Blog

Inside the SOC

Multi-Account Compromise in Office 365

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
25
May 2022
25
May 2022
Learn how internal phishing can compromise accounts swiftly & how Darktrace/Apps can prevent future attacks effectively.

In February 2022, Darktrace detected the compromise of three SaaS accounts within a customer’s Office 365 environment. This incident provides an effective use case for highlighting how Darktrace/Apps and Darktrace/Email can work together to alert to unusual logins, app permission changes, new email rules and outbound spam. It also emphasizes an instance where Darktrace RESPOND/Apps could have been set to autonomous mode and stopped additional compromise.

Account Compromise Timeline

February 9 2022

Account A was logged into from a rare IP from Nigeria with the BAV2ROPC user agent which is commonly associated with SaaS account attacks. BAV2ROPC stands for ‘Basic Authentication Version 2 Resource Owner Password Credential’ and is commonly used by old email apps such as iOS Mail. It is often seen in SaaS/email account compromises where accounts have ‘legacy authentication’ enabled. This is because, even if multi-factor authentication (MFA) is activated, legacy protocols like IMAP/POP3 are not configured for MFA and so do not result in an MFA notification being sent.[1][2]

Account A then created a new email rule which was named as a single full stop. Attackers commonly create new email rules to give themselves persistent access by using the ability to forward certain emails to external email accounts they own. This means that even if the account’s password is changed or MFA is turned on, the attacker keeps getting the forwarded emails as long as the rule remains in place. In this case, the attacker configured the new email rule using the following fields and features:

  • AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob – hides any warning messages when using Outlook on the web or Powershell to edit inbox rules. It is likely that the attacker had a set list of commands to run and didn’t want to be slowed down in the exploitation of the account by having to click confirmation messages.
  • Force – hides warning or confirmation messages.
  • MoveToFolder – moves emails to a folder. This is often used to move bounced emails away from the inbox in order to hide the fact the account is being used to send emails by the attacker.
  • Name – specifies the name of the rule, in this case a single full stop.
  • SubjectOrBodyContainsWords – emails with key words are actioned.
  • StopProcessingRules – determines whether subsequent rules are processed if the conditions of this rule are met. It is likely in this case the attacker set this to false so that any subsequent rules would still be processed to avoid raising suspicion.

Account A was then observed giving permission to the email management app Spike. This was likely to allow the rapid automated exploitation of the compromised account. Attackers want to speed up this process to reduce the time between account compromise and malicious use of the account, thus reducing the time security teams have to respond.

Figure 1: Screenshot from SaaS console showing the timeline of giving consent to the email management application Spike and the creation of the new inbox rule

The account was then observed sending 794 emails over a 15 minute period to both internal and external recipients. These emails shared similar qualities including the same subject line and related phishing links. This mass spam was likely due to the attacker wanting to compromise as many accounts and credentials as possible within the shortest timeframe. The domain of the link sent in the emails was spikenow[.]com and was hidden by the text ‘View Shared Link’. This suggests that the attacker used Spike to send the emails and host the phishing link.

Figure 2: Screenshot of AGE UI showing the spike in outbound messages from the compromised account – the messages all appear to be the same format
Figure 3: Screenshot from Darktrace/Email of the link and text that masked the link: ‘View Shared File’

Within 15 minutes of this large volume of outbound email from Account A, Account B was accessed from the same rare IP located in Nigeria. Account B also created a new email rule which was named a single full stop. In addition to the previous rules, the following rules were observed:

  • From – specifies that emails from certain addresses will be processed by the rule.
  • MarkAsRead – specifies that emails are to be marked as read.

Due to the short timeframe between the phishing emails and the anomalous behavior from Account B, it is possible that Account B was an initial phishing victim.

Figure 4: Screenshot of the SaaS console showing Account B login failures, then successful login and inbox rule creation from the rare Nigerian IP

February 10 2022

The next day, a third account (Account C) was also accessed from the same rare IP. This occurred on two occasions, once with the user agent Mozilla/5.0 and once with BAV2ROPC. After the login at 13:08 with BAV2ROPC, the account gave the same permission as Account A to the email management app Spike. It then created what appears to be the same email rule, named a single full stop. As with Account B, it is possible that this account was compromised by one of the phishing emails sent by Account A.

