ブログ
/
Network
/
November 27, 2023

Detecting PurpleFox Rootkit with Darktrace AI

The PurpleFox rootkit poses significant risks. Discover how Darktrace leveraged advanced techniques to combat this persistent cyber threat.
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
Piramol Krishnan
Cyber Security Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
27
Nov 2023

Versatile Malware: PurpleFox

As organizations and security teams across the world move to bolster their digital defenses against cyber threats, threats actors, in turn, are forced to adopt more sophisticated tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to circumvent them. Rather than being static and predictable, malware strains are becoming increasingly versatile and therefore elusive to traditional security tools.

One such example is PurpleFox. First observed in 2018, PurpleFox is a combined fileless rootkit and backdoor trojan known to target Windows machines. PurpleFox is known for consistently adapting its functionalities over time, utilizing different infection vectors including known vulnerabilities (CVEs), fake Telegram installers, and phishing. It is also leveraged by other campaigns to deliver ransomware tools, spyware, and cryptocurrency mining malware. It is also widely known for using Microsoft Software Installer (MSI) files masquerading as other file types.

The Evolution of PurpleFox

The Original Strain

First reported in March 2018, PurpleFox was identified to be a trojan that drops itself onto Windows machines using an MSI installation package that alters registry values to replace a legitimate Windows system file [1]. The initial stage of infection relied on the third-party toolkit RIG Exploit Kit (EK). RIG EK is hosted on compromised or malicious websites and is dropped onto the unsuspecting system when they visit browse that site. The built-in Windows installer (MSIEXEC) is leveraged to run the installation package retrieved from the website. This, in turn, drops two files into the Windows directory – namely a malicious dynamic-link library (DLL) that acts as a loader, and the payload of the malware. After infection, PurpleFox is often used to retrieve and deploy other types of malware.  

Subsequent Variants

Since its initial discovery, PurpleFox has also been observed leveraging PowerShell to enable fileless infection and additional privilege escalation vulnerabilities to increase the likelihood of successful infection [2]. The PowerShell script had also been reported to be masquerading as a .jpg image file. PowerSploit modules are utilized to gain elevated privileges if the current user lacks administrator privileges. Once obtained, the script proceeds to retrieve and execute a malicious MSI package, also masquerading as an image file. As of 2020, PurpleFox no longer relied on the RIG EK for its delivery phase, instead spreading via the exploitation of the SMB protocol [3]. The malware would leverage the compromised systems as hosts for the PurpleFox payloads to facilitate its spread to other systems. This mode of infection can occur without any user action, akin to a worm.

The current iteration of PurpleFox reportedly uses brute-forcing of vulnerable services, such as SMB, to facilitate its spread over the network and escalate privileges. By scanning internet-facing Windows computers, PurpleFox exploits weak passwords for Windows user accounts through SMB, including administrative credentials to facilitate further privilege escalation.

Darktrace detection of PurpleFox

In July 2023, Darktrace observed an example of a PurpleFox infection on the network of a customer in the healthcare sector. This observation was a slightly different method of downloading the PurpleFox payload. An affected device was observed initiating a series of service control requests using DCE-RPC, instructing the device to make connections to a host of servers to download a malicious .PNG file, later confirmed to be the PurpleFox rootkit. The device was then observed carrying out worm-like activity to other external internet-facing servers, as well as scanning related subnets.

Darktrace DETECT™ was able to successfully identify and track this compromise across the cyber kill chain and ensure the customer was able to take swift remedial action to prevent the attack from escalating further.

While the customer in question did have Darktrace RESPOND™, it was configured in human confirmation mode, meaning any mitigative actions had to be manually applied by the customer’s security team. If RESPOND had been enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack, it would have been able to take swift action against the compromise to contain it at the earliest instance.

Attack Overview

Figure 1: Timeline of PurpleFox malware kill chain.

Initial Scanning over SMB

On July 14, 2023, Darktrace detected the affected device scanning other internal devices on the customer’s network via port 445. The numerous connections were consistent with the aforementioned worm-like activity that has been reported from PurpleFox behavior as it appears to be targeting SMB services looking for open or vulnerable channels to exploit.

This initial scanning activity was detected by Darktrace DETECT, specifically through the model breach ‘Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity’. Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ then launched an autonomous investigation into these internal connections and tied them into one larger-scale network reconnaissance incident, rather than a series of isolated connections.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst technical details summarizing the initial scanning activity seen with the internal network scan over port 445.

As Darktrace RESPOND was configured in human confirmation mode, it was unable to autonomously block these internal connections. However, it did suggest blocking connections on port 445, which could have been manually applied by the customer’s security team.

Figure 3: The affected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the initial scanning activity observed by Darktrace DETECT and the corresponding suggested RESPOND action.

