ブログ
/
AI
/
May 28, 2024

Stemming the Citrix Bleed Vulnerability with Darktrace’s ActiveAI Security Platform

This blog delves into Darktrace’s investigation into the exploitation of the Citrix Bleed vulnerability on the network of a customer in late 2023. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI ensured the customer was well equipped to track the post-compromise activity and identify affected devices.
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
Vivek Rajan
Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
28
May 2024

What is Citrix Bleed?

Since August 2023, cyber threat actors have been actively exploiting one of the most significant critical vulnerabilities disclosed in recent years: Citrix Bleed. Citrix Bleed, also known as CVE-2023-4966, remained undiscovered and even unpatched for several months, resulting in a wide range of security incidents across business and government sectors [1].

How does Citrix Bleed vulnerability work?

The vulnerability, which impacts the Citrix Netscaler Gateway and Netscaler ADC products, allows for outside parties to hijack legitimate user sessions, thereby bypassing password and multifactor authentication (MFA) requirements.

When used as a means of initial network access, the vulnerability has resulted in the exfiltration of sensitive data, as in the case of Xfinity, and even the deployment of ransomware variants including Lockbit [2]. Although Citrix has released a patch to address the vulnerability, slow patching procedures and the widespread use of these products has resulted in the continuing exploitation of Citrix Bleed into 2024 [3].

How Does Darktrace Handle Citrix Bleed?

Darktrace has demonstrated its proficiency in handling the exploitation of Citrix Bleed since it was disclosed back in 2023; its anomaly-based approach allows it to efficiently identify and inhibit post-exploitation activity as soon as it surfaces.  Rather than relying upon traditional rules and signatures, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI enables it to understand the subtle deviations in a device’s behavior that would indicate an emerging compromise, thus allowing it to detect anomalous activity related to the exploitation of Citrix Bleed.

In late 2023, Darktrace identified an instance of Citrix Bleed exploitation on a customer network. As this customer had subscribed to the Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, the suspicious network activity surrounding the compromise was escalated to Darktrace’s Security Operation Center (SOC) for triage and investigation by Darktrace Analysts, who then alerted the customer’s security team to the incident.

Darktrace’s Coverage

Initial Access and Beaconing of Citrix Bleed

Darktrace’s initial detection of indicators of compromise (IoCs) associated with the exploitation of Citrix Bleed actually came a few days prior to the SOC alert, with unusual external connectivity observed from a critical server. The suspicious connection in question, a SSH connection to the rare external IP 168.100.9[.]137, lasted several hours and utilized the Windows PuTTY client. Darktrace also identified an additional suspicious IP, namely 45.134.26[.]2, attempting to contact the server. Both rare endpoints had been linked with the exploitation of the Citrix Bleed vulnerability by multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors [4] [5].

Darktrace model alert highlighting an affected device making an unusual SSH connection to 168.100.9[.]137 via port 22.
Figure 1: Darktrace model alert highlighting an affected device making an unusual SSH connection to 168.100.9[.]137 via port 22.

As Darktrace is designed to identify network-level anomalies, rather than monitor edge infrastructure, the initial exploitation via the typical HTTP buffer overflow associated with this vulnerability fell outside the scope of Darktrace’s visibility. However, the aforementioned suspicious connectivity likely constituted initial access and beaconing activity following the successful exploitation of Citrix Bleed.

Command and Control (C2) and Payload Download

Around the same time, Darktrace also detected other devices on the customer’s network conducting external connectivity to various endpoints associated with remote management and IT services, including Action1, ScreenConnect and Fixme IT. Additionally, Darktrace observed devices downloading suspicious executable files, including “tniwinagent.exe”, which is associated with the tool Total Network Inventory. While this tool is typically used for auditing and inventory management purposes, it could also be leveraged by attackers for the purpose of lateral movement.