Figure 5: Timeline of key incidents with Darktrace/Apps actions

Whilst the motive of the threat actor was unclear, this may have been the result of:

  • Credential harvesting for future use against the organization or to sell to a third party.
  • Possible impersonation of compromised users on professional websites (LinkedIn, Indeed) to phish further company accounts:
  • Fake accounts of one user were discovered on LinkedIn.
  • Emails registering for Indeed for this same user were seen during compromise.

How did the attack bypass the rest of the security stack?

  • Compromised Office 365 credentials, combined with the use of the user agent BAV2ROPC meant MFA could not stop the suspicious login.
  • RESPOND was in Human Confirmation Mode and was therefore not confirmed to take autonomous action, showing only the detections. Disabling Account A would likely have prevented the phishing emails and the subsequent compromise of Accounts B and C.
  • The organization was not signed up to Darktrace Proactive Threat Notifications or Ask The Expert services which could have allowed further triage from Darktrace SOC analysts.

Cyber AI Analyst Investigates

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst automates investigations at speed and scale, prioritizing relevant incidents and creating actionable insights, allowing security teams to rapidly understand and act against a threat.

In this case, AI Analyst automatically investigated all three account compromises, saving time for the customer’s security team and allowing them to quickly investigate the incident themselves in more detail. The technology also highlighted some of the viewed files by the compromised accounts which was not immediately obvious from the model breaches alone.

Figure 6: Screenshot of AI Analyst for Account A
Figure 7: Screenshot of AI Analyst for Account B
Figure 8: Screenshot of AI Analyst for Account C

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions

The organization in question did not have RESPOND/Apps configured in Active Mode, and so it did not take any action in this case. The table below shows the critical defensive actions RESPOND would have taken.[3]

Nonetheless, we can see what actions RESPOND would have taken, and when, had the technology been enabled.

The above tables illustrate that all three users would have been disabled during the incident had RESPOND been active. The highlighted row shows that Account A would have been disabled when the internal phishing emails were sent and possibly then prevented the cascade of compromised email accounts (B and C).

Conclusion

SaaS accounts greatly increase a company’s attack surface. Not only is exploitation of compromised accounts quick, but a single compromised account can easily lead to further compromises via an internal phishing campaign. Together this reinforces the ongoing need for autonomous and proactive security to complement existing IT teams and reduce threats at the point of compromise. Whilst disabling ‘legacy authentication’ for all accounts and providing MFA would give some extra protection, Darktrace/Apps has the ability to block all further infection.

Credit to: Adam Stevens and Anthony Wong for their contributions.

Appendix

List of Darktrace Model Detections

User A – February 9 2022

  • 04:55:51 UTC | SaaS / Access / Suspicious Login User-Agent
  • 04:55:51 UTC | SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use
  • 04:55:52 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS and Email Activity Block
  • 04:55:52 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block
  • 14:16:48 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule
  • 14:16:48 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • 14:16:49 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Significant Compliance Activity Block
  • 14:16:49 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block
  • 14:45:06 UTC | IaaS / Admin / Azure Application Administration Activities
  • 14:45:07 UTC | SaaS / Admin / OAuth Permission Grant
  • 14:45:07 UTC | Device / Multiple Model Breaches
  • 14:45:08 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities
  • 15:03:25 UTC | SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam
  • 15:03:25 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Outbound Email Spam

User B – February 9 2022

  • 15:18:21 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule
  • 15:18:21 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • 15:18:22 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Significant Compliance Activity Block
  • 15:18:22 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

User C – February 10 2022

  • 14:25:20 UTC | SaaS / Admin / OAuth Permission Grant
  • 14:38:09 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule
  • 14:38:09 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • 14:38:10 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Significant Compliance Activity Block
  • 14:38:10 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

Refrences

1. https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/phishing#section_3

2. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-scammers-bypass-office-365-mfa-in-bec-attacks/

3. https://customerportal.darktrace.com/product-guides/main/antigena-saas-inhibitors

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.
AUTHOR
ABOUT ThE AUTHOR
Laura Leyland
Cyber Analyst
Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
share this article
USE CASES
No items found.
PRODUCT SPOTLIGHT
No items found.
COre coverage
No items found.

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

No items found.

What you need to know about the new SEC Cybersecurity rules

Default blog imageDefault blog image
17
Jul 2024

What is new in 2023 to SEC cybersecurity rules?

Form 8-K Item 1.05: Requiring the timely disclosure of material cybersecurity incidents.

Regulation S-K item 106: requiring registrants’ annual reports on Form 10-K to address cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance processes.

Comparable disclosures are required for reporting foreign private issuers on Forms 6-K and 20-F respectively.

