to sync all mail items to their mail client, the entire mailbox can be compromised. The attacker is able to disconnect from the account and review and search the email without generating additional event logs.

Both accounts UserA and UserB were observed using ‘MailItemsAccessed’ sync operations between the 1^st and 23^rd November when this attack occurred. However, based on the originating IP of the sync operations, the activity is likely to have been initiated by the legitimate, US-based users. Once the security team were able to confirm the events were expected and legitimate, they could establish that the contents of the mailbox were not a part of the data breach.

Accomplish Mission

After gaining access to the Office365 accounts, sensitive data was downloaded by the attackers to their local system. Either on or before 14^th December, the attacker had seemingly uploaded the documents onto a data leak website. In total, 130MB of data had been made available for download in two separate packages. The packages included audit and accounting financial documents, with file extensions such as DB, XLSX, and PDF.

Figure 4: The two data packages uploaded by the attacker and the extracted contents

In a sample of past SaaS activity of UserA, the subject and attachments appear related to the ‘OUTSTANDING PREPAY WIRES 2021’ excel document found from the data leak website in Figure 4, suggesting a further possibility that the account was associated with the leaked data.

Historic SaaS activity associated with UserA:

·      Time: 2021-11-05 21:21:18 [UTC]
·      SaaS Office365 Logon Type: Owner
·      Protocol: OFFICE365
·      SaaS Account Name: O365
·      SaaS Actor: UserA@[REDACTED].com
·      SaaS Event: Send
·      SaaS Service: Office365
·      SaaS Service Product: Exchange
·      SaaS Status Message: Succeeded
·      SaaS Office365 Attachment: WIRE 2021.xlsx (92406b); image.png (9084b); image.png (1454b); image.png (1648b); image.png (1691b); image.png (1909b); image.png (2094b)
·      SaaS Office365 Subject: Wires 11/8/21
·      SaaS Resource Location: \Drafts
·      SaaS User Agent: Client=OWA;Action=ViaProxy

Based on the available evidence, it is highly likely that the data packages contain the data stolen during the account compromise the previous month.

Once the credentials of an Office365 account are stolen, an attacker can not only access the user's mailbox, but also a full range of Office365 applications such as SharePoint folders, Teams Chat, or files in the user's OneDrive [11]. For example, files shared in Teams chat are stored in OneDrive for Business in a folder named Microsoft Teams Chat Files in the default Document library on SharePoint. One of the files visible on the data leak website, called ‘[REDACTED] CONTRACT.3.1.2020.pdf’, was also observed in the default document folder of a third user account (UserC) within the victim organization, suggesting the compromised accounts may have been able to access shared files stored on other accounts by moving laterally via other O365 applications such as Teams.

One example can be seen in the below AS logs:

·      Time: 2021-11-11 01:58:35 [UTC]
·      SaaS Resource Type: File
·      Protocol: OFFICE365
·      SaaS Account Name: 0365
·      SaaS Actor: UserC@[REDACTED]
·      SaaS Event: FilePreviewed
·      SaaS Service Product: OneDrive
·      SaaS Metric: ResourceViewed
·      SaaS Office365 Application Name: Media Analysis and Transformation Service
·      SaaS Office365 File Extension: pdf
·      SaaS Resource Location: https://[REDACTED]-my.sharepoint.com/personal/userC_[REDACTED]_com/Documents/Microsoft Teams Chat Files/[REDACTED] CONTRACT 3.1.2020.pdf
·      SaaS Resource Name: [REDACTED] CONTRACT 3.1.2020.pdf
·      SaaS Service: Office365
·      SaaS Service Product: OneDrive
·      SaaS User Agent: OneDriveMpc-Transform_Thumbnail/1.0

In the period between the 1^st and 30^th November, the customer’s Darktrace DETECT/Apps trial had raised multiple high-level alerts associated with SaaS account compromise, but there was no evidence of file encryption.

Establish Foothold

Looking back at the start of the attack, it is unclear exactly how the attacker evaded the customer’s pre-existing security stack. At the time of the incident, the victim was using a Barracuda email gateway and Microsoft 365 Threat Management for their cloud environment.

Darktrace detected no indication the accounts were compromised via credential bruteforcing, which would have enabled the attacker to bypass the Azure Active Directory smart lockout (if enabled). The credentials may have been harvested via a phishing campaign which successfully evaded the list of known ‘bad’ domains maintained by their email gateway.