Privilege Escalation

The device successfully logged in via NTLM with the credential, ‘administrator’. Darktrace recognized that the endpoint was external to the customer’s environment, indicating that the affected device was now being used to propagate the malware to other networks. Considering the lack of observed brute-force activity up to this point, the credentials for ‘administrator’ had likely been compromised prior to Darktrace’s deployment on the network, or outside of Darktrace’s purview via a phishing attack.

Exploitation

Darktrace then detected a series of service control requests over DCE-RPC using the credential ‘admin’ to make SVCCTL Create Service W Requests. A script was then observed where the controlled device is instructed to launch mshta.exe, a Windows-native binary designed to execute Microsoft HTML Application (HTA) files. This enables the execution of arbitrary script code, VBScript in this case.

Figure 4: PurpleFox remote service control activity captured by a Darktrace DETECT model breach.
Figure 5: The infected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the anomalous service control activity being picked up by DETECT.

There are a few MSIEXEC flags to note:

  • /i : installs or configures a product
  • /Q : sets the user interface level. In this case, it is set to ‘No UI’, which is used for “quiet” execution, so no user interaction is required

Evidently, this was an attempt to evade detection by endpoint users as it is surreptitiously installed onto the system. This corresponds to the download of the rootkit that has previously been associated with PurpleFox. At this stage, the infected device continues to be leveraged as an attack device and scans SMB services over external endpoints. The device also appeared to attempt brute-forcing over NTLM using the same ‘administrator’ credential to these endpoints. This activity was identified by Darktrace DETECT which, if enabled in autonomous response mode would have instantly blocked similar outbound connections, thus preventing the spread of PurpleFox.

Figure 6: The infected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the outbound activity corresponding to PurpleFox’s wormlike spread. This was caught by DETECT and the corresponding suggested RESPOND action.

Installation

On August 9, Darktrace observed the device making initial attempts to download a malicious .PNG file. This was a notable change in tactics from previously reported PurpleFox campaigns which had been observed utilizing .MOE files for their payloads [3]. The .MOE payloads are binary files that are more easily detected and blocked by traditional signatured-based security measures as they are not associated with known software. The ubiquity of .PNG files, especially on the web, make identifying and blacklisting the files significantly more difficult.

The first connection was made with the URI ‘/test.png’.  It was noted that the HTTP method here was HEAD, a method similar to GET requests except the server must not return a message-body in the response.

The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request should be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request. This method is often used to test hypertext links for validity and recent modification. This is likely a way of checking if the server hosting the payload is still active. Avoiding connections that could possibly be detected by antivirus solutions can help keep this activity under-the-radar.

Figure 7: Packet Capture from an affected customer device showing the initial HTTP requests to the payload server.
Figure 8: Packet Capture showing the HTTP requests to download the payloads.

The server responds with a status code of 200 before the download begins. The HEAD request could be part of the attacker’s verification that the server is still running, and that the payload is available for download. The ‘/test.png’ HEAD request was sent twice, likely for double confirmation to begin the file transfer.

Figure 9: PCAP from the affected customer device showing the Windows Installer user-agent associated with the .PNG file download.

Subsequent analysis using a Packet Capture (PCAP) tool revealed that this connection used the Windows Installer user agent that has previously been associated with PurpleFox. The device then began to download a payload that was masquerading as a Microsoft Word document. The device was thus able to download the payload twice, from two separate endpoints.

By masquerading as a Microsoft Word file, the threat actor was likely attempting to evade the detection of the endpoint user and traditional security tools by passing off as an innocuous text document. Likewise, using a Windows Installer user agent would enable threat actors to bypass antivirus measures and disguise the malicious installation as legitimate download activity.  

Darktrace DETECT identified that these were masqueraded file downloads by correctly identifying the mismatch between the file extension and the true file type. Subsequently, AI Analyst was able to correctly identify the file type and deduced that this download was indicative of the device having been compromised.

In this case, the device attempted to download the payload from several different endpoints, many of which had low antivirus detection rates or open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags, highlighting the need to move beyond traditional signature-base detections.

Figure 10: Cyber AI Analyst technical details summarizing the downloads of the PurpleFox payload.
Figure 11 (a): The Model Breach generated by the masqueraded file transfer associated with the PurpleFox payload.
Figure 11 (b): The Model Breach generated by the masqueraded file transfer associated with the PurpleFox payload.

If Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack it would have acted by blocking connections to these suspicious endpoints, thus preventing the download of malicious files. However, as RESPOND was in human confirmation mode, RESPOND actions required manual application by the customer’s security team which unfortunately did not happen, as such the device was able to download the payloads.

