Bytesize Security: A Guide to HTML Phishing Attachments
10
Aug 2022
Darktrace guides you through the common signs of HTML phishing attachments, including common phishing emails, clever impersonations, fake webpages, and more.
One of the most common types of phishing email seen by the Darktrace SOC, involves the use of HTML attachments (Figure 1). These emails make use of an attachment to hide redirects to overtly malicious or suspicious domains. Some even impersonate legitimate web pages and send any entered or captured information back to the attacker's infrastructure once opened or filled out by the recipient. Indicators of these attempts can be identified from a few key patterns found across multiple emails.
Figure 1: An example of a suspicious HTML attachment containing dynamic content
A typical feature of these HTML attachments is the use of a generic-sounding filename that relates to the message's subject line, but with no specific information pertaining to the recipient or their line of business. These files almost always contain some form of Javascript code, as they often make use of external Javascript libraries to accomplish whatever goal is being pursued. For example, an attacker might use Javascript to convincingly impersonate a trustworthy website and trick the recipient into providing credentials or sensitive information, or they might use it to deploy malware and get a foothold on the device for further compromise once opened. This can be further identified by the presence of certain links in the HTML file itself (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The HTML file previously referenced contained multiple rare and suspicious links
Figure 2 above is an example of an HTML file containing multiple links with calls for .js files. This shows that the attachment contains Javascript and is making calls for external libraries for an undetermined purpose.
Another common red flag is when the file contains links to common Product or Service images from domains wholly unrelated to those services, as seen below (Figure 3).
Figure 3: An example of an unusual .png call from a rare domain. The subsequent image called is for a company with no apparent relation to the hosting domain
The examples above imply an obvious (and poor) attempt by the HTML file to impersonate a Microsoft webpage, likely a fake login page set up for credential harvesting, as the ‘Microsoft’ logo is being pulled from a domain entirely unrelated to Microsoft or any common image-hosting service.
Rather than impersonating a website directly in the file and loading resources from external sources, these HTML files will instead directly point toward a webpage that already contains these elements. This comes with its own set of pros and cons: by hosting their phishing page in a public setting, they are far more likely to be taken down, however it may be easier to appear legitimate than if they were to build it all out in the HTML file itself.
The final routine element in these types of HTML phishing emails is the mechanism by which the attacker intends to receive any successfully scammed credentials or information. If the fake webpage is entirely contained in the HTML file, this often presents as a suspicious PHP link present in the file itself (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Phishing HTMLs often include links to rare domains with PHP destinations as an indication that it will engage in some form of HTTP POST communication
PHP calls suggest that some part of the webpage is intended to submit an HTTP POST or equivalent ‘submission’ call, often present in the ‘Login’ button in these scenarios. After the victim clicks this button, the webpage sends all the form-submission items to the endpoint hosting the PHP page, which is commonly an indicator of the webserver hosting the attacker infrastructure running the phishing attack.
If the HTML file redirects to an externally hosted phishing page, identical PHP links are often found in the source code of those pages (Figure 5). This serves the same function as sending any entered credentials back to the attacker.
Figure 5: The source-code of an external-hosted phishing page, showing calls for PHP pages hosted on alternate attacker infrastructure
The process of HTML attacks is so standardized that they are commonly released in the form of easily deployable phishing kits. These can be deployed on unsuspecting compromised webservers with little to no modification, resulting in virtually identical attacks being seen year-round. WordPress seems to be a prime target for hosting such attacks, with the site owners often becoming unsuspecting victims in propagating these phishing campaigns. An unfortunate side effect of these kits being readily available is that the attackers often don't bother to set any sort of access restrictions on their phishing servers once established, which can result in their entire setup being publicly viewable with a simple link modification. One example is seen below (Figure 6).
Figure 6: The parent directory of the website hosting a suspicious PHP page was fully accessible without restriction
In this incident, the website hosting the PHP link seen earlier had a publicly accessible parent directory structure, where both the PHP file above and an additional suspicious .txt file could be seen. This .txt file appears to be where any information submitted by victims ultimately ended up written to (Figure 7).
Figure 7: The TXT file in the parent directory above appeared to contain the login information that was likely submitted to the PHP page referred to in the initial HTML attachment
Figure 7 above presents the unusual risk of not only having the victims’ credentials at the disposal of the original attacker, but also potentially exposed to any malicious actor that can get creative with a web-crawler to identify key elements of the files used by these particular phishing kits.
Fortunately, due to the standardized nature of these ready-made phishing kits, these types of attacks often conform to a series of common behaviors that Darktrace / EMAIL excels in identifying. Despite being a popular technique, it is extremely rare for attempts using this HTML attachment method to successfully get through a correct Darktrace / EMAIL deployment. Overall, this means one less risk for the end user to worry about.
Like this and want more?
Receive the latest blog in your inbox
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Newsletter
Like this and want more?
Stay up to date on the latest industry news and insights.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
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.
Lifting the Fog: Darktrace’s Investigation into Fog Ransomware
Introduction to Fog Ransomware
As ransomware attacks continue to be launched at an alarming rate, Darktrace’s Threat Research team has identified that familiar strains like Akira, LockBit, and BlackBasta remain among the most prevalent threats impacting its customers, as reported in the First 6: Half-Year Threat Report 2024. Despite efforts by law agencies, like dismantling the infrastructure of cybercriminals and shutting down their operations [2], these groups continue to adapt and evolve.
As such, it is unsurprising that new ransomware variants are regularly being created and launched to get round law enforcement agencies and increasingly adept security teams. One recent example of this is Fog ransomware.
What is Fog ransomware?
Fog ransomware is strain that first appeared in the wild in early May 2024 and has been observed actively using compromised virtual private network (VPN) credentials to gain access to organization networks in the education sector in the United States.
Darktrace's detection of Fog Ransomware
In June 2024, Darktrace observed instances of Fog ransomware across multiple customer environments. The shortest time observed from initial access to file encryption in these attacks was just 2 hours, underscoring the alarming speed with which these threat actors can achieve their objectives.
Darktrace identified key activities typical of a ransomware kill chain, including enumeration, lateral movement, encryption, and data exfiltration. In most cases, Darktrace was able to successfully halt the progression Fog attacks in their early stages by applying Autonomous Response actions such as quarantining affected devices and blocking suspicious external connections.
To effectively illustrate the typical kill chain of Fog ransomware, this blog focuses on customer environments that did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response enabled. In these cases, the attack progressed unchecked and reached its intended objectives until the customer received Darktrace’s alerts and intervened.
Darktrace’s Coverage of Fog Ransomware
Initial Intrusion
After actors had successfully gained initial access into customer networks by exploiting compromised VPN credentials, Darktrace observed a series of suspicious activities, including file shares, enumeration and extensive scanning. In one case, a compromised domain controller was detected making outgoing NTLM authentication attempts to another internal device, which was subsequently used to establish RDP connections to a Windows server running Hyper-V.
Given that the source was a domain controller, the attacker could potentially relay the NTLM hash to obtain a domain admin Kerberos Ticket Granting Ticket (TGT). Additionally, incoming NTLM authentication attempts could be triggered by tools like Responder, and NTLM hashes used to encrypt challenge response authentication could be abused by offline brute-force attacks.
Darktrace also observed the use of a new administrative credential on one affected device, indicating that malicious actors were likely using compromised privileged credentials to conduct relay attacks.
Establish Command-and-Control Communication (C2)
In many instances of Fog ransomware investigated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team, devices were observed making regular connections to the remote access tool AnyDesk. This was exemplified by consistent communication with the endpoint “download[.]anydesk[.]com” via the URI “/AnyDesk.exe”. In other cases, Darktrace identified the use of another remote management tool, namely SplashTop, on customer servers.
In ransomware attacks, threat actors often use such legitimate remote access tools to establish command-and-control (C2) communication. The use of such services not only complicates the identification of malicious activities but also enables attackers to leverage existing infrastructure, rather than having to implement their own.
Internal Reconnaissance
Affected devices were subsequently observed making an unusual number of failed internal connections to other internal locations over ports such as 80 (HTTP), 3389 (RDP), 139 (NetBIOS) and 445 (SMB). This pattern of activity strongly indicated reconnaissance scanning behavior within affected networks. A further investigation into these HTTP connections revealed the URIs “/nice ports”/Trinity.txt.bak”, commonly associated with the use of the Nmap attack and reconnaissance tool.
Simultaneously, some devices were observed engaging in SMB actions targeting the IPC$ share and the named pipe “srvsvc” on internal devices. Such activity aligns with the typical SMB enumeration tactics, whereby attackers query the list of services running on a remote host using a NULL session, a method often employed to gather information on network resources and vulnerabilities.
Lateral Movement
As attackers attempted to move laterally through affected networks, Darktrace observed suspicious RDP activity between infected devices. Multiple RDP connections were established to new clients, using devices as pivots to propagate deeper into the networks, Following this, devices on multiple networks exhibited a high volume of SMB read and write activity, with internal share drive file names being appended with the “.flocked” extension – a clear sign of ransomware encryption. Around the same time, multiple “readme.txt” files were detected being distributed across affected networks, which were later identified as ransom notes.
Further analysis of the ransom note revealed that it contained an introduction to the Fog ransomware group, a summary of the encryption activity that had been carried out, and detailed instructions on how to communicate with the attackers and pay the ransom.
Figure 1: Packet capture (PCAP) of the ransom note file titled “readme.txt”.
Data Exfiltration
In one of the cases of Fog ransomware, Darktrace’s Threat Research team observed potential data exfiltration involving the transfer of internal files to an unusual endpoint associated with the MEGA file storage service, “gfs302n515[.]userstorage[.]mega[.]co[.]nz”.
This exfiltration attempt suggests the use of double extortion tactics, where threat actors not only encrypt victim’s data but also exfiltrate it to threaten public exposure unless a ransom is paid. This often increases pressure on organizations as they face the risk of both data loss and reputational damage caused by the release of sensitive information.
Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst autonomously investigated what initially appeared to be unrelated events, linking them together to build a full picture of the Fog ransomware attack for customers’ security teams. Specifically, on affected networks Cyber AI Analyst identified and correlated unusual scanning activities, SMB writes, and file appendages that ultimately suggested file encryption.
Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst’s analysis of encryption activity on one customer network.
Figure 3: Cyber AI Analysts breakdown of the investigation process between the linked incident events on one customer network.
Conclusion
As novel and fast-moving ransomware variants like Fog persist across the threat landscape, the time taken for from initial compromise to encryption has significantly decreased due to the enhanced skill craft and advanced malware of threat actors. This trend particularly impacts organizations in the education sector, who often have less robust cyber defenses and significant periods of time during which infrastructure is left unmanned, and are therefore more vulnerable to quick-profit attacks.
Traditional security methods may fall short against these sophisticated attacks, where stealthy actors evade detection by human-managed teams and tools. In these scenarios Darktrace’s AI-driven product suite is able to quickly detect and respond to the initial signs of compromise through autonomous analysis of any unusual emerging activity.
When Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was active, it swiftly mitigated emerging Fog ransomware threats by quarantining devices exhibiting malicious behavior to contain the attack and blocking the exfiltration of sensitive data, thus preventing customers from falling victim to double extortion attempts.
Credit to Qing Hong Kwa (Senior Cyber Analyst and Deputy Analyst Team Lead, Singapore) and Ryan Traill (Threat Content Lead
Appendices
Darktrace Model Detections:
- Anomalous Server Activity::Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
- Anomalous Connection::SMB Enumeration
- Anomalous Connection::Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB
- Anomalous Connection::Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
- Anomalous File::Internal::Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
What you need to know about FAA Security Protection Regulations 2024
Overview of FAA Rules 2024
Objective
The goal of the Federal Aviation Administration amended rules is to create new design standards that protect airplane systems from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions (IUEI), which can pose safety risks. The timely motivation for this goal is due to the ongoing trend in aircraft design, which features a growing integration of airplane, engine, and propeller systems, along with expanded connectivity to both internal and external data networks and services.
“This proposed rulemaking would impose new design standards to address cybersecurity threats for transport category airplanes, engines, and propellers. The intended effect of this proposed action is to standardize the FAA’s criteria for addressing cybersecurity threats, reducing certification costs and time while maintaining the same level of safety provided by current special conditions.” (1)
Background
Increasing integration of aircraft systems with internal and external networks raises cybersecurity vulnerability concerns.
Key vulnerabilities include:
Field Loadable Software
Maintenance laptops
Public networks (e.g., Internet)
Wireless sensors
USB devices
Satellite communications
Portable devices and flight bags
Requirements for Applicants
Applicants seeking design approval must:
Provide isolation or protection from unauthorized access
Prevent inadvertent or malicious changes to aircraft systems
Establish procedures to maintain cybersecurity protections
Purpose
“These changes would introduce type certification and continued airworthiness requirements to protect the equipment, systems, and networks of transport category airplanes, engines, and propellers against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions (IUEI)1 that could create safety hazards. Design approval applicants would be required to identify, assess, and mitigate such hazards, and develop Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) that would ensure such protections continue in service.” (1)
Key points:
Introduce new design standards to address cybersecurity threats for transport category airplanes, engines, and propellers.
Aim to reduce certification costs and time while maintaining safety levels similar to current special conditions
Applicant Responsibilities for Identifying, Assessing, and Mitigating IUEI Risks
The proposed rule requires applicants to safeguard airplanes, engines, and propellers from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions (IUEI). To do this, they must:
Identify and assess risks: Find and evaluate any potential electronic threats that could harm safety.
Mitigate risks: Take steps to prevent these threats from causing problems, ensuring the aircraft remain safe and functional.
Let’s break down each of the requirements:
Performing risk analysis
“For such identification and assessment of security risk, the applicant would be required to perform a security risk analysis to identify all threat conditions associated with the system, architecture, and external or internal interfaces.”(3)
Challenge
The complexity and variety of OT devices make it difficult and time-consuming to identify and associate CVEs with assets. Security teams face several challenges:
Prioritization Issues: Sifting through extensive CVE lists to prioritize efforts is a struggle.
Patch Complications: Finding corresponding patches is complicated by manufacturer delays and design flaws.
Operational Constraints: Limited maintenance windows and the need for continuous operations make it hard to address vulnerabilities, often leaving them unresolved for years.
Inadequate Assessments: Standard CVE assessments may not fully capture the risks associated with increased connectivity, underscoring the need for a contextualized risk assessment approach.
This highlights the need for a more effective and tailored approach to managing vulnerabilities in OT environments.
Assessing severity of risks
“The FAA would expect such risk analysis to assess the severity of the effect of threat conditions on associated assets (system, architecture, etc.), consistent with the means of compliance the applicant has been using to meet the FAA’s special conditions on this topic.” (3)
Challenge
As shown by the MITRE ATT&CK® Techniques for ICS matrices, threat actors can exploit many avenues beyond just CVEs. To effectively defend against these threats, security teams need a broader perspective, considering lateral movement and multi-stage attacks.
Challenges in Vulnerability Management (VM) cycles include:
Initiation: VM cycles often start with email updates from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), listing new CVEs from the NIST database.
Communication: Security practitioners must survey and forward CVE lists to networking teams at facilities that might be running the affected assets. Responses from these teams are inconsistent, leading vulnerability managers to push patches that may not fit within limited maintenance windows.
Asset Tracking: At many OT locations, determining if a company is running a specific firmware version can be extremely time-consuming. Teams often rely on spreadsheets and must perform manual checks by physically visiting production floors ("sneaker-netting").
Coordination: Plant engineers and centralized security teams must exchange information to validate asset details and manually score vulnerabilities, further complicating and delaying remediation efforts.
Determine likelihood of exploitation
“Such assessment would also need to analyze these vulnerabilities for the likelihood of exploitation.” (3)
Challenge
Even when a vulnerability is identified, its actual impact can vary significantly based on the specific configurations, processes, and technologies in use within the organization. This creates challenges for OT security practitioners:
Risk Assessment: Accurately assessing and prioritizing the risk becomes difficult without a clear understanding of how the vulnerability affects their unique systems.
Decision-Making: Practitioners may struggle to determine whether immediate action is necessary, balancing the risk of operational downtime against the need for security.
Potential Consequences: This uncertainty can lead to either leaving critical systems exposed or causing unnecessary disruptions by applying measures that aren't truly needed.
This complexity underscores the challenge of making informed, timely decisions in OT security environments.
Vulnerability mitigation
“The proposed regulation would then require each applicant to 'mitigate' the vulnerabilities, and the FAA expects such mitigation would occur through the applicant’s installation of single or multilayered protection mechanisms or process controls to ensure functional integrity, i.e., protection.” (3)
Challenge
OT security practitioners face a constant challenge in balancing security needs with the requirement to maintain operational uptime. In many OT environments, especially in critical infrastructure, applying security patches can be risky:
Risk of Downtime: Patching can disrupt essential processes, leading to significant financial losses or even safety hazards.
Operational Continuity vs. Security: Practitioners often prioritize operational continuity, sometimes delaying timely security updates.
Alternative Strategies: To protect systems without direct patching, they must implement compensating controls, further complicating security efforts.
This delicate balance between security and uptime adds complexity to the already challenging task of securing OT environments.
Establishing procedures/playbooks
“Finally, each applicant would be required to include the procedures within their instructions for continued airworthiness necessary to maintain such protections.” (3)
Challenge
SOC teams typically have a lag before their response, leading to a higher dwell time and bigger overall costs. On average, only 15% of the total cost of ransomware is affiliated with the ransom itself (2). The rest is cost from business interruption. This means it's crucial that organizations can respond and recover earlier.
Darktrace / OT enabling compliance and enhanced cybersecurity
Darktrace's OT solution addresses the complex challenges of cybersecurity compliance in Operational Technology (OT) environments by offering a comprehensive approach to risk management and mitigation.
Key risk management features include:
Contextualized Risk Analysis: Darktrace goes beyond traditional vulnerability scoring, integrating IT, OT, and CVE data with MITRE techniques to map critical attack paths. This helps in identifying and prioritizing vulnerabilities based on their exposure, difficulty of exploitation, and network impact.
Guidance on Remediation: When patches are unavailable, Darktrace provides alternative strategies to bolster defenses around vulnerable assets, ensuring unpatched systems are not left exposed—a critical need in OT environments where operational continuity is essential.
AI-Driven Adaptability: Darktrace's AI continuously adapts to your organization as it grows; refining incident response playbooks bespoke to your environment in real-time. This ensures that security teams have the most up-to-date, tailored strategies, reducing response times and minimizing the impact of security incidents.
Ready to learn more?
Darktrace / OT doesn’t just offer risk management capabilities. It is the only solution that leverages Self-Learning AI to understand your normal business operations, allowing you to detect and stop insider, known, unknown, and zero-day threats at scale.
Dive deeper into how Darktrace / OT secures critical infrastructure organizations with in-depth insights on its advanced capabilities. Download the Darktrace / OT Solution Brief to explore the technology behind its AI-driven protection and see how it can transform your OT security strategy.