Upon gaining access to the account, the Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps anomaly detection policies would have been expected to raise an alert [12]. In this instance, the unusual login from Nigeria occurred over 16 hours after the previous login from the US, potentially evading anomaly detection policies such as the ‘Impossible Travel’ rule.

Figure 5: Event log showing the user accessing mail from USA a day before the suspicious usage from Nigeria

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace DETECT

Throughout this event, high scoring model breaches associated with the attack were visible in the customer’s SaaS Console. In addition, there were two Cyber AI Analyst incidents for ‘Possible Account Hijack’ associated with the two compromised SaaS Office365 accounts, UserA and UserB. The visibility given by Darktrace DETECT also enabled the security team to confirm which files had been accessed and were likely part of the data leak.

Figure 6: Example Cyber AI Analyst incident of UserB SaaS Office365 account

Darktrace RESPOND

In this incident, the attackers successfully compromised O365 accounts in order to exfiltrate customer data. Whilst Darktrace RESPOND/Apps was being trialed and suggested several actions, it was configured in human confirmation mode. The following RESPOND/Apps actions were advised for these activities:

· ‘Antigena [RESPOND] Unusual Access Block’ triggered by the successful login from an unusual IP address, would have actioned the ‘Block IP’ inhibitor, preventing access to the account from the unusual IP for up to 24 hours
· ‘Suspicious Source Activity Block’, triggered by the suspicious user agent used to bypass MFA, would have actioned the ‘Disable User’ inhibitor, disabling the user account for up to 24 hours

During this incident, Darktrace RESPOND/Network was being used in fully autonomous mode in order to prevent the threat actor from pivoting into the network. The security team were unable to conclusively say if any attempts by the attacker to do this had been made.

Concluding Thoughts

Data theft extortion has become a widely used attack technique, and ransomware gangs may increasingly use this technique alone to target organizations without secure data encryption and storage policies.

This case study describes a SaaS data theft extortion incident which bypassed MFA and existing security tools. The attacker appeared to compromise credentials without bruteforce activity, possibly with the use of social engineering through phishing. However, from the first new login, Darktrace DETECT identified the unusual credential use in spite of it being an existing account. Had Darktrace RESPOND/Apps been configured, it would have autonomously responded to halt this login and prevent the attacker from accomplishing their data theft mission.

Thanks to Oakley Cox, Brianna Leddy and Shuh Chin Goh for their contributions.

Appendices

References

[1] https://securelist.com/new-ransomware-trends-in-2022/106457/

[2] https://www.itpro.co.uk/security/ransomware/367624/the-rise-of-double-extortion-ransomware

[3] https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2020/10/vastaamo-psychotherapy-data-breach-sees-the-most-vulnerable-victims-extorted

[4] https://www.blackfog.com/shift-from-ransomware-to-data-theft-extortion/

[5] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/105.112.59.83

[6] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/105.112.36.212

[7] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/45.130.83.129

[8] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/mailitemsaccessed-forensics-investigations?view=o365-worldwide

[9] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/45.135.187.108

[10] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.137.20.65/details

[11] https://tidorg.com/new-bec-phishing-attack-steals-office-365-credentials-and-bypasses-mfa/

[12] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/office-365-security/responding-to-a-compromised-email-account?view=o365-worldwide

執筆者

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research Analyst

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

OT

November 20, 2025

Managing OT Remote Access with Zero Trust Control & AI Driven Detection

The shift toward IT-OT convergence

Recently, industrial environments have become more connected and dependent on external collaboration. As a result, truly air-gapped OT systems have become less of a reality, especially when working with OEM-managed assets, legacy equipment requiring remote diagnostics, or third-party integrators who routinely connect in.

This convergence, whether it’s driven by digital transformation mandates or operational efficiency goals, are making OT environments more connected, more automated, and more intertwined with IT systems. While this convergence opens new possibilities, it also exposes the environment to risks that traditional OT architectures were never designed to withstand.

The modernization gap and why visibility alone isn’t enough

The push toward modernization has introduced new technology into industrial environments, creating convergence between IT and OT environments, and resulting in a lack of visibility. However, regaining that visibility is just a starting point. Visibility only tells you what is connected, not how access should be governed. And this is where the divide between IT and OT becomes unavoidable.