What is Form 8-K Item 1.05 SEC cybersecurity rules?

Form 8-K Item 1.05 requires the following to be reported within four business days from when an incident is determined to be “material” (1), unless extensions are granted by the SEC under certain qualifying conditions:

“If the registrant experiences a cybersecurity incident that is determined by the registrant to be material, describe the material aspects of the nature, scope, and timing of the incident, and the material impact or reasonably likely material impact on the registrant, including its financial condition and results of operations.” (2, 3)

How does the SEC define cybersecurity incident?

Cybersecurity incident defined by the SEC means an unauthorized occurrence, or a series of related unauthorized occurrences, on or conducted through a registrant’s information systems that jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a registrant’s information systems or any information residing therein. (4)

How can Darktrace assist in the process of disclosing incidents to the SEC?

Accelerate reporting

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst generates automated reports that synthesize discrete data points potentially indicative of cybersecurity threats, forming reports that provide an overview of the evolution and impact of a threat.

Thus, when a potential threat is identified by Darktrace, AI Analyst can quickly compile information that organizations might include in their disclosure of an occurrence they determined to be material, including the following: incident timelines, incident events, incident summary, related model breaches, investigation process (i.e., how Darktrace’s AI conducted the investigation), linked incident events, and incident details. The figure below illustrates how Darktrace compiles and presents incident information and insights in the UI.

Overview of information provided in an ‘AI Analyst Report’ that could be relevant to registrants reporting a material cybersecurity incident to the SEC
Figure 1: Overview of information provided in an ‘AI Analyst Report’ that could be relevant to registrants reporting a material cybersecurity incident to the SEC

It should be noted that Instruction 4 to the new Form 8-K Item 1.05 specifies the “registrant need not disclose specific or technical information about its planned response to the incident or its cybersecurity systems, related networks and devices, or potential system vulnerabilities in such detail as would impede the registrant’s response or remediation of the incident” (5).

As such, the incident report generated by Darktrace may provide more information, including technical details, than is needed for the 8-K disclosure. In general, users should take appropriate measures to ensure that the information they provide in SEC reports meets the requirements outlined by the relevant regulations. Darktrace cannot recommend that an incident should be reported, nor report an incident itself.

Determine if a cybersecurity incident is material

Item 1.05 requires registrants to determine for themselves whether cybersecurity incidents qualify as ‘material’. This involves considerations such as ‘the nature scope and timing of the incident, and the material impact or reasonably likely material impact on the registrant, including its financial condition and results of operations.’

While it is up to the registrant to determine, consistent with existing legal standards, the materiality of an incident, Darktrace’s solution can provide relevant information which might aid in this evaluation. Darktrace’s Threat Visualizer user interface provides a 3-D visualization of an organization’s digital environment, allowing users to assess the likely degree to which an attack may have spread throughout their digital environment. Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst identifies connections among discrete occurrences of threatening activity, which can help registrants quickly assess the ‘scope and timing of an incident'.

Furthermore, in order to establish materiality it would be useful to understand how an attack might extend across recipients and environments. In the image below, Darktrace/Email identifies how a user was impacted across different platforms. In this example, Darktrace/Email identified an attacker that deployed a dual channel social engineering attack via both email and a SaaS platform in an effort to acquire login credentials. In this case, the attacker useding a legitimate SharePoint link that only reveals itself to be malicious upon click. Once the attacker gained the credentials, it proceeded to change email rules to obfuscate its activity.

Darktrace/Email presents this information in one location, making such investigations easier for the end user.

Darktrace/Email indicating a threat across SaaS and email
Figure 2: Darktrace/Email indicating a threat across SaaS and email

What is regulation S-K item 106 of the SEC cybersecurity rules?

The new rules add Item 106 to Regulation S-K requiring registrants to disclose certain information regarding their risk management, strategy, and governance relating to cybersecurity in their annual reports on Form 10-K. The new rules add Item 16K to Form 20-F to require comparable disclosure by [foreign private issuers] in their annual reports on Form 20-F. (6)

SEC cybersecurity rules: Risk management

Specifically, with respect to risk management, Item 106(b) and Item 16K(b) require registrants to describe their processes, if any, for assessing, identifying, and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats, as well as whether any risks from cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any previous cybersecurity incidents, have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect them. The new rules include a non-exclusive list of disclosure items registrants should provide based on their facts and circumstances. (6)

SEC cybersecurity rules: Governance

With respect to governance, Item 106 and Item 16K require registrants to describe the board of directors’ oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats (including identifying any board committee or subcommittee responsible for such oversight) and management’s role in assessing and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats. (6)

How can Darktrace solutions aid in disclosing their risk management, strategy, and governance related to cybersecurity?

