May 28, 2019

[Part 2] Top Cyber Hygiene Issues Leading to a Breach

Spotting cyber hygiene issues caused by a lapse of attention requires AI tools that alert critical changes to network activity. Read part two here!

Written by

Max Heinemeyer

Global Field CISO

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

Max Heinemeyer

Global Field CISO

May 2019

Read the first part: Part one — A perimeter in ruins

Earlier this month, I discussed some of the most critical challenges that today’s institutions face in their efforts to reinforce the network perimeter. Eliminating common attack vectors, from unauthorized uploads in the cloud to outdated protocol usage on-premise, is an essential step toward a more secure digital future.

Ultimately, however, I concluded that even flawless cyber hygiene at the perimeter will never be a panacea for all possible cyber-threats, since defenders cannot possibly address vulnerabilities about which they aren’t yet aware. Building strong borders is vital, clearly, but as attackers continue to launch novel attacks, even 50-foot walls are imperiled by 50-foot ladders.

Of course, such concerns become merely academic when your walls aren’t placed correctly, or watched attentively, or expanded when the digital estate grows. For countless employees and organizations alike, the allure of convenience has weakened the perimeter in all of these ways and more, rendering the work of cyber-criminals exponentially easier. Yet given the complexity of the modern enterprise, discovering exactly where users have cut corners is often difficult for human security teams alone. Spotting cyber hygiene issues caused by a lack of due diligence — like the five detailed below — therefore requires AI tools that alert on critical changes to network activity in real time.

Issue #6: Not keeping an inventory of hardware on the network

As all manner of non-traditional IT makes its way into workplaces around the world, keeping an inventory of these seamlessly integrated devices often proves an arduous undertaking, one that many organizations shirk altogether. Between app-controlled thermostats and smart refrigerators, connected cameras and Bluetooth sensors, few security teams possess a rigorous list of the hardware under their care.

Yet attaining 100% network visibility is a prerequisite to any viable security posture. Attackers are increasingly targeting poorly secured IoT devices to bypass the perimeter at its weakest points, before moving laterally to compromise more sensitive databases and machines. By analyzing all traffic from the entire enterprise, Darktrace detects when new devices come online and alert on any unusual activity from them with its AI models, some of which are:

Device / New Device with Attack Tools
Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Read & Write from New Device
Unusual Activity / Sustained Unusual Activity from New Device
Unusual Activity / Unusual Activity from New Device

Issue #7: Using corporate devices for private use

While the divide between corporate and private networks is a primary facet of cyber hygiene, few employees are immune to the temptation and convenience of using company devices for personal use. Whether it’s torrenting movies, visiting social media websites, or checking personal email accounts during the workday, these activities all expose carefully guarded corporate environments to ones that are far less secure. At the same time, many organizations lack visibility over their own online traffic, preventing their security teams from catching such risky behavior until it’s already too late.

Employees have also been known to violate internal compliance policies by downloading unauthorized software for private purposes, which introduces serious security risks and opens the door for supply chain attacks. Darktrace has detected a plethora of threats related to such downloads across our customer base, including outdated software, network scanners, BitTorrent clients, and crypto-mining programs. Such compliance issues trigger a number of Darktrace’s behavioral models, for example:

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Incoming RAR File
Compliance / BitTorrent
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

To bypass compliance policies and access resources blocked by network administrators, employees often turn to VPNs as well as onion routing services like Tor, which facilitate anonymous communication. These services are equivalent to inhibiting security controls on the offending device; consequently, companies must have the ability to detect and terminate them whenever they are used on the network. Because Darktrace provides 100% visibility across the digital infrastructure, it can flag private VPN and Tor sessions with the following example models:

Anomalous Connection / New Outbound VPN
Compliance / Privacy VPN
Compliance / Tor Usage

Darktrace detected one such case earlier this year wherein a corporate device connected to a third-party VPN. Although this activity is not inherently risky or threatening in all situations, Darktrace’s understanding of the company’s network revealed that the device was the only one using the VPN — strongly suggesting a compliance violation. Moreover, when the device was not using the VPN service, it was seen making a large amount of HTTP post requests to another rare destination and displaying other signs of infection. It turned out that the device was infected with the elusive Ursnif trojan.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s external site summary showing that only one device in the network connected to the VPN.

Issue #8: Lack of strong access management

Ensuring that only rightful users have access to private company resources is a foundational component of cyber security. Yet as these users and their privileges continuously evolve, maintaining strong access management can be time-consuming and difficult.

Out of all the users in the network, the accounts to which the most attention should be paid are those with administrator or root privileges. While it is common to keep a tight control on high-privilege accounts, there are still organizations that find it hard to manage the access control well, making their devices more vulnerable to both malware and insider threats. In fact, even well-intentioned insiders can jeopardize the organization in the absence of strong access management, such as employees who download unauthorized software without understanding its associated risks.