Conclusion

The PurpleFox malware is a particularly dynamic strain known to continually evolve over time, utilizing a blend of old and new approaches to achieve its goals which is likely to muddy expectations on its behavior. By frequently employing new methods of attack, malicious actors are able to bypass traditional security tools that rely on signature-based detections and static lists of indicators of compromise (IoCs), necessitating a more sophisticated approach to threat detection.  

Darktrace DETECT’s Self-Learning AI enables it to confront adaptable and elusive threats like PurpleFox. By learning and understanding customer networks, it is able to discern normal network behavior and patterns of life, distinguishing expected activity from potential deviations. This anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows Darktrace to detect cyber threats as soon as they emerge.  

By combining DETECT with the autonomous response capabilities of RESPOND, Darktrace customers are able to effectively safeguard their digital environments and ensure that emerging threats can be identified and shut down at the earliest stage of the kill chain, regardless of the tactics employed by would-be attackers.

Credit to Piramol Krishnan, Cyber Analyst, Qing Hong Kwa, Senior Cyber Analyst & Deputy Team Lead, Singapore

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • Device / Increased External Connectivity
  • Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints
  • Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)
  • Compliance / External Windows Communications
  • Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
  • Compromise / Unusual SVCCTL Activity
  • Compromise / Rare Domain Pointing to Internal IP
  • Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer

RESPOND Models

  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

/C558B828.Png - URI - URI for Purple Fox Rootkit [4]

5b1de649f2bc4eb08f1d83f7ea052de5b8fe141f - File Hash - SHA1 hash of C558B828.Png file (Malware payload)

190.4.210[.]242 - IP - Purple Fox C2 Servers

218.4.170[.]236 - IP - IP for download of .PNG file (Malware payload)

180.169.1[.]220 - IP - IP for download of .PNG file (Malware payload)

103.94.108[.]114:10837 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

221.199.171[.]174:16543 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

61.222.155[.]49:14098 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

178.128.103[.]246:17880 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

222.134.99[.]132:12539 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

164.90.152[.]252:18075 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

198.199.80[.]121:11490 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic - Technique

Reconnaissance - Active Scanning T1595, Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks T1595.001, Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning T1595.002

Resource Development - Obtain Capabilities: Malware T1588.001

Initial Access, Defense Evasion, Persistence, Privilege Escalation - Valid Accounts: Default Accounts T1078.001

Initial Access - Drive-by Compromise T1189

Defense Evasion - Masquerading T1036

Credential Access - Brute Force T1110

Discovery - Network Service Discovery T1046

Command and Control - Proxy: External Proxy T1090.002

References

  1. https://blog.360totalsecurity.com/en/purple-fox-trojan-burst-out-globally-and-infected-more-than-30000-users/
  2. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/19/i/purple-fox-fileless-malware-with-rookit-component-delivered-by-rig-exploit-kit-now-abuses-powershell.html
  3. https://www.akamai.com/blog/security/purple-fox-rootkit-now-propagates-as-a-worm
  4. https://www.foregenix.com/blog/an-overview-on-purple-fox
  5. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_sg/research/21/j/purplefox-adds-new-backdoor-that-uses-websockets.html
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
Piramol Krishnan
Cyber Security Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

May 18, 2026

AI Insider Threats: How Generative AI is Changing Insider Risk

Default blog imageDefault blog image

How generative AI changes insider behavior

AI systems, especially generative platforms such as chatbots, are designed for engagement with humans. They are equipped with extraordinary human-like responses that can both confirm, and inflate, human ideas and ideology; offering an appealing cognitive partnership between machine and human.  When considering this against the threat posed by insiders, the type of diverse engagement offered by AI can greatly increase the speed of an insider event, and can facilitate new attack platforms to carry out insider acts.  

This article offers analysis on how to consider this new paradigm of insider risk, and outlines key governance principles for CISOs, CSOs and SOC managers to manage the threats inherent with AI-powered insider risk.

What is an insider threat?

There are many industry or government definitions of what constitutes insider threat. At its heart, it relates to the harm created when trusted access to sensitive information, assets or personnel is abused bywith malicious intent, or through negligent activities.  

Traditional methodologies to manage insider threat have relied on two main concepts: assurance of individuals with access to sensitive assets, and a layered defense system to monitor for any breach of vulnerability. This is often done both before, and after access has been granted.  In the pre-access state, assurance is gained through security or recruitment checks. Once access is granted, controls such as privileged access, and zero-trust architecture offer defensive layers.

How does AI change the insider threat paradigm?

While these two concepts remain central to the management of insider threats, the introduction of AI offers three key new aspects that will re-shape the paradigm:.  