Security strategies that work well in IT often fall short in OT, where even small missteps can lead to environmental risk, safety incidents, or costly disruptions. Add in mounting regulatory pressure to enforce secure access, enforce segmentation, and demonstrate accountability, and it becomes clear: visibility alone is no longer sufficient. What industrial environments need now is precision. They need control. And they need to implement both without interrupting operations. All this requires identity-based access controls, real-time session oversight, and continuous behavioral detection.

The risk of unmonitored remote access

This risk becomes most evident during critical moments, such as when an OEM needs urgent access to troubleshoot a malfunctioning asset.

Under that time pressure, access is often provisioned quickly with minimal verification, bypassing established processes. Once inside, there’s little to no real-time oversight of user actions whether they’re executing commands, changing configurations, or moving laterally across the network. These actions typically go unlogged or unnoticed until something breaks. At that point, teams are stuck piecing together fragmented logs or post-incident forensics, with no clear line of accountability.

In environments where uptime is critical and safety is non-negotiable, this level of uncertainty simply isn’t sustainable.

The visibility gap: Who’s doing what, and when?

The fundamental issue we encounter is the disconnect between who has access and what they are doing with it.

Traditional access management tools may validate credentials and restrict entry points, but they rarely provide real-time visibility into in-session activity. Even fewer can distinguish between expected vendor behavior and subtle signs of compromise, misuse or misconfiguration.

As a result, OT and security teams are often left blind to the most critical part of the puzzle, intent and behavior.

Closing the gaps with zero trust controls and AI‑driven detection

Managing remote access in OT is no longer just about granting a connection, it’s about enforcing strict access parameters while continuously monitoring for abnormal behavior. This requires a two-pronged approach: precision access control, and intelligent, real-time detection.

Zero Trust access controls provide the foundation. By enforcing identity-based, just-in-time permissions, OT environments can ensure that vendors and remote users only access the systems they’re explicitly authorized to interact with, and only for the time they need. These controls should be granular enough to limit access down to specific devices, commands, or functions. By applying these principles consistently across the Purdue Model, organizations can eliminate reliance on catch-all VPN tunnels, jump servers, and brittle firewall exceptions that expose the environment to excess risk.

Access control is only one part of the equation

Darktrace / OT complements zero trust controls with continuous, AI-driven behavioral detection. Rather than relying on static rules or pre-defined signatures, Darktrace uses Self-Learning AI to build a live, evolving understanding of what’s “normal” in the environment, across every device, protocol, and user. This enables real-time detection of subtle misconfigurations, credential misuse, or lateral movement as they happen, not after the fact.

By correlating user identity and session activity with behavioral analytics, Darktrace gives organizations the full picture: who accessed which system, what actions they performed, how those actions compared to historical norms, and whether any deviations occurred. It eliminates guesswork around remote access sessions and replaces it with clear, contextual insight.

Importantly, Darktrace distinguishes between operational noise and true cyber-relevant anomalies. Unlike other tools that lump everything, from CVE alerts to routine activity, into a single stream, Darktrace separates legitimate remote access behavior from potential misuse or abuse. This means organizations can both audit access from a compliance standpoint and be confident that if a session is ever exploited, the misuse will be surfaced as a high-fidelity, cyber-relevant alert. This approach serves as a compensating control, ensuring that even if access is overextended or misused, the behavior is still visible and actionable.

If a session deviates from learned baselines, such as an unusual command sequence, new lateral movement path, or activity outside of scheduled hours, Darktrace can flag it immediately. These insights can be used to trigger manual investigation or automated enforcement actions, such as access revocation or session isolation, depending on policy.

This layered approach enables real-time decision-making, supports uninterrupted operations, and delivers complete accountability for all remote activity, without slowing down critical work or disrupting industrial workflows.

Where Zero Trust Access Meets AI‑Driven Oversight:

Granular Access Enforcement: Role-based, just-in-time access that aligns with Zero Trust principles and meets compliance expectations. ‍
Context-Enriched Threat Detection: Self-Learning AI detects anomalous OT behavior in real time and ties threats to access events and user activity. ‍
Automated Session Oversight: Behavioral anomalies can trigger alerting or automated controls, reducing time-to-contain while preserving uptime. ‍
Full Visibility Across Purdue Layers: Correlated data connects remote access events with device-level behavior, spanning IT and OT layers. ‍
Scalable, Passive Monitoring: Passive behavioral learning enables coverage across legacy systems and air-gapped environments, no signatures, agents, or intrusive scans required.

Complete security without compromise

We no longer have to choose between operational agility and security control, or between visibility and simplicity. A Zero Trust approach, reinforced by real-time AI detection, enables secure remote access that is both permission-aware and behavior-aware, tailored to the realities of industrial operations and scalable across diverse environments.