Impact scores

Darktrace End-to-End (E2E) leverages AI to understand the complex relationships across users and devices to model possible attack paths, giving security teams a contextual understanding of risk across their digital environments beyond isolated CVEs or CVSS scores. Additionally, teams can prioritize risk management actions to increase their cyber resilience through the E2E Advisory dashboard.

Attack paths consider:

  • Potential damages: Both the potential consequences if a given device was compromised and its immediate implications on other devices.
  • Exposure: Devices' level of interactivity and accessibility. For example, how many emails does a user get via mailing lists and from what kind of sources?
  • Impact: Where a user or asset sits in terms of the IT or business hierarchy and how they communicate with each other. Darktrace can simulate a range of possible outcomes for an uncertain event.
  • Weakness: A device’s patch latency and difficulty, a composite metric that looks at attacker MITRE methods and our own scores to determine how hard each stage of compromise is to achieve.

Because the SEC cybersecurity rules require “oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats” and “management’s role in assessing and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats” (6), the scores generated by Darktrace E2E can aid end-user’s ability to identify risks facing their organization and assign responsibilities to address those risks.

E2E attack paths leverage a deep understanding of a customer’ digital environment and highlight potential attack routes that an attacker could leverage to reach critical assets or entities. Difficulty scores (see Figure 5) allow security teams to measure potential damage, exposure, and impact of an attack on a specific asset or entity.

An example of an attack path in a digital environment
Figure 3: An example of an attack path in a digital environment

Automatic executive threat reports

Darktrace’s solution automatically produces Executive Threat Reports that present a simple visual overview of model breaches (i.e., indicators of unusual and threatening behaviors) and activity in the network environment. Reports can be customized to include extra details or restricted to high level information.

These reports can be generated on a weekly, quarterly, and yearly basis, and can be documented by registrants in relation to Item 106(b) to document parts of their efforts toward assessing, identifying, and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats.

Moreover, Cyber AI Analyst incident reports (described above) can be leveraged to document key details concerning significant previous incidents identified by the Darktrace solution that the registrant determined to be ‘material’.

While the disclosures required by Item 106(c) relate to the governance processes by which the board of directors, the management, and other responsible bodies within an organization oversee risks resulting from cybersecurity threats, the information provided by Darktrace’s Executive Threat Reports and Cyber AI Analyst incident reports can also help relevant stakeholders communicate more effectively regarding the threat landscape and previous incidents.

DISCLAIMER

The material above is provided for informational purposes only. This summary does not constitute legal or compliance advice, recommendations, or guidance. Darktrace encourages you to verify the contents of this summary with your own advisors.

References

  1. Note that the rule does not set forth any specific timeline between the incident and the materiality determination, but the materiality determination should be made without unreasonable delay.
  2. https://www.sec.gov/files/form8-k.pdf
  3. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-139
  4. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-229
  5. https://www.sec.gov/files/form8-k.pdf
  6. https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/secg-cybersecurity
Continue reading
About the author
Kendra Gonzalez Duran
Director of Technology Innovation

Blog

Inside the SOC

Hashing out TA577: Darktrace’s Detection of NTLM Hash Theft

Default blog imageDefault blog image
09
Jul 2024

What is credential theft and how does it work?

What began as a method to achieve unauthorized access to an account, often driven by the curiosity of individual attackers, credentials theft become a key tactic for malicious actors and groups, as stolen login credentials can be abused to gain unauthorized access to accounts and systems. This access can be leveraged to carry out malicious activities such as data exfiltration, fraud, espionage and malware deployment.

It is therefore no surprise that the number of dark web marketplaces selling privileged credentials has increased in recent years, making it easier for malicious actors to monetize stolen credentials [1]. This, in turn, has created new opportunities for threat actors to use increasingly sophisticated tactics such as phishing, social engineering and credential stuffing in their attacks, targeting individuals, organizations and government entities alike [1].

Credential theft example

TA577 Threat Actor

TA577 is a threat actor known to leverage stolen credentials, also known as Hive0118 [2], an initial access broker (IAB) group that was previously known for delivering malicious payloads [2]. On March 4, 2024, Proofpoint reported evidence of TA577 using a new attack chain with a different aim in mind: stealing NT LAN Manager (NTLM) hashes that can be used to authenticate to systems without needing to know plaintext passwords [3].