AI can act as a cognitive amplifier, influencing and affecting the motivations that can lead to insider-related activity. This is especially relevant for the deliberate insider - someone who is considering an act of insider harm. These individuals can now turn to AI systems to validate their thinking, provide unique insights, and, crucially, offer encouragement to act. With generative systems hard-wired to engage and agree with users, this can turn a helpful AI system into a dangerous AI hype machine for those with harmful insider intent.  

AI can act as an operational enabler. AI can now develop and increase the range of tools needed to carry out insider acts. New social engineering platforms such as vishing and deepfakes give adversaries a new edge to create insider harm. AI can generate solutions and operational platforms at increasing speeds; often without the need for human subject matter expertise to execute the activities. As one bar for advanced AI capabilities continues to be raised, the bar needed to make use of those platforms has become significantly lower.

AI can act as a semi-autonomous insider, particularly when agentic AI systems or non-human identities are provided broad levels of autonomy; creating a vector of insider acts with little-to-no human oversight or control. As AI agents assume many of the orchestration layers once reserved for humans, they do so without some of the restricted permissions that generally bind service accounts. With broad levels of accessibility and authority, these non-human identities (NHIs) can themselves become targets of insider intent.  Commonly, this refers to the increasing risks of prompt injection, poisoning, or other types of embedded bias. In many ways, this mirrors the risks of social engineering traditionally faced by humans. Even without deliberate or malicious efforts to corrupt them, AI systems and AI agents can carry out unintended actions; creating vulnerabilities and opportunities for insider harm.

How to defend against AI-powered insider threats

The increasing attack surfaces created or facilitated by AI is a growing concern.  In Darktrace’s own AI cybersecurity research, the risks introduced, and acknowledged, through the proliferation of AI tools and systems continues to outstrip traditional policies and governance guardrails. 22% of respondents in the survey cited ‘insider misuse aided by generative AI’ as a major threat concern.  And yet, in the same survey, only 37% of all respondents have formal policies in place to manage the safe and responsible use of AI.  This draws a significant and worrying delta between the known risks and threat concerns, and the ability (and resources) to mitigate them.

What can CISOs and SOC leaders do to protect their organization from AI insider threats?  

Given the rapid adaptation, adoption, and scale of AI systems, implementing the right levels of AI governance is non-negotiable. Getting the correct balance between AI-driven productivity gains and careful compliance will lead to long-term benefits. Adapting traditional insider threat structures to account for newer risks posed through the use of AI will be crucial. And understanding the value of AI systems that add to your cybersecurity resilience rather than imperil it will be essential.

For those responsible for the security and protection of their business assets and data holdings, the way AI has changed the paradigm of insider threats can seem daunting.  Adopting strong, and suitable AI governance can become difficult to introduce due to the volume and complexity of systems needed to be monitored. As well as traditional insider threat mitigations such as user monitoring, access controls and active management, the speed and autonomy of some AI systems need different, as well as additional layers of control.  

How Darktrace helps protect against AI-powered insider threats

Darktrace has demonstrated that, through platforms such as our proprietary Cyber AI Analyst, and our latest product Darktrace / SECURE AI, there are ways AI systems can be self-learning, self-critical and resilient to unpredictable AI behavior whilst still offering impressive returns; complementing traditional SOC and CISO strategies to combat insider threat.  

With / SECURE AI, some of the ephemeral risks drawn through AI use can be more easily governed.  Specifically, the ability to monitor conversational prompts (which can both affect AI outputs as well as highlight potential attempts at manipulation of AI; raising early flags of insider intent); the real-time observation of AI usage and development (highlighting potential blind-spots between AI development and deployment); shadow AI detection (surfacing unapproved tools and agents across your IT stack) and; the ability to know which identities (human or non-human) have permission access. All these features build on the existing foundations of strong insider threat management structures.  

How to take a defense-in-depth approach to AI-powered insider threats

Even without these tools, there are four key areas where robust, more effective controls can mitigate AI-powered insider threat.  Each of the below offers a defencce-in-depth approach: layering acknowledgement and understanding of an insider vector with controls that can bolster your defenses.  

Identity and access controls

Having a clear understanding of the entities that can access your sensitive information, assets and personnel is the first step in understanding the landscape in which insider harm can occur.  AI has shown that it is not just flesh and bone operators who can administer insider threats; Non-Human Identities (such as agentic AI systems) can operate with autonomy and freedom if they have the right credentials. By treating NHIs in the same way as human operators (rather than helpful machine-based tools), and adding similar mitigation and management controls, you can protect both your business, and your business-based identities from insider-related attention.

Visibility and shadow AI detection

Configuring AI systems carefully, as well as maintaining internal monitoring, can help identify ‘shadow AI’ usage; defined as the use of unsanctioned AI tools within the workplace1 (this topic was researched in Darktrace’s own paper on "How to secure AI in the enterprise". The adoption of shadow AI could be the result of deliberate preference, or ‘shortcutting’; where individuals use systems and models they are familiar with, even if unsanctioned. As well as some performance risks inherent with the use of shadow AI (such as data leakage and unwanted actions), it could also be a dangerous precursor for insider-related harm (either through deliberate attempts to subvert regular monitoring, or by opening vulnerabilities through unpatched or unaccredited tooling).

Prompt and Output Guardrails

The ability to introduce guardrails for AI systems offers something of a traditional “perimeter protection” layer in AI defense architecture; checking prompts and outputs against known threat vectors, or insider threat methodologies. Alone, such traditional guardrails offer limited assurance.  But, if tied with behavior-centric threat detection, and an enforcement system that deters both malicious and accidental insider activities, this would offer considerable defense- in- depth containment.  

Forensic logging and incident readiness response

The need for detection, data capture, forensics, and investigation are inherent elements of any good insider threat strategy. To fully understand the extent or scope of any suspected insider activity (such as understanding if it was deliberate, targeted, or likely to occur again), this rich vein of analysis could prove invaluable.  As the nature of business increasingly turns ephemeral; with assets secured in remote containers, information parsed through temporary or cloud-based architecture, and access nodes distributed beyond the immediate visibility of internal security teams, the development of AI governance through containment, detection, and enforcement will grow ever more important.

Enabling these controls can offer visibility and supervision over some of the often-expressed risks about AI management. With the right kind of data analytics, and with appropriate human oversight for high-risk actions, it can illuminate the core concerns expressed through a new paradigm of AI-powered insider threats by:

  • Ensuring deliberately mis-configured AI systems are exposed through regular monitoring.
  • Highlighting changes in systems-based activity that might indicate harmful insider actions; whether malicious or accidental.
  • Promoting a secure-by-design process that discourages and deters insider-related ambitions.
  • Ensuring the control plane for identity-based access spans humans, NHIs and AI models, and:
  • Offering positive containment strategies that will help curate the extent of AI control, and minimize unwanted activities.

Why insider threat remains a human challenge

At its root, and however it has been configured, AI is still an algorithmic tool; something designed to automate, process and manage computational functions at machine speed, and boost productivity.  Even with the best cybersecurity defenses in place, the success of an insider threat management program will still depend on the ability of human operators to identify, triage, and manage the insider threat attack surface.  

AI governance policies, human-in-the-loop break points, and automated monitoring functions will not guard against acts of insider harm unless there is intention to manage this proactively, and through a strong culture of how to guard against abuses of trust and responsibility.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jason Lusted
AI Governance Advisor

Blog

/

Network

/

May 18, 2026

中国系APTキャンペーン、アップデートされたFDMTPバックドアで企業を狙う

Default blog imageDefault blog image

ダークトレースは、中国系グループの活動と一致する動きを特定しました。これは、主にアジア太平洋および日本(APJ)地域の顧客環境を標的としたTwill Typhoonに関連するキャンペーンです。

2025年9月下旬から、影響を受けた複数のホストが、YahooやApple関連のサービスを装ったインフラを含む、コンテンツ配信ネットワーク(CDN)を偽装したドメインへのリクエストを行っていることが観察されました。これらの事例において、ダークトレースは一貫した動作のパターンを特定しました。それは、正当なバイナリと悪意あるダイナミックリンクライブラリ(DLL)を同時に取得し、モジュラー型の.NETベースのリモートアクセス型トロイの木馬(RAT)フレームワークのサイドローディングと実行を可能にするものでした。

これらはダークトレースが先日発表した中国系オペレーションについてのレポート、 Crimson Echoで説明されているパターンとも一致しています。このケースでは、正規のソフトウェア上にモジュラー型の侵入チェーンが構築され、ステージングされたペイロードの投下が見られました。脅威アクターは正当なバイナリをコンフィギュレーションファイルや悪意あるDLLとともに取得することにより、.NETベースのRATのサイドローディングを可能にしました。

キャンペーンの確認

これらのケースには同じ順序のシーケンスが現れています:(1) 正規の実行可能ファイルの取得、(2) 対応する .config ファイルの取得、(3) 悪意あるDLLの取得、(4) DLLの繰り返しダウンロード、(5) コマンド&コントロール(C2)通信。 正規のバイナリは正規のプロセスを提供しますが、.config ファイルは悪意あるバイナリを取得します。