Because when it comes to protecting critical infrastructure, access without detection is a risk and detection without access control is incomplete.

About the author

Pallavi Singh

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Blog

Network

November 21, 2025

Xillen Stealer Updates to Version 5 to Evade AI Detection

Introduction

Python-based information stealer “Xillen Stealer” has recently released versions 4 and 5, expanding its targeting and functionality. The cross-platform infostealer, originally reported by Cyfirma in September 2025, targets sensitive data including credentials, cryptocurrency wallets, system information, browser data and employs anti-analysis techniques.

The update to v4/v5 includes significantly more functionality, including:

Persistence
Ability to steal credentials from password managers, social media accounts, browser data (history, cookies and passwords) from over 100 browsers, cryptocurrency from over 70 wallets
Kubernetes configs and secrets
Docker scanning
Encryption
Polymorphism
System hooks
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Command-and-Control (C2)
Single Sign-On (SSO) collector
Time-Based One-Time Passwords (TOTP) and biometric collection
EDR bypass
AI evasion
Interceptor for Two-Factor Authentication (2FA)
IoT scanning
Data exfiltration via Cloud APIs

Xillen Stealer is marketed on Telegram, with different licenses available for purchase. Users who deploy the malware have access to a professional-looking GUI that enables them to view exfiltrated data, logs, infections, configurations and subscription information.

Figure 1: Screenshot of the Xillen Stealer portal.

Technical analysis

The following technical analysis examines some of the interesting functions of Xillen Stealer v4 and v5. The main functionality of Xillen Stealer is to steal cryptocurrency, credentials, system information, and account information from a range of stores.

Xillen Stealer specifically targets the following wallets and browsers:

AITargetDectection

Figure 2: Screenshot of Xillen Stealer’s AI Target detection function.

The ‘AITargetDetection’ class is intended to use AI to detect high-value targets based on weighted indicators and relevant keywords defined in a dictionary. These indicators include “high value targets”, like cryptocurrency wallets, banking data, premium accounts, developer accounts, and business emails. Location indicators include high-value countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, along with cryptocurrency-friendly countries and financial hubs. Wealth indicators such as keywords like CEO, trader, investor and VIP have also been defined in a dictionary but are not in use at this time, pointing towards the group’s intent to develop further in the future.

While the class is named ‘AITargetDetection’ and includes placeholder functions for initializing and training a machine learning model, there is no actual implementation of machine learning. Instead, the system relies entirely on rule-based pattern matching for detection and scoring. Even though AI is not actually implemented in this code, it shows how malware developers could use AI in future malicious campaigns.

Figure 3: Screenshot of dead code function.

AI Evasion

‘AIEvasionEngine’ is a module designed to help malware evade AI-based or behavior-based detection systems, such as EDRs and sandboxes. It mimics legitimate user and system behavior, injects statistical noise, randomizes execution patterns, and camouflages resource usage. Its goal is to make the malware appear benign to machine learning detectors. The techniques used to achieve this are:

‍Behavioral Mimicking: Simulates user actions (mouse movement, fake browser use, file/network activity)‍
Noise Injection: Performs random memory, CPU, file, and network operations to confuse behavioral classifiers‍
Timing Randomization: Introduces irregular delays and sleep patterns to avoid timing-based anomaly detection‍
Resource Camouflage: Adjusts CPU and memory usage to imitate normal apps (such as browsers, text editors)‍
API Call Obfuscation: Random system API calls and pattern changes to hide malicious intent‍
Memory Access Obfuscation: Alters access patterns and entropy to bypass ML models monitoring memory behavior

PolymorphicEngine

As part of the “Rust Engine” available in Xillen Stealer is the Polymorphic Engine. The ‘PolymorphicEngine’ struct implements a basic polymorphic transformation system designed for obfuscation and detection evasion. It uses predefined instruction substitutions, control-flow pattern replacements, and dead code injection to produce varied output. The mutate_code() method scans input bytes and replaces recognized instruction patterns with randomized alternatives, then applies control flow obfuscation and inserts non-functional code to increase variability. Additional features include string encryption via XOR and a stub-based packer.

Collectors

DevToolsCollector

Figure 5: Screenshot of Kubernetes data function.