Darktrace has a list of models to detect the unusual usage of credentials, including:

User / New Admin Credentials on Client
User / Overactive User Credential
SaaS / Unusual SaaS Administration

Issue #9: TFTP Usage

Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) is an application layer protocol commonly employed to transfer files between devices. Due to its relatively simplistic design and easy implementation, TFTP was very popular in the past. In the context of today’s sophisticated cyber-threats, however, TFTP has become highly insecure. Among the protocol’s numerous weaknesses from a cyber hygiene perspective is its lack of authentication mechanisms, a flaw which allows essentially anyone to read and write resources on the exposed device.

Darktrace’s Compliance / External TFTP model enables network administrators to detect any incoming TFTP connections from external IP addresses that don’t normally connect to the network. Crucially, Darktrace AI’s understanding what constitutes “normal” versus “abnormal” for each particular network serves to differentiate the most serious threats, as TFTP connections from a rare IP address are much more likely to be malicious than similar connections between known IP addresses on the network.

TFTP is just one example of insecure protocol usage – Darktrace monitors for the abnormal usage of various other attack-prone protocols as well. Another example is Telnet.

Issue #10: Unencrypted data transferred between internal and external devices

While encrypting communication can be a hassle, cleartext messages are liable to be intercepted or even altered by malicious actors — with potentially devastating ramifications. Indeed, Darktrace’s Compliance / FTP / Unusual Outbound FTP model has frequently flagged credentials being sent via unencrypted channels, which attackers could have used to access privileged resources within the company’s network.

In the first few months of 2019, Darktrace detected an unusual connection made to an external device on port 1414 using the IBM WebSphere MQ Protocol. When potentially sensitive information was transmitted in cleartext, Darktrace AI alerted the customer in real time.

Figure 2: Packet capture showing that potential sensitive information was captured

Sacrificing convenience for security in these most egregious cases remains the foundation of robust cyber hygiene, whether that means not torrenting Shrek 2 on a work laptop or taking inventory of the smart juicer in the office kitchen. Of course, just as no perimeter defenses are formidable enough to keep motivated attackers at bay, so too is there no level of due diligence sufficient to close off all possible attack vectors or ensure that all employees are compliant with internal policies. With cyber AI defenses like Darktrace, security teams have an extra set of eyes watching out for poor cyber hygiene practices across the entire digital infrastructure, empowering them to grow those infrastructures with confidence.

‍

Written by

Max Heinemeyer

Global Field CISO

Inside the SOC

Written by

Max Heinemeyer

Global Field CISO

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

July 2, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

‍

Vulnerabilities are weaknesses in a system that can be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access or to disrupt normal operations. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (or CVEs) are a list of publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities that can be tracked and mitigated by the security community.

When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.

With a record-breaking 40,000 CVEs reported for 2024 and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) [1], anomaly-detection is essential for identifying these potential risks. The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems. Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.

‍For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.

Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.

Below are ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

Often, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender: attack vs patch.

Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security. After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.

Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].

The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].

Autonomous Response

Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.

For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.

This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.

In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.

For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.

Conclusion

By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.

Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Blog

Network

June 27, 2025

Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)

What is Blind Eagle?

Since 2018, APT-C-36, also known as Blind Eagle, has been observed performing cyber-attacks targeting various sectors across multiple countries in Latin America, with a particular focus on Colombian organizations.

Blind Eagle characteristically targets government institutions, financial organizations, and critical infrastructure [1][2].

Attacks carried out by Blind Eagle actors typically start with a phishing email and the group have been observed utilizing various Remote Access Trojans (RAT) variants, which often have in-built methods for hiding command-and-control (C2) traffic from detection [3].

What we know about Blind Eagle from a recent campaign

Since November 2024, Blind Eagle actors have been conducting an ongoing campaign targeting Colombian organizations [1].

In this campaign, threat actors have been observed using phishing emails to deliver malicious URL links to targeted recipients, similar to the way threat actors have previously been observed exploiting CVE-2024-43451, a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that allows the disclosure of a user’s NTLMv2 password hash upon minimal interaction with a malicious file [4].

Despite Microsoft patching this vulnerability in November 2024 [1][4], Blind Eagle actors have continued to exploit the minimal interaction mechanism, though no longer with the intent of harvesting NTLMv2 password hashes. Instead, phishing emails are sent to targets containing a malicious URL which, when clicked, initiates the download of a malicious file. This file is then triggered by minimal user interaction.

Clicking on the file triggers a WebDAV request, with a connection being made over HTTP port 80 using the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19044’. WebDAV is a transmission protocol which allows files or complete directories to be made available through the internet, and to be transmitted to devices [5]. The next stage payload is then downloaded via another WebDAV request and malware is executed on the target device.

Attackers are notified when a recipient downloads the malicious files they send, providing an insight into potential targets [1].

