How Darktrace’s AI Applies a Zero-Trust Mentality within Critical Infrastructure Supply Chains
07
Aug 2024
Darktrace prevented a Critical National Infrastructure organization from falling victim to a SharePoint phishing attack originating from one of its trusted suppliers. This blog discusses common perceptions of zero-trust in email security, how AI that uses anomaly-based threat detection embodies core zero-trust principles and the relevance of this approach to securing CNI bodies with complex but interdependent supply chains from Cloud account compromise.
Note: In order to name anonymity, real organization names have been replaced, all names used in this blog are fictitious.
What are critical national infrastructure sectors?
Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) sectors encompass of assets, systems, and networks essential to the functioning of society. Any disruption or destruction of these sectors could have wide-reaching and potentially disastrous effects on a country’s economy, security and/or healthcare services [1].
Cyber risks across Transportation Systems sector
Transportation Systems is one such CNI sector comprising of interconnected networks of fixed and mobile assets managed by both public and private operators. These systems are highly interdependent with other CNI sectors too. As such, the digital technologies this sector relies on – such as positioning and tracking, signaling, communications, industrial system controls, and data and business management – are often interconnected through different networks and remote access terminals. This interconnectedness creates multiple entry points that need to be security across the supply.
Digital transformation has swept through CNI sectors in recent years, including Transportation Systems. These organizations are now increasingly dependent on third-party and cloud providers for data storage and transmission, making their supply chains vulnerable to exploitation by malicious actors [2].
The exploitation of legitimate and popular cloud services mirrors the well-known “living-off-the-land” techniques, which are not being adapted to the cloud along with the resources they support. In one recent case previously discussed by Darktrace, for example, a phishing attack attempted to abuse Dropbox to deliver malicious payloads.
Zero-Trust within CNI Sectors
One recommended approach to secure an organization’s supply chain and cloud environments is the implementation of zero-trust strategies, which remove inherent trust within the network [3] [4]. The principle of “never trust, always verify” is widely recognized as an architectural design, with 63% of organizations surveyed by Gartner reportedly implementing a zero-trust strategy, but in most cases to less than 50% of their environments [5]
Although this figure reflects the reality and challenge of balancing operations and security, demands from the threat landscape and supply chain risks mean that organizations must adopt zero-trust principles in areas not traditionally considered part of network architecture, such as email and cloud environments.
Email is often the primary entry point for cyber-attacks with Business Email Compromise (BEC) being a major threat to CNI organizations. However, the application of zero-trust principles to secure email environments is still not well understood. Common misconceptions include:
“Positively identifying known and trusted senders” – Maintaining a list of “known and trusted senders” contradicts the zero-trust model, which assumes that no entity is inherently trustworthy.
“Using DMARC, DKIM and SPF” – While these protocols offer some protection, they are often insufficient on their own, as they can be bypassed and do not protect against email account takeovers. Research published from Darktrace’s last two threat reports consistently shows that at least 60% of phishing emails detected by Darktrace had bypassed Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) [6] [7].
“Mapping transaction flows between internal and external users to determine what access is required/not required” – Although this aligns with the principles of least privilege, it is too static for today’s dynamic supply chains and evolving digital infrastructure. This approach also suggests the existence of “trusted” access routes into a network.
Attack Overview
In July 2024, Darktrace / EMAIL™ detected and contained a sophisticated phishing attack leveraging Microsoft SharePoint. This attack exploited the trusted relationship between a Darktrace customer in the public transport sector and a compromised supplier. Traditional methods, such as those detailed above, would likely have failed to defend against such an advanced threat. However, Darktrace’s behavioral analysis and zero-trust approach to email security allowed it to successfully identify and neutralize the attack, preventing any potential disruption.
Initial Intrusion Attempt
The observed phishing attack by Darktrace would suggest that the customer’s supplier was targeted by a similar campaign beforehand. This initial breach likely allowed the attacker to use the now compromised account as a vector to compromise additional accounts and networks.