ダークトレースは、この活動が公に報告されているTwill Typhoonの手法と一致していると中程度の確信を持って評価しています。FDMTPの使用、DLLサイドローディング、および重複するインフラストラクチャが観察されたことは、以前に見られた作戦と一致していますが、これは特定の単一のアクターに固有のものではありません。アトリビューションには可視性による制限があります。初期アクセスは直接確認されませんでしたが、侵入のパターンは同様の作戦で報告されている既知のフィッシングによる侵入手法と一致しています。

Darktraceによる観測

2025年9月下旬より、Darktraceは複数の顧客環境において良く知られたプラットフォームの“CDN”エンドポイントと称するインフラ(YahooやAppleを偽装したものを含む)に対してHTTP GETリクエストが行われていることを観測しました。これらのケースでは、影響を受けたホストは正当な実行形式、対応する.configファイル(同じベース名)、そしてサイドローディング用DLLを取得しています。正当なバイナリ+コンフィギュレーション+DLLのシーケンスは中国系の攻撃キャンペーンで見られているものです。

いくつかのケースでは、ホストはさらに/GetClusterエンドポイントへのアウトバウンドリクエストを発行しており、protocol=Dotnet-Tcpdmtpパラメータも含まれていました。このアクティビティの後繰り返しDLLコンテンツの取得が行われ、その後これが正当なプロセス内でサーチオーダー杯ジャッキングに使われました。

2025年9月~10月に見られた多くのケースで、Darktraceのアラートは初期段階の登録およびC2セットアップ動作を識別しました。その後同じ外部ホストからのDLL(Client.dll等)取得(一部のケースでは複数日に渡って繰り返し)が続き、これは実行チェーンの確立と維持を示すものでした。2026年4月、金融セクターの顧客のエンドポイントがyahoo-cdn[.]it[.]comに対して一連のGETリクエストを開始し、最初に正当なバイナリ(vshost.exeおよびdfsvc.exeを含む)を取得し、その後11日間にわたり関連するコンフィギュレーションファイルおよびDLLコンポーネント(dfsvc.exe.configおよびdnscfg.dllを含む)を繰り返し取得しました。Visual Studio ホスティングと OneClick(dfsvc.exe)のパスの使用はどちらも、マルウェアをターゲット環境で実行できるようにするためのものです。

技術分析

初期ステージングおよび実行

最初のアクセスはわかっていませんが、ダークトレースの研究者はマルウェアを含む複数のアーカイブを特定しました。

代表的なサンプルには以下を含むZIPアーカイブ(“test.zip”)が含まれていました:

  • 正規の実行形式:biz_render.exe(Sogou Pinyin IME)
  • 悪意あるDLL: browser_host.dll

"test.zip" という名前のzipアーカイブには、正規のバイナリ"biz_render.exe" が含まれており、これは人気のある中国語IMEであるSogou Pinyinです。

正規のバイナリと共に ”browser_host.dll” という悪意のあるDLLがあります。</x1>この正規のバイナリは ”browser_host.dll”という正規のDLLを、LoadLibraryExWを介して読み込みますが、悪意のあるDLLにも同じ名前がつけられることにより、biz_render.exeに悪意のあるDLLをサイドロードします。同名の悪意あるDLLを提供することで、攻撃者は実行フローを乗っ取り、信頼されたプロセス内でペイロードを実行することができます。

図1.Biz_render.exe による browser_host.dll のローディング

正規のバイナリは、サイドロードされた"browser_host.dll"から関数GetBrowserManagerInstanceを呼び出し、その後、埋め込まれた文字列に対してXORベースの復号化(キー 0x90)を実行して、mscoree.dllを解決し動的にロードします。

このDLLは、ネイティブバイナリのみに依存するのではなく、Windowsの共通言語ランタイム(CLR)を使用することにより、プロセス内で管理された.NETコードを実行します。実行中、ローダーはペイロードを.NETアセンブリとして直接メモリにロードし、メモリ内での実行を可能にします。

C2 登録

GETリクエストが以下に対して実行されます:

GET /GetCluster?protocol=DotNet-TcpDmtp&tag={0}&uid={1}

カスタムヘッダ:

Verify_Token: Dmtp

これは、後の通信に使用されるIPアドレスをbase64でエンコードし、gzipで圧縮したものを返します。

図2.デコードされたIP

ステージングされたペイロードの取得

その後のアクティビティには、yahoo-cdn.it[.]comからの複数のコンポーネントの取得が含まれます。以下のGETリクエストが行われます:

/dfsvc.exe

/dnscfg.dll

/dfsvc.exe.config

/vhost.exe

/Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll

/config.etl

ClickOnceおよびAppDomainのハイジャッキング

Dfsvc.exeは正当なWindowsのClickOnceエンジンであり、ClickOnceアプリケーションの更新に使用される.NETフレームワークの一部です。付随するdfsvc.exeには、アプリケーションのコンフィギュレーションデータを保存するために使用されるdfsvc.exe.configファイルが含まれています。しかし、このケースではマルウェアが正規のdfsvc.exe.configをC:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319のサーバーから取得したものと置き換えます。