How does TA577 steal credentials?

Proofpoint reported that this new attack chain, which was first observed on February 26 and 27, was made up of two distinct campaigns. The first campaign consisted of a phishing attack featuring tens of thousands of emails targeting hundreds of organizations globally [3]. These phishing emails often appeared as replies to previous messages (thread hijacking) and contained zipped HTML attachments that each contained a unique file hash, customized for each recipient [3]. These attached files also contained a HTTP Meta refresh function, which triggered an automatic connection to a text file hosted on external IP addresses running as SMB servers [3].

When attempting to access the text file, the server requires an SMB session authentication via NTLM. This session is initiated when a client sends an ‘SMB_COM_NEGOTIATE’ request to the server, which answers with a ‘SMB_COM_NEGOTIATE’ response.

The client then proceeds to send a ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ request to start the SMB session setup process, which includes initiating the NTLM authentication process. The server responds with an ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ response, which includes an NTLM challenge message [6].

The client can then use the challenge message and its own credentials to generate a response by hashing its password using an NTLM hash algorithm. The response is sent to the server in an ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ request. The server validates the response and, if the authentication is successful, the server answers with a final ‘SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX’ response, which completes the session setup process and allows the client to access the file listed on the server [6].

What is the goal of threat actor TA577?

As no malware delivery was detected during these sessions, researchers have suggested that the aim of TA577 was not to deliver malware, but rather to take advantage of the NTLMV2 challenge/response to steal NTLM authentication hashes [3] [4]. Hashes stolen by attackers can be exploited in pass-the-hash attacks to authenticate to a remote server or service [4]. They can also be used for offline password cracking which, if successful, could be utilized to escalate privileges or perform lateral movement through a target network [4]. Under certain circumstances, these hashes could also permit malicious actors to hijack accounts, access sensitive information and evade security products [4].

The open-source toolkit Impacket, which includes modules for password cracking [5] and which can be identified by the default NTLM server challenge “aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”[3], was observed during the SMB sessions. This indicates that TA577 actor aim to use stolen credentials for password cracking and pass-the-hash attacks.

TA577 has previously been associated with Black Basta ransomware infections and Qbot, and has been observed delivering various payloads including IcedID, SystemBC, SmokeLoader, Ursnif, and Cobalt Strike [2].This change in tactic to follow the current trend of credential theft may indicate that not only are TA577 actors aware of which methods are most effective in the current threat landscape, but they also have monetary and time resources needed to create new methods to bypass existing detection tools [3].  

Darktrace’s Coverage of TA577 Activity

On February 26 and 26, coinciding with the campaign activity reported by Proofpoint, Darktrace/Email™ observed a surge of inbound emails from numerous suspicious domains targeting multiple customer environments. These emails consistently included zip files with seemingly randomly generated names, containing HTLM content and links to an unusual external IP address [3].

A summary of anomaly indicators seen for a campaign email sent by TA577, as detected by Darktrace/Email.
Figure 1: A summary of anomaly indicators seen for a campaign email sent by TA577, as detected by Darktrace/Email.
Details of the name and size of the .zip file attached to a campaign email, along with the Darktrace/Email model alerts triggered by the email.
Figure 2: Details of the name and size of the .zip file attached to a campaign email, along with the Darktrace/Email model alerts triggered by the email.

The URL of these links contained an unusually named .txt file, which corresponds with Proofpoint reports of the automatic connection to a text file hosted on an external SMB server made when the attachment is opened [3].

A link to a rare external IP address seen within a campaign email, containing an unusually named .txt file.
Figure 3: A link to a rare external IP address seen within a campaign email, containing an unusually named .txt file.

Darktrace identified devices on multiple customer networks connecting to external SMB servers via the SMB protocol. It understood this activity was suspicious as the SMB protocol is typically reserved for internal connections and the endpoint in question had never previously been observed on the network.

The Event Log of a ‘Compliance / External Windows Communication’ model alert showing a connection to an external SMB server on destination port 445.
Figure 4: The Event Log of a ‘Compliance / External Windows Communication’ model alert showing a connection to an external SMB server on destination port 445.
External Sites Summary highlighting the rarity of the external SMB server.
Figure 5: External Sites Summary highlighting the rarity of the external SMB server.
External Sites Summary highlightin that the SMB server is geolocated in Moldova.
Figure 6: External Sites Summary highlightin that the SMB server is geolocated in Moldova.