The ‘DevToolsCollector’ is designed to collect sensitive data related to a wide range of developer tools and environments. This includes:

IDE configurations

VS Code, VS Code Insiders, Visual Studio
JetBrains: Intellij, PyCharm, WebStorm
Sublime
Atom
Notepad++
Eclipse

Cloud credentials and configurations

AWS
GCP
Azure
Digital Ocean
Heroku

SSH keys

Docker & Kubernetes configurations

Git credentials

Database connection information

HeidiSQL
Navicat
DBeaver
MySQL Workbench
pgAdmin

API keys from .env files

FTP configs

FileZilla
WinSCP
Core FTP

VPN configurations

OpenVPN
WireGuard
NordVPN
ExpressVPN
CyberGhost

Container persistence

Figure 6: Screenshot of Kubernetes inject function.

Biometric Collector

The ‘BiometricCollector’ attempts to collect biometric information from Windows systems by scanning the C:\Windows\System32\WinBioDatabase directory, which stores Windows Hello and other biometric configuration data. If accessible, it reads the contents of each file, encodes them in Base64, preparing them for later exfiltration. While the data here is typically encrypted by Windows, its collection indicates an attempt to extract sensitive biometric data.

Password Managers

The ‘PasswordManagerCollector’ function attempts to steal credentials stored in password managers including, OnePass, LastPass, BitWarden, Dashlane, NordPass and KeePass. However, this function is limited to Windows systems only.

SSOCollector

The ‘SSOCollector’ class is designed to collect authentication tokens related to SSO systems. It targets three main sources: Azure Active Directory tokens stored under TokenBroker\Cache, Kerberos tickets obtained through the klist command, and Google Cloud authentication data in user configuration folders. For each source, it checks known directories or commands, reads partial file contents, and stores the results as in a dictionary. Once again, this function is limited to Windows systems.

TOTP Collector

The ‘TOTP Collector’ class attempts to collect TOTPs from:

Authy Desktop by locating and reading from Authy.db SQLite databases
Microsoft Authenticator by scanning known application data paths for stored binary files
TOTP-related Chrome extensions by searching LevelDB files for identifiable keywords like “gauth” or “authenticator”.

Each method attempts to locate relevant files, parse or partially read their contents, and store them in a dictionary under labels like authy, microsoft_auth, or chrome_extension. However, as before, this is limited to Windows, and there is no handling for encrypted tokens.

Enterprise Collector

The ‘EnterpriseCollector’ class is used to extract credentials related to an enterprise Windows system. It targets configuration and credential data from:

VPN clients
- Cisco AnyConnect, OpenVPN, Forticlient, Pulse Secure
RDP credentials
Corporate certificates
Active Directory tokens
Kerberos tickets cache

The files and directories are located based on standard environment variables with their contents read in binary mode and then encoded in Base64.

Super Extended Application Collector

The ‘SuperExtendedApplication’ Collector class is designed to scan an environment for 160 different applications on a Windows system. It iterates through the paths of a wide range of software categories including messaging apps, cryptocurrency wallets, password managers, development tools, enterprise tools, gaming clients, and security products. The list includes but is not limited to Teams, Slack, Mattermost, Zoom, Google Meet, MS Office, Defender, Norton, McAfee, Steam, Twitch, VMWare, to name a few.

Bypass

AppBoundBypass

This code outlines a framework for bypassing App Bound protections, Google Chrome' s cookie encryption. The ‘AppBoundBypass’ class attempts several evasion techniques, including memory injection, dynamic-link library (DLL) hijacking, process hollowing, atom bombing, and process doppelgänging to impersonate or hijack browser processes. As of the time of writing, the code contains multiple placeholders, indicating that the code is still in development.

Steganography

The ‘SteganographyModule’ uses steganography (hiding data within an image) to hide the stolen data, staging it for exfiltration. Multiple methods are implemented, including:

Image steganography: LSB-based hiding
NTFS Alternate Data Streams
Windows Registry Keys
Slack space: Writing into unallocated disk cluster space
Polyglot files: Appending archive data to images
Image metadata: Embedding data in EXIF tags
Whitespace encoding: Hiding binary in trailing spaces of text files

Exfiltration

CloudProxy

The CloudProxy class is designed for exfiltrating data by routing it through cloud service domains. It encodes the input data using Base64, attaches a timestamp and SHA-256 signature, and attempts to send this payload as a JSON object via HTTP POST requests to cloud URLs including AWS, GCP, and Azure, allowing the traffic to blend in. As of the time of writing, these public facing URLs do not accept POST requests, indicating that they are placeholders meant to be replaced with attacker-controlled cloud endpoints in a finalized build.