On July 9, Darktrace / EMAIL identified a significant spike in inbound emails from “supplier@engineeringcompany[.]com”. The emails appeared to be legitimate notifications sent via SharePoint and contained a file named “Payment Applications Docs”.
Figure 1: Email correspondence in the weeks around the phishing attack. The sender is an established correspondent with ongoing communications prior to and after the attack, however there is a significant spike in incoming emails on the day of the attack.
This reflects a common technique in malicious social engineering attempts, where references to payment are used to draw attention and prompt a response. Darktrace observed a large number of recipients within the organization receiving the same file, suggesting that the motive was likely credential harvesting rather than financial gain. Financially motivated attacks typically require a more targeted, ‘under-the-radar’ approach to be successful.
These phishing emails were able to bypass the customer’s email gateways as they were sent from a trusted and authoritative source, SharePoint, and utilized an email address with which the customer had previously corresponded. The compromised account was likely whitelisted by traditional email security tools that rely on SPF, DKIM, and DMAC, allowing the malicious emails to evade detection.
Autonomous Response
Figure 2: Darktrace / EMAIL analysis of the unusual characteristics of the phishing email in relation to the supplier’s typical behavior, despite the email originating from a legitimate SharePoint notification.
However, Darktrace / EMAIL did not use these static rules to automatically trust the email. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI detected the following anomalies:
Although the sender was known, it was not normal for the supplier to share files with the customer via SharePoint.
The supplier initiated an unusually large number of file shares in a short period of time, indicating potential spam activity.
The SharePoint link had wide access permissions, which is unusual for a sensitive payment document legitimately shared between established contacts.
Darktrace understood that the email activity constituted a significant deviation in expected behavior between the sender and customer, regardless of the known sender and use of a legitimate filesharing platform like SharePoint.
As a result, Darktrace took action to hold more than 100 malicious emails connected to the phishing attack, preventing them from landing in recipient inboxes in the first instance. By taking a behavioral approach to securing customer email environments, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI embodies the principles of zero trust, assessing each interaction in real-time against a user’s dynamic baseline rather than relying on static and often inaccurate rules to define trust.
Conclusion
Cloud services, such as SharePoint, offer significant advantages to the transportation sector by streamlining data exchange with supply chain partners and facilitating access to information for analytics and planning. However, these benefits come with notable risks. If a cloud account is compromised, unauthorized access to sensitive information could lead to extortion and lateral movement into mission-critical systems for more damaging attacks on CNI. Even a brief disruption in cloud access can have severe economic repercussions due to the sector’s dependence on these services for resource coordination and the cascading impacts on other critical systems [9].
While supply chain resilience is often evaluated based on a supplier’s initial compliance with baseline standards, organizations must be wary of potential future threats and focus on post-implementation security. It is essential for organizations to employ strategies to protect their assets from attacks that would exploit vulnerabilities within the trusted supply chain. Given that CNI and the transportation sector are prime targets for state-sponsored actors and Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups, the complex and interconnected nature of their supply chains opens the door for opportunistic attackers.
Defenders face the challenge of ensuring secure access and collaboration across numerous, dynamic assets, often without full visibility. Therefore, security solutions must be as dynamic as the threats they face, avoiding reliance on static rules. Real-time assessment of devices behavior, even if deemed trusted by end-users and human security teams, is crucial for maintaining security.
Darktrace’s AI-driven threat detection aligns with the zero-trust principle of assuming the risk of a breach. By leveraging AI that learns an organization’s specific patterns of life, Darktrace provides a tailored security approach ideal for organizations with complex supply chains.
Credit to Nicole Wong, Senior Cyber Analyst Consultant and Ryan Traill, Threat Content Lead
Appendices
Darktrace Model Detections
Key model alerts:
Personalized Sharepoint Share + New Unknown Link
Personalized Sharepoint Share + Bad Display Text
Personalized Sharepoint Share + Distant Recipient Interaction with Domain
Personalized Sharepoint Share + Sender Surge
Personalized Sharepoint Share + Wide Access Sharepoint Link
MITRE ATT&CK Mapping
Resource Development • Compromise Accounts: Cloud Accounts • T1586.003
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Newsletter
Enjoying the blog?