During these connections, Darktrace observed multiple devices establishing an SMB session to this server via a NTLM challenge/response, representing the potential theft of the credentials used in this session. During this session, some devices also attempted to access an unusually named .txt file, further indicating that the affected devices were trying to access the .txt file hosted on external SMB servers [3].

Packet captures (PCAPs) of these sessions show the default NTLM server challenge, indicating the use of Impacket, suggesting that the captured NTLM hashes were to be used for password cracking or pass-the-hash-attacks [3]

PCAP analysis showing usage of the default NTLM server challenge associated with Impacket.
Figure 7: PCAP analysis showing usage of the default NTLM server challenge associated with Impacket.

Conclusions

Ultimately, Darktrace’s suite of products effectively detected and alerted for multiple aspects of the TA577 attack chain and NTLM hash data theft activity across its customer base. Darktrace/Email was able to uncover the inbound phishing emails that served as the initial access vector for TA577 actors, while Darktrace DETECT identified the subsequent external connections to unusual external locations and suspicious SMB sessions.

Furthermore, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach enabled it to detect suspicious TA577 activity across the customer base on February 26 and 27, prior to Proofpoint’s report on their new attack chain. This showcases Darktrace’s ability to identify emerging threats based on the subtle deviations in a compromised device’s behavior, rather than relying on a static list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) or ‘known bads’.

This approach allows Darktrace to remain one step ahead of increasingly adaptive threat actors, providing organizations and their security teams with a robust AI-driven solution able to safeguard their networks in an ever-evolving threat landscape.

Credit to Charlotte Thompson, Cyber Analyst, Anna Gilbertson, Cyber Analyst.

References

1)    https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/what-is-credential-theft/

2)    https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/actor/ta577

3)    https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta577s-unusual-attack-chain-leads-ntlm-data-theft

4)    https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-steal-windows-ntlm-authentication-hashes-in-phishing-attacks/

5)    https://pawanjswal.medium.com/the-power-of-impacket-a-comprehensive-guide-with-examples-1288f3a4c674

6)    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-nlmp/c083583f-1a8f-4afe-a742-6ee08ffeb8cf

7)    https://www.hivepro.com/threat-advisory/ta577-targeting-windows-ntlm-hashes-in-global-campaigns/

Darktrace Model Detections

Darktrace/Email

·       Attachment / Unsolicited Archive File

·       Attachment / Unsolicited Attachment

·       Link / New Correspondent Classified Link

·       Link / New Correspondent Rare Link

·       Spoof / Internal User Similarities

Darktrace DETECT

·       Compliance / External Windows Communications

Darktrace RESPOND

·       Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

176.123.2[.]146 - IP address -Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.2[.]33 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.1[.]161 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

104.129.20[.]167 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.1[.]160 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

85.239.33[.]149 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

89.117.2[.]34 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

146.19.213[.]36 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

66.63.188[.]19 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

103.124.104[.]76 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

103.124.106[.]224 - IP address - Likely malicious SMB Server

\5aohv\9mn.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\hvwsuw\udrh.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\zkf2rj4\VmD.txt = SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\naams\p3aV.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\epxq\A.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

\dbna\H.txt - SMB Path and File - SMB Path and File

MAGNAMSB.zip – Filename - Phishing Attachment

e751f9dddd24f7656459e1e3a13307bd03ae4e67 - SHA1 Hash - Phishing Attachment

OMNIS2C.zip  - Filename - Phishing Attachment

db982783b97555232e28d5a333525118f10942e1 - SHA1 Hash - Phishing Attachment

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - NTLM Server Challenge -Impacket Default NTLM Challenge

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs)

Tactic - Technique

TA0001            Initial Access

TA0002            Execution

TA0008            Lateral Movement

TA0003            Persistence

TA0005            Defense Evasion

TA0006            Credential Access

T1021.002       SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021  Remote Services

T1566.001       Spearfishing Attachment

T1566  Phishing

T1204.002       Malicious File

T1204  User Execution

T1021.002       SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1574  Hijack Execution Flow

T1021  Remote Services

T1555.004       Windows Credential Manager

T1555  Credentials from Password Stores

Continue reading
About the author
Charlotte Thompson
Cyber Analyst
Our ai. Your data.

Elevate your cyber defenses with Darktrace AI

Start your free trial
Darktrace AI protecting a business from cyber threats.