P2PEngine

The ‘P2PEngine’ provides multiple methods of C2, including embedding instructions within blockchain transactions (such as Bitcoin OP_RETURN, Ethereum smart contracts), exfiltrating data via anonymizing networks like Tor and I2P, and storing payloads on IPFS (a distributed file system). It also supports domain generation algorithms (DGA) to create dynamic .onion addresses for evading detection.

After a compromise, the stealer creates both HTML and TXT reports containing the stolen data. It then sends these reports to the attacker’s designated Telegram account.

Xillen Killers

Xillen Stealer appears to be developed by a self-described 15-year-old “pentest specialist” “Beng/jaminButton” who creates TikTok videos showing basic exploits and open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques. The group distributing the information stealer, known as “Xillen Killers”, claims to have 3,000 members. Additionally, the group claims to have been involved in:

Analysis of Project DDoSia, a tool reportedly used by the NoName057(16) group, revealing that rather functioning as a distributed denial-of-service (DDos) tool, it is actually a remote access trojan (RAT) and stealer, along with the identification of involved individuals.
Compromise of doxbin.net in October 2025.
Discovery of vulnerabilities on a Russian mods site and a Ukrainian news site

The group, which claims to be part of the Russian IT scene, use Telegram for logging, marketing, and support.

‍

Conclusion

While some components of XillenStealer remain underdeveloped, the range of intended feature set, which includes credential harvesting, cryptocurrency theft, container targeting, and anti-analysis techniques, suggests that once fully developed it could become a sophisticated stealer. The intention to use AI to help improve targeting in malware campaigns, even though not yet implemented, indicates how threat actors are likely to incorporate AI into future campaigns.
‍

Credit to Tara Gould (Threat Research Lead)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendicies

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

395350d9cfbf32cef74357fd9cb66134 - confid.py

F3ce485b669e7c18b66d09418e979468 - stealer_v5_ultimate.py

3133fe7dc7b690264ee4f0fb6d867946 - xillen_v5.exe

https://github[.]com/BengaminButton/XillenStealer

https://github[.]com/BengaminButton/XillenStealer/commit/9d9f105df4a6b20613e3a7c55379dcbf4d1ef465

MITRE ATT&CK

ID Technique

T1059.006 - Python

T1555 - Credentials from Password Stores

T1555.003 - Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers

T1555.005 - Credentials from Password Stores: Password Managers

T1649 - Steal or Forge Authentication Certificates

T1558 - Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets

T1539 - Steal Web Session Cookie

T1552.001 - Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files

T1552.004 - Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys

T1552.005 - Unsecured Credentials: Cloud Instance Metadata API

T1217 - Browser Information Discovery

T1622 - Debugger Evasion

T1082 - System Information Discovery

T1497.001 - Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion: System Checks

T1115 - Clipboard Data

T1001.002 - Data Obfuscation: Steganography

T1567 - Exfiltration Over Web Service

T1657 - Financial Theft

About the author

Tara Gould

Threat Researcher

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Modern Extortion: Detecting Data Theft From the Cloud

Ransomware Industry

Attack Overview

Accomplish Mission

Establish Foothold

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace DETECT

Darktrace RESPOND

Concluding Thoughts

Appendices

Xillen Stealer Updates to Version 5 to Evade AI Detection

Managing OT Remote Access with Zero Trust Control & AI Driven Detection

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Blog

OT

November 20, 2025

Managing OT Remote Access with Zero Trust Control & AI Driven Detection

The shift toward IT-OT convergence

The modernization gap and why visibility alone isn’t enough

The risk of unmonitored remote access

The visibility gap: Who’s doing what, and when?

Closing the gaps with zero trust controls and AI‑driven detection

Access control is only one part of the equation

Where Zero Trust Access Meets AI‑Driven Oversight:

Complete security without compromise

Blog

Network

November 21, 2025

Xillen Stealer Updates to Version 5 to Evade AI Detection

Introduction

Technical analysis

AITargetDectection

AI Evasion

PolymorphicEngine

Collectors

DevToolsCollector

Container persistence

Biometric Collector

SSOCollector

TOTP Collector

Enterprise Collector

Super Extended Application Collector

Bypass

AppBoundBypass

Steganography

Exfiltration

CloudProxy

P2PEngine

Xillen Killers

Conclusion

Appendicies

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)