さらに、正当なVisual Studioホスティングプロセスであるvhost.exeがサーバーから取得され、それとともに”Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll”と”config.etl”も取得されます。このDLLは、config.etl内のAESで暗号化されたペイロードを復号してロードするために使用されます。暗号化されたペイロードはdnscfg.dllであり、これはdfsvcの代わりにvshostにロードすることができ、環境が.NETをサポートしていない場合に使用することができます。

図3.ClickOnceのコンフィギュレーション

悪意あるコンフィギュレーションはログ記録を無効にし、アプリケーションがリモートサーバーからdnscfg.dllを読み込むようにし、カスタムのAppDomainManagerを使用してdfsvc.exeの初期化時にDLLが実行されるようにします。永続性を確保するために、%APPDATA%\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\dfsvc.exeのスケジュールされたタスクが追加されます。

コアペイロード

DLL dnscfg.dll は、カスタムTCPベースのプロトコルであるDMTP(Duplex Message Transport Protocol)を使用して通信する、著しく難読化された.NET RAT(Client.TcpDmtp.dll) です。 観察された特徴から、これはFDMTPフレームワーク(v3.2.5.1)の更新版であると思われます。

図4.InitializeNewDomain

ペイロードは:

  • クラスタベースの解決を使用 (GetHostFromCluster)
  • トークン検証を実装
  • 永続的な実行ループに入る (LoopMessage)
  • DMTPを介した構造化されたリモートタスキングをサポート

接続が確立されると、マルウェアは永続的なループ(LoopMessage)に入り、リモートサーバーからのコマンドを受信できるようになります。

図5.DMTP接続関数

値は直接参照するのではなく、実行時に解決されるコンテナを通じて取得されます。文字列値は暗号化されたバイト配列(_0)に格納され、カスタムのXORベースの文字列復号ルーチン(dcsoft)によって復号されます。キーの下位16ビットは0xA61D(42525)とXORされて初期のXORキーが導出され、それに続くビットは文字列の長さと暗号化されたバイト配列へのオフセットを定義します。各文字は2つの暗号化されたバイトから再構成され、増加するキー値とXORされて、ペイロードで使用される平文文字列が生成されます。

図6.復号化された文字列

リソースセクションには複数の圧縮されたバイナリが埋め込まれており、その大多数はライブラリファイルです。

図7: リソース

モジュラー型フレームワークとプラグイン

ペイロードには以下を含む複数の圧縮ライブラリが埋め込まれています:

  • client.core.dll
  • client.dmtpframe.dll

Client.core.dllは、システムプロファイリング、C2通信、およびプラグイン実行に使用されるコアライブラリです。インプラントは、アンチウイルス製品、ドメイン名、HWID、CLRバージョン、管理者権限、ハードウェアの詳細、ネットワークの詳細、オペレーティングシステム、およびユーザーを含む情報を取得する機能を備えています。

図8: Client.Core.Info 関数

さらに、このコンポーネントはプラグインの読み込みを担当しており、バイナリおよびJSONベースのプラグイン実行の両方をサポートしています。これにより、プラグインは実行されるタスクに応じて異なる形式のコマンドやパラメータを受け取ることができます。

このフレームワークがプラグインのハッシュ、メソッド名、タスク識別子、呼び出し元追跡、引数の処理などの詳細を管理し、プラグインを環境内で一貫して実行することができます。実行管理に加えて、このライブラリはログ記録、通信、プロセス処理などの共通のランタイム機能へのアクセスをプラグインに提供します。

図9: Client.core 関数

client.dmtpframe.dllは次を処理します:

  • DMTP通信
  • ハートビートおよび再接続
  • レジストリを通じたプラグイン永続化:

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\IME\{id}

Client.dmtpframe.dllはTouchSocket DMTPネットワーキングライブラリ上に構築されており、リモートプラグインの管理を行います。このDLLは、ハートビートの維持、再接続処理、RPCスタイルのメッセージング、SSLサポート、およびトークンベースの認証を含むリモート通信機能を実装しています。このDLLは、永続化のためにHKCU/Software/Microsoft/IME/{id} のレジストリにプラグインを追加する機能も備えています。  

観測されたプラグイン

使用されたすべてのプラグインは判明していませんが、研究者たちは以下の4つを確認することができました:

  • Persist.WpTask.dll - リモートでスケジュールされたWindowsタスクを作成、削除、トリガーするために使用されます。
  • Persist.registry.dll - レジストリの永続性を管理するために使用され、レジストリ値の作成および削除、隠し永続化キーの操作が可能です。
  • Persist.extra.dll - メインフレームワークの読み込みと永続化に使用されます。
  • Assist.dll - リモートでファイルやコマンドを取得したり、システムプロセスを操作したりするために使用されます。
図10: IME レジストリに格納されたプラグイン
図11: プラグインリソース内の難読化されたスクリプト

Persist.extra.dll は、スクリプト"setup.log"を、読み込みメインフレームワークをロードおよび永続化するために使用されるモジュールです。バイナリのリソースセクションに格納されている難読化されたスクリプトは、.NET COMオブジェクトを作成し、永続化のためにレジストリキーHKCU\Software\Classes\TypeLib\ {9E175B61-F52A-11D8-B9A5-505054503030}\1.0\1\Win64 に追加します。このスクリプトの難読化を解除すると、"WindowsBase.dll”という別のDLLが明らかになります。

図12: スクリプトのレジストリエントリ

バイナリは5分ごとにicloud-cdn[.]netをチェックし、バージョン文字列を取得し、暗号化されたペイロードであるchecksum.binをダウンロードし、ローカルにC:\ProgramData\USOShared\Logs\checksum.etlとして保存し、ハードコードされたキーPOt_L[Bsh0=+@0a.を使用してAESで復号化し、Assembly.Load(byte[])を介して復号化されたアセンブリをメモリから直接ロードします。version.txtファイルは更新マーカーとして機能し、リモートのバージョンが変更された場合にのみ再ダウンロードされるようにします。また、ミューテックスは重複したインスタンスの起動を防ぎます。

図13: USOShared/Logs.

Checksum.etlはAESで復号化され、メモリにロードされ、別の.NET DLLである"Client.dll"がロードされます。このバイナリは前述の"dnscfg.dll"と同じものであり、脅威アクターがバージョンに基づいてメインフレームワークを更新することを可能にします。

まとめ

これらの事例で一貫して観測されたシーケンスは以下の通りです:

  • 正規の実行形式の取得
  • サイドローディング用DLLの取得
  • /GetClusterによるC2登録

侵入は単一の足場に依存しておらず、独立して更新、交換、再読み込みが可能なコンポーネントに分散されています。このアプローチは、中国系脅威アクターの手法と一致しています。Crimson Echoレポートで説明されているように、安定した特徴は技術的なものではなく、動作上の特徴です。インフラストラクチャは変化し、ペイロードも変わりますが、実行モデルは同じです。防御者にとって、その意味は明白です。それは個別の指標に基づく検知は急速に劣化するということです。動作のシーケンスや、アクセスがどのように構築され再確立されるかに基づく検知は、はるかに永続的です。

協力:Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead), Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy)

編集: Ryan Traill (Content Manager)


付録

検知モデルとトリガーされたインジケータのリストをIOCとともに提示します。

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Test.zip - fc3959ebd35286a82c662dc81ca658cb

Dnscfg.dll - b2c8f1402d336963478f4c5bc36c961a

Client.TcpDmtp.dll - c52b4a16d93a44376f0407f1c06e0b

Browser_host.dll - c17f39d25def01d5c87615388925f45a

Client.DmtpFrame.dll - 482cc72e01dfa54f30efe4fefde5422d

Persist.Extra - 162F69FE29EB7DE12B684E979A446131

Persist.Registry - 067FBAD4D6905D6E13FDC19964C1EA52

Assist - 2CD781AB63A00CE5302ED844CFBECC27

Persist.WpTask - DF3437C88866C060B00468055E6FA146

Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll - c650a624455c5222906b60aac7e57d48

www.icloud-cdn[.]net

www.yahoo-cdn.it[.]com

154.223.58[.]142[AP8] [EF9]

MITRE ATT&CK テクニック

T1106 – ネイティブAPI

T1053.005 -スケジュールされたタスク

T1546.16 - コンポーネントオブジェクトモデルハイジャッキング

T1547.001 – レジストリ実行キー

T1511.001 -DLLインジェクション

T1622 – デバッガ回避

T1027 – ファイルおよび情報の難読化解除/復号化解除

T1574.001 - 実行フローハイジャック:DLL

T1620 – リフレクティブコードローディング

T1082 – システム情報探索

T1007 – システムサービス探索

T1030 – システムオーナー/ユーザー探索

T1071.001 - Webプロトコル

T1027.007 - 動的API解決

T1095 – 非アプリケーションレイヤプロトコル

Darktrace モデルアラート

·      Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·      Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

·      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

·      Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

·      Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

·      Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

·      Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

·      Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)

·      Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days

·      Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

·      Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

·      Device / Increased External Connectivity

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
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