Sign up to receive the latest news and insights from the Darktrace newsletter – delivered directly to your inbox
Thanks for signing up!
Look out for your first newsletter, coming soon.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
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.
There’s no question that AI is already impacting the SOC – augmenting, assisting, and filling the gaps left by staff and skills shortages. We surveyed over 1,500 cybersecurity professionals from around the world to uncover their attitudes to AI cybersecurity in 2025. Our findings revealed striking trends in how AI is changing the way security leaders think about hiring and SOC transformation. Download the full report for the big picture, available now.
Let’s start with some context. As the cybersecurity sector has rapidly evolved to integrate AI into all elements of cyber defense, the pace of technological advancement is outstripping the development of necessary skills. Given the ongoing challenges in security operations, such as employee burnout, high turnover rates, and talent shortages, recruiting personnel to bridge these skills gaps remains an immense challenge in today’s landscape.
But here, our main findings on this topic seem to contradict each other.
There’s no question over the impact of AI-powered threats – nearly three-quarters (74%) agree that AI-powered threats now pose a significant challenge for their organization.
When we look at how security leaders are defending against AI-powered threats, over 3 out of 5 (62%) see insufficient personnel to manage tools and alerts as the biggest barrier.
Yet at the same time, increasing cyber security staff is at the bottom of the priority list for survey participants, with only 11% planning to increase cybersecurity staff in 2025 – less than in 2024. What 64% of stakeholders are committed to, however, is adding new AI-powered tools onto their existing security stacks.
The conclusion? Due to pressures around hiring, defensive AI is becoming integral to the SOC as a means of augmenting understaffed teams.
How is AI plugging skills shortages in the SOC?
As explored in our recent white paper, the CISO’s Guide to Navigating the Cybersecurity Skills Shortage, 71% of organizations report unfilled cybersecurity positions, leading to the estimation that less than 10% of alerts are thoroughly vetted. In this scenario, AI has become an essential multiplier to relieve the burden on security teams.
95% of respondents agree that AI-powered solutions can significantly improve the speed and efficiency of their defenses. But how?
The area security leaders expect defensive AI to have the biggest impact is on improving threat detection, followed by autonomous response to threats and identifying exploitable vulnerabilities.
Interestingly, the areas that participants ranked less highly (reducing alert fatigue and running phishing simulation), are the tasks that AI already does well and can therefore be used already to relieve the burden of manual, repetitive work on the SOC.
Different perspectives from different sides of the SOC
CISOs and SecOps teams aren’t necessarily aligned on the AI defense question – while CISOs tend to see it as a strategic game-changer, SecOps teams on the front lines may be more sceptical, wary of its real-world reliability and integration into workflows.
From the data, we see that while less than a quarter of execs doubt that AI-powered solutions will block and automatically respond to AI threats, about half of SecOps aren’t convinced. And only 17% of CISOs lack confidence in the ability of their teams to implement and use AI-powered solutions, whereas over 40% those in the team doubt their own ability to do so.
This gap feeds into the enthusiasm that executives share about adding AI-driven tools into the stack, while day-to-day users of the tools are more interested in improving security awareness training and improving cybersecurity tool integration.
Levels of AI understanding in the SOC
AI is only as powerful as the people who use it, and levels of AI expertise in the SOC can make or break its real-world impact. If security leaders want to unlock AI’s full potential, they must bridge the knowledge gap—ensuring teams understand not just the different types of AI, but where it can be applied for maximum value.
Only 42% of security professionals are confident that they fully understand all the types of AI in their organization’s security stack.
This data varies between job roles – executives report higher levels of understanding (60% say they know exactly which types of AI are being used) than participants in other roles. Despite having a working knowledge of using the tools day-to-day, SecOps practitioners were more likely to report having a “reasonable understanding” of the types of AI in use in their organization (42%).
Whether this reflects a general confidence in executives rather than technical proficiency it’s hard to say, but it speaks to the importance of AI-human collaboration – introducing AI tools for cybersecurity to plug the gaps in human teams will only be effective if security professionals are supported with the correct education and training.
The full report for Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity is out now. Download the paper to dig deeper into these trends, and see how results differ by industry, region, organization size, and job title.
Darktrace's Detection of State-Linked ShadowPad Malware
An integral part of cybersecurity is anomaly detection, which involves identifying unusual patterns or behaviors in network traffic that could indicate malicious activity, such as a cyber-based intrusion. However, attribution remains one of the ever present challenges in cybersecurity. Attribution involves the process of accurately identifying and tracing the source to a specific threat actor(s).
Given the complexity of digital networks and the sophistication of attackers who often use proxies or other methods to disguise their origin, pinpointing the exact source of a cyberattack is an arduous task. Threat actors can use proxy servers, botnets, sophisticated techniques, false flags, etc. Darktrace’s strategy is rooted in the belief that identifying behavioral anomalies is crucial for identifying both known and novel threat actor campaigns.
The ShadowPad cluster
Between July 2024 and November 2024, Darktrace observed a cluster of activity threads sharing notable similarities. The threads began with a malicious actor using compromised user credentials to log in to the target organization's Check Point Remote Access virtual private network (VPN) from an attacker-controlled, remote device named 'DESKTOP-O82ILGG'. In one case, the IP from which the initial login was carried out was observed to be the ExpressVPN IP address, 194.5.83[.]25. After logging in, the actor gained access to service account credentials, likely via exploitation of an information disclosure vulnerability affecting Check Point Security Gateway devices. Recent reporting suggests this could represent exploitation of CVE-2024-24919 [27,28]. The actor then used these compromised service account credentials to move laterally over RDP and SMB, with files related to the modular backdoor, ShadowPad, being delivered to the ‘C:\PerfLogs\’ directory of targeted internal systems. ShadowPad was seen communicating with its command-and-control (C2) infrastructure, 158.247.199[.]185 (dscriy.chtq[.]net), via both HTTPS traffic and DNS tunneling, with subdomains of the domain ‘cybaq.chtq[.]net’ being used in the compromised devices’ TXT DNS queries.
Figure 1: Darktrace’s Advanced Search data showing the VPN-connected device initiating RDP connections to a domain controller (DC). The device subsequently distributes likely ShadowPad-related payloads and makes DRSGetNCChanges requests to a second DC.
Figure 2: Event Log data showing a DC making DNS queries for subdomains of ‘cbaq.chtq[.]net’ to 158.247.199[.]185 after receiving SMB and RDP connections from the VPN-connected device, DESKTOP-O82ILGG.
Additional cases of ShadowPad were observed across Darktrace’s customer base in 2024. In some cases, common C2 infrastructure with the cluster discussed above was observed, with dscriy.chtq[.]net and cybaq.chtq[.]net both involved; however, no other common features were identified. These ShadowPad infections were observed between April and November 2024, with customers across multiple regions and sectors affected. Darktrace’s observations align with multiple other public reports that fit the timeframe of this campaign.
Darktrace has also observed other cases of ShadowPad without common infrastructure since September 2024, suggesting the use of this tool by additional threat actors.
The data theft thread
One of the Darktrace customers impacted by the ShadowPad cluster highlighted above was a European manufacturer. A distinct thread of activity occurred within this organization’s network several months after the ShadowPad intrusion, in October 2024.
The thread involved the internal distribution of highly masqueraded executable files via Sever Message Block (SMB) and WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation), the targeted collection of sensitive information from an internal server, and the exfiltration of collected information to a web of likely compromised sites. This observed thread of activity, therefore, consisted of three phrases: lateral movement, collection, and exfiltration.
The lateral movement phase began when an internal user device used an administrative credential to distribute files named ‘ProgramData\Oracle\java.log’ and 'ProgramData\Oracle\duxwfnfo' to the c$ share on another internal system.
Figure 3: Darktrace model alert highlighting an SMB write of a file named ‘ProgramData\Oracle\java.log’ to the c$ share on another device.
Over the next few days, Darktrace detected several other internal systems using administrative credentials to upload files with the following names to the c$ share on internal systems:
ProgramData\Adobe\ARM\webservices.dll
ProgramData\Adobe\ARM\wksprt.exe
ProgramData\Oracle\Java\wksprt.exe
ProgramData\Oracle\Java\webservices.dll
ProgramData\Microsoft\DRM\wksprt.exe
ProgramData\Microsoft\DRM\webservices.dll
ProgramData\Abletech\Client\webservices.dll
ProgramData\Abletech\Client\client.exe
ProgramData\Adobe\ARM\rzrmxrwfvp
ProgramData\3Dconnexion\3DxWare\3DxWare.exe
ProgramData\3Dconnexion\3DxWare\webservices.dll
ProgramData\IDMComp\UltraCompare\updater.exe
ProgramData\IDMComp\UltraCompare\webservices.dll
ProgramData\IDMComp\UltraCompare\imtrqjsaqmm
Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst highlighting an SMB write of a file named ‘ProgramData\Adobe\ARM\webservices.dll’ to the c$ share on an internal system.
The threat actor appears to have abused the Microsoft RPC (MS-RPC) service, WMI, to execute distributed payloads, as evidenced by the ExecMethod requests to the IWbemServices RPC interface which immediately followed devices’ SMB uploads.
Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst data highlighting a thread of activity starting with an SMB data upload followed by ExecMethod requests.
Several of the devices involved in these lateral movement activities, both on the source and destination side, were subsequently seen using administrative credentials to download tens of GBs of sensitive data over SMB from a specially selected server. The data gathering stage of the threat sequence indicates that the threat actor had a comprehensive understanding of the organization’s system architecture and had precise objectives for the information they sought to extract.
Immediately after collecting data from the targeted server, devices went on to exfiltrate stolen data to multiple sites. Several other likely compromised sites appear to have been used as general C2 infrastructure for this intrusion activity. The sites used by the threat actor for C2 and data exfiltration purport to be sites for companies offering a variety of service, ranging from consultancy to web design.
Figure 6: Screenshotof one of the likely compromised sites used in the intrusion.
At least 16 sites were identified as being likely data exfiltration or C2 sites used by this threat actor in their operation against this organization. The fact that the actor had such a wide web of compromised sites at their disposal suggests that they were well-resourced and highly prepared.
Figure 7: Darktrace model alert highlighting an internal device slowly exfiltrating data to the external endpoint, yasuconsulting[.]com.
Figure 8: Darktrace model alert highlighting an internal device downloading nearly 1 GB of data from an internal system just before uploading a similar volume of data to another suspicious endpoint, www.tunemmuhendislik[.]com
Cyber AI Analyst spotlight
Figure 9: Cyber AI Analyst identifying and piecing together the various steps of a ShadowPad intrusion.
Figure 10: Cyber AI Analyst Incident identifying and piecing together the various steps of the data theft activity.
As shown in the above figures, Cyber AI Analyst’s ability to thread together the different steps of these attack chains are worth highlighting.
In the ShadowPad attack chains, Cyber AI Analyst was able to identify SMB writes from the VPN subnet to the DC, and the C2 connections from the DC. It was also able to weave together this activity into a single thread representing the attacker’s progression.
Similarly, in the data exfiltration attack chain, Cyber AI Analyst identified and connected multiple types of lateral movement over SMB and WMI and external C2 communication to various external endpoints, linking them in a single, connected incident.
These Cyber AI Analyst actions enabled a quicker understanding of the threat actor sequence of events and, in some cases, faster containment.
Attribution puzzle
Publicly shared research into ShadowPad indicates that it is predominantly used as a backdoor in People’s Republic of China (PRC)-sponsored espionage operations [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Most publicly reported intrusions involving ShadowPad are attributed to the China-based threat actor, APT41 [11][12]. Furthermore, Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) recently shared their assessment that ShadowPad usage is restricted to clusters associated with APT41 [13]. Interestingly, however, there have also been public reports of ShadowPad usage in unattributed intrusions [5].
The data theft activity that later occurred in the same Darktrace customer network as one of these ShadowPad compromises appeared to be the targeted collection and exfiltration of sensitive data. Such an objective indicates the activity may have been part of a state-sponsored operation. The tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), artifacts, and C2 infrastructure observed in the data theft thread appear to resemble activity seen in previous Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)-linked intrusion activities [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].
The distribution of payloads to the following directory locations appears to be a relatively common behavior in DPRK-sponsored intrusions.
Observed examples:
C:\ProgramData\Oracle\Java\
C:\ProgramData\Adobe\ARM\
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\DRM\
C:\ProgramData\Abletech\Client\
C:\ProgramData\IDMComp\UltraCompare\
C:\ProgramData\3Dconnexion\3DxWare\
Additionally, the likely compromised websites observed in the data theft thread, along with some of the target URI patterns seen in the C2 communications to these sites, resemble those seen in previously reported DPRK-linked intrusion activities.
No clear evidence was found to link the ShadowPad compromise to the subsequent data theft activity that was observed on the network of the manufacturing customer. It should be noted, however, that no clear signs of initial access were found for the data theft thread – this could suggest the ShadowPad intrusion itself represents the initial point of entry that ultimately led to data exfiltration.
Motivation-wise, it seems plausible for the data theft thread to have been part of a DPRK-sponsored operation. DPRK is known to pursue targets that could potentially fulfil its national security goals and had been publicly reported as being active in months prior to this intrusion [21]. Furthermore, the timing of the data theft aligns with the ratification of the mutual defense treaty between DPRK and Russia and the subsequent accused activities [20].
Darktrace assesses with medium confidence that a nation-state, likely DPRK, was responsible, based on our investigation, the threat actor applied resources, patience, obfuscation, and evasiveness combined with external reporting, collaboration with the cyber community, assessing the attacker’s motivation and world geopolitical timeline, and undisclosed intelligence.
Conclusion
When state-linked cyber activity occurs within an organization’s environment, previously unseen C2 infrastructure and advanced evasion techniques will likely be used. State-linked cyber actors, through their resources and patience, are able to bypass most detection methods, leaving anomaly-based methods as a last line of defense.
Two threads of activity were observed within Darktrace’s customer base over the last year: The first operation involved the abuse of Check Point VPN credentials to log in remotely to organizations’ networks, followed by the distribution of ShadowPad to an internal domain controller. The second operation involved highly targeted data exfiltration from the network of one of the customers impacted by the previously mentioned ShadowPad activity.
Despite definitive attribution remaining unresolved, both the ShadowPad and data exfiltration activities were detected by Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI, with Cyber AI Analyst playing a significant role in identifying and piecing together the various steps of the intrusion activities.
Credit to Sam Lister (R&D Detection Analyst), Emma Foulger (Principal Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (VP), and the Darktrace Threat Research team.
Appendices
Darktrace / NETWORK model alerts
User / New Admin Credentials on Client
Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session
Compliance / SMB Drive Write
Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches
.jpg)
.jpeg)
![Event Log data showing a DC making DNS queries for subdomains of ‘cbaq.chtq[.]net’ to 158.247.199[.]185 after receiving SMB and RDP connections from the VPN-connected device, DESKTOP-O82ILGG.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/67d1dbda2020b168dc1d83c2_Screenshot%202025-03-12%20at%2012.07.41%E2%80%AFPM.png)
![Darktrace model alert highlighting an internal device slowly exfiltrating data to the external endpoint, yasuconsulting[.]com.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/67d1dd09fe9cf54a67c48f13_Screenshot%202025-03-12%20at%2012.14.04%E2%80%AFPM.png)
![Darktrace model alert highlighting an internal device downloading nearly 1 GB of data from an internal system just before uploading a similar volume of data to another suspicious endpoint, www.tunemmuhendislik[.]com](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/67d1dd45f3743ebe06d81d89_Screenshot%202025-03-12%20at%2012.14.46%E2%80%AFPM.png)