Defense Evasion

In the days surrounding this compromise, Darktrace observed multiple devices engaging in potential defense evasion tactics using the ScreenConnect and Fixme IT services. Although ScreenConnect is a legitimate remote management tool, it has also been used by threat actors to carry out C2 communication [6]. ScreenConnect itself was the subject of a separate critical vulnerability which Darktrace investigated in early 2024. Meanwhile, CISA observed that domains associated with Fixme It (“fixme[.]it”) have been used by threat actors attempting to exploit the Citrix Bleed vulnerability [7].

Reconnaissance and Lateral Movement

A few days after the detection of the initial beaconing communication, Darktrace identified several devices on the customer’s network carrying out reconnaissance and lateral movement activity. This included SMB writes of “PSEXESVC.exe”, network scanning, DCE-RPC binds of numerous internal devices to IPC$ shares and the transfer of compromise-related tools. It was at this point that Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI deemed the activity to be likely indicative of an ongoing compromise and several Enhanced Monitoring models alerted, triggering the aforementioned PTNs and investigation by Darktrace’s SOC.

Darktrace observed a server on the network initiating a wide range of connections to more than 600 internal IPs across several critical ports, suggesting port scanning, as well as conducting unexpected DCE-RPC service control (svcctl) activity on multiple internal devices, amongst them domain controllers. Additionally, several binds to server service (srvsvc) and security account manager (samr) endpoints via IPC$ shares on destination devices were detected, indicating further reconnaissance activity. The querying of these endpoints was also observed through RPC commands to enumerate services running on the device, as well as Security Account Manager (SAM) accounts.  

Darktrace also identified devices performing SMB writes of the WinRAR data compression tool, in what likely represented preparation for the compression of data prior to data exfiltration. Further SMB file writes were observed around this time including PSEXESVC.exe, which was ultimately used by attackers to conduct remote code execution, and one device was observed making widespread failed NTLM authentication attempts on the network, indicating NTLM brute-forcing. Darktrace observed several devices using administrative credentials to carry out the above activity.

In addition to the transfer of tools and executables via SMB, Darktrace also identified numerous devices deleting files through SMB around this time. In one example, an MSI file associated with the patch management and remediation service, Action1, was deleted by an attacker. This legitimate security tool, if leveraged by attackers, could be used to uncover additional vulnerabilities on target networks.

A server on the customer’s network was also observed writing the file “m.exe” to multiple internal devices. OSINT investigation into the executable indicated that it could be a malicious tool used to prevent antivirus programs from launching or running on a network [8].

Impact and Data Exfiltration

Following the initial steps of the breach chain, Darktrace observed numerous devices on the customer’s network engaging in data exfiltration and impact events, resulting in additional PTN alerts and a SOC investigation into data egress. Specifically, two servers on the network proceeded to read and download large volumes of data via SMB from multiple internal devices over the course of a few hours. These hosts sent large outbound volumes of data to MEGA file storage sites using TLS/SSL over port 443. Darktrace also identified the use of additional file storage services during this exfiltration event, including 4sync, file[.]io, and easyupload[.]io. In total the threat actor exfiltrated over 8.5 GB of data from the customer’s network.

Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst investigation highlighting the details of a data exfiltration attempt.
Figure 2: Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst investigation highlighting the details of a data exfiltration attempt.

Finally, Darktrace detected a user account within the customer’s Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) environment conducting several suspicious Office365 and AzureAD actions from a rare IP for the network, including uncommon file reads, creations and the deletion of a large number of files.

Unfortunately for the customer in this case, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not enabled on the network and the post-exploitation activity was able to progress until the customer was made aware of the attack by Darktrace’s SOC team. Had RESPOND been active and configured in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack, it would have been able to promptly contain the post-exploitation activity by blocking external connections, shutting down any C2 activity and preventing the download of suspicious files, blocking incoming traffic, and enforcing a learned ‘pattern of life’ on offending devices.

Conclusion

Given the widespread use of Netscaler Gateway and Netscaler ADC, Citrix Bleed remains an impactful and potentially disruptive vulnerability that will likely continue to affect organizations who fail to address affected assets. In this instance, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to track and inhibit malicious activity stemming from Citrix Bleed exploitation, enabling the customer to identify affected devices and enact their own remediation.

Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows it to identify such post-exploitation activity resulting from the exploitation of a vulnerability, regardless of whether it is a known CVE or a zero-day threat. Unlike traditional security tools that rely on existing threat intelligence and rules and signatures, Darktrace’s ability to identify the subtle deviations in a compromised device’s behavior gives it a unique advantage when it comes to identifying emerging threats.

Credit to Vivek Rajan, Cyber Analyst, Adam Potter, Cyber Analyst

Appendices

Darktrace Model Coverage

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / ICMP Address Scan

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

Device / Network Scan

Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Anomalous File / Internal::Unusual Internal EXE File Transfer

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / Rare WinRM Incoming

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session

Device / Unauthorised Device

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

Device / New or Uncommon SMB Named Pipe

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server

Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)

Device / New User Agent

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Device / Increased External Connectivity

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Compliance / Possible Unencrypted Password File On Server

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Rare External

Device / Reverse DNS Sweep]

Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity

Anomalous File / Internal::Executable Uploaded to DC

Compliance / SMB Version 1 Usage

Darktrace AI Analyst Incidents

Scanning of Multiple Devices

Suspicious Remote Service Control Activity

SMB Writes of Suspicious Files to Multiple Devices

Possible SSL Command and Control to Multiple Devices

Extensive Suspicious DCE-RPC Activity

Suspicious DCE-RPC Activity

Internal Downloads and External Uploads

Unusual External Data Transfer

Unusual External Data Transfer to Multiple Related Endpoints

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Technique – Tactic – ID – Sub technique of

Network Scanning – Reconnaissance - T1595 - T1595.002

Valid Accounts – Defense Evasion, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, Initial Access – T1078 – N/A

Remote Access Software – Command and Control – T1219 – N/A

Lateral Tool Transfer – Lateral Movement – T1570 – N/A

Data Transfers – Exfiltration – T1567 – T1567.002

Compressed Data – Exfiltration – T1030 – N/A

NTLM Brute Force – Brute Force – T1110 - T1110.001

AntiVirus Deflection – T1553 - NA

Ingress Tool Transfer   - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1105 - NA

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

204.155.149[.]37 – IP – Possible Malicious Endpoint

199.80.53[.]177 – IP – Possible Malicious Endpoint

168.100.9[.]137 – IP – Malicious Endpoint

45.134.26[.]2 – IP – Malicious Endpoint

13.35.147[.]18 – IP – Likely Malicious Endpoint

13.248.193[.]251 – IP – Possible Malicious Endpoint

76.223.1[.]166 – IP – Possible Malicious Endpoint

179.60.147[.]10 – IP – Likely Malicious Endpoint

185.220.101[.]25 – IP – Likely Malicious Endpoint

141.255.167[.]250 – IP – Malicious Endpoint

106.71.177[.]68 – IP – Possible Malicious Endpoint

cat2.hbwrapper[.]com – Hostname – Likely Malicious Endpoint

aj1090[.]online – Hostname – Likely Malicious Endpoint

dc535[.]4sync[.]com – Hostname – Likely Malicious Endpoint

204.155.149[.]140 – IP - Likely Malicious Endpoint

204.155.149[.]132 – IP - Likely Malicious Endpoint

204.155.145[.]52 – IP - Likely Malicious Endpoint

204.155.145[.]49 – IP - Likely Malicious Endpoint

References

  1. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/02/citrix-bleed-security-hacks-impact
  2. https://www.csoonline.com/article/1267774/hackers-steal-data-from-millions-of-xfinity-customers-via-citrix-bleed-vulnerability.html
  3. https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/citrixbleed-security-critical-vulnerability/702505/
  4. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/168.100.9.137
  5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.134.26.2
  6. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/24/b/threat-actor-groups-including-black-basta-are-exploiting-recent-.html
  7. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-325a
  8. https://www.file.net/process/m.exe.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
Vivek Rajan
Cyber 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