Darktrace’s coverage of Blind Eagle

In late February 2025, Darktrace observed activity assessed with medium confidence to be associated with Blind Eagle on the network of a customer in Colombia.

Within a period of just five hours, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device being redirected through a rare external location, downloading multiple executable files, and ultimately exfiltrating data from the customer’s environment.

Since the customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network, no actions were taken to contain the compromise, allowing it to escalate until the customer’s security team responded to the alerts provided by Darktrace.

Darktrace observed a device on the customer’s network being directed over HTTP to a rare external IP, namely 62[.]60[.]226[.]112, which had never previously been seen in this customer’s environment and was geolocated in Germany. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) providers have since linked this endpoint with phishing and malware campaigns [9].

The device then proceeded to download the executable file hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to an unusual location based in Germany.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device downloading an executable file from the suspicious endpoint.

The device was then observed making unusual connections to the rare endpoint 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and performing unusual external data activity.

This dynamic DNS endpoint allows a device to access an endpoint using a domain name in place of a changing IP address. Dynamic DNS services ensure the DNS record of a domain name is automatically updated when the IP address changes. As such, malicious actors can use these services and endpoints to dynamically establish connections to C2 infrastructure [6].

Further investigation into this dynamic endpoint using OSINT revealed multiple associations with previous likely Blind Eagle compromises, as well as Remcos malware, a RAT commonly deployed via phishing campaigns [7][8][10].

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to the suspicious dynamic DNS endpoint, 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com.

Shortly after this, Darktrace observed the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045’, indicating usage of the aforementioned transmission protocol WebDAV. The device was subsequently observed connected to an endpoint associated with Github and downloading data, suggesting that the device was retrieving a malicious tool or payload. The device then began to communicate to the malicious endpoint diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com over the new TCP port 1512 [11].

Around this time, the device was also observed uploading data to the endpoints 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com, with transfers of 60 MiB and 5.6 MiB observed respectively.

Figure 4: UI graph showing external data transfer activity.

This chain of activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK. These high-priority model alerts are designed to trigger in response to higher fidelity indicators of compromise (IoCs), suggesting that a device is performing activity consistent with a compromise.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of initial attack chain activity.

A second Enhanced Monitoring model was also triggered by this device following the download of the aforementioned executable file (hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe) and the observed increase in C2 activity.

Following this activity, Darktrace continued to observe the device beaconing to the 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com endpoint.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to correlate each of the individual detections involved in this compromise, identifying them as part of a broader incident that encompassed C2 connectivity, suspicious downloads, and external data transfers.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into the activity observed on the affected device.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of the affected device’s broader connectivity throughout the course of the attack.

As the affected customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response configured at the time, the attack was able to progress unabated. Had Darktrace been properly enabled, it would have been able to take a number of actions to halt the escalation of the attack.

For example, the unusual beaconing connections and the download of an unexpected file from an uncommon location would have been shut down by blocking the device from making external connections to the relevant destinations.

Conclusion

The persistence of Blind Eagle and ability to adapt its tactics, even after patches were released, and the speed at which the group were able to continue using pre-established TTPs highlights that timely vulnerability management and patch application, while essential, is not a standalone defense.

Organizations must adopt security solutions that use anomaly-based detection to identify emerging and adapting threats by recognizing deviations in user or device behavior that may indicate malicious activity. Complementing this with an autonomous decision maker that can identify, connect, and contain compromise-like activity is crucial for safeguarding organizational networks against constantly evolving and sophisticated threat actors.

Credit to Charlotte Thompson (Senior Cyber Analyst), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

IoCs

IoC – Type - Confidence
Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045 – User Agent

62[.]60[.]226[.]112 – IP – Medium Confidence

hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe – Payload Download – Medium Confidence

21ene.ip-ddns[.]com – Dynamic DNS Endpoint – Medium Confidence

diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com - Hostname – Medium Confidence

Darktrace’s model alert coverage

Anomalous File / Suspicious HTTP Redirect
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint
Device / Anomalous Github Download
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
Device / Large Number of Model Alert

Mitre Attack Mapping:

Tactic – Technique – Technique Name

Initial Access - T1189 – Drive-by Compromise
Initial Access - T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
Initial Access ICS - T0862 – Supply Chain Compromise
Initial Access ICS - T0865 – Spearphishing Attachment
Initial Access ICS - T0817 - Drive-by Compromise
Resource Development - T1588.001 – Malware
Lateral Movement ICS - T0843 – Program Download
Command and Control - T1105 - Ingress Tool Transfer
Command and Control - T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol
Command and Control - T1571 – Non-Standard Port
Command and Control - T1568.002 – Domain Generation Algorithms
Command and Control ICS - T0869 – Standard Application Layer Protocol
Evasion ICS - T0849 – Masquerading
Exfiltration - T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Exfiltration - T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage