How Malware Abused Sixt.com and Breitling.com | Darktrace
06
Mar 2018
06
Mar 2018
See how Darktrace neutralized an advanced malware infection on a customer's devices by pinpointing the source of communication and anomalous behavior.
Introduction
Last month Darktrace identified an advanced malware infection on a customer’s device, which used a sophisticated Command & Control (C2) channel to communicate with the attacker. The attacker spent a lot of effort in engineering a C2 channel that was meant to stay covert for months.
The malware used changing domains generated by Domain Generation Algorithms (DGAs). It also sent HTTP POST requests to malicious IP addresses while using reputable domain names for the hostname of the HTTP requests in order to blend in with normal web browsing. The attacker effectively tried to make the C2 communication look like a user browsing the well-known car rental website sixt.com and the luxury watch manufacturer breitling.com. Without using blacklists or signatures, Darktrace instantly identified this anomalous behavior, and as a result, the security team immediately isolated the infected device.
Beaconing to DGA websites
A laptop appeared on the network and made anomalous HTTP requests. The initial HTTP requests were made to the DGA domain tequbvchrjar[.]com on IP address 66.220.23[.]114. Within the next two days, several hundred HTTP POST requests were made to either this domain or to jckdxdvvm[.]com or cqyegwug[.]com, all hosted on the IP 66.220.23[.]114. Darktrace identified this behavior as beaconing – repeated connections often used in C2 communication – to DGA-domains.
What made this even more suspicious is that the POST requests used 5 different Internet Explorer User Agents for the HTTP requests. This was unusual behavior for the laptop as Darktrace had previously only observed Google Chrome User Agents. Darktrace’s unsupervised machine learning identified the User Agents as new and in conjunction with the DGA-domains as unusual activity.
The beaconing followed a steady pattern during afternoon to evening hours when the laptop was being used. This is visualized in the following graph over several days:
Malicious beaconing to reputable domains
In addition to beaconing to the DGA-domains, the device made several hundred HTTP POST requests using the hostnames sixt.com and breitling.com. Both domains are rather well-known and no public record exists of these domains having been compromised. The HTTP POST requests were made without prior GET requests and continued for several days – this is highly unusual behavior and does not resemble a user browsing those websites.
Upon closer inspection it became clear that the malware used indeed the hostnames sixt.com and breitling.com for the HTTP requests – but it was sending the HTTP requests to IP addresses owned by the attacker, not to the IP addresses that sixt.com and breitling.com resolve to on non-infected devices.
The requests for sixt.com were sent to the IP 184.105.76[.]250 while the requests for breitling.com were sent to 64.71.188[.]178. These two IP addresses, as well as the IP address hosting the DGA-domains, were hosted in the same ASN, AS6939 Hurricane Electric, which made this behavior even more suspicious. It is unlikely that all domains would be hosted in the same ASN by chance.
The malware authors used the trick of beaconing to well-known hostnames to circumvent reputation-based security controls and domain-based filters such as domain-blacklists, and to divert attention from security analysts investigating the beaconing. After all, the behavior looked on the surface like a user was browsing rental cars and luxury watches.
Further rapid investigation
Darktrace quickly revealed more details about the C2 communication. All requests were made to suspiciously-looking PHP endpoints and returned HTTP status code 200, ‘OK’, in all cases. The following shows an example of requests to three domains.
Darktrace instantly alerted on this as anomalous behavior:
A PCAP was directly downloaded from the Darktrace interface to inspect the suspicious C2 traffic:
The actual POST data appears to be encoded. Using an encoded POST request and a Content-Type of ‘x-www-form-urlencoded’ is commonly seen in malware communication.
Actively developed malware strain
It appears that this malware strain is under active development.
Open source research suggests that malware that behaves similarly has been circulated at least since the end of 2016. Some sources have attributed the malware families Razy and Nymaim to the executables seen. However, little research on these strains exist and both malware strains are generic in nature. Below are two samples from 2016:
These pieces of malware likely represent a prior version of the malware identified by Darktrace. The 2016 version also communicated with sixt.com and breitling.com, but also made HTTP requests to carvezine.com and sievecnda.com. No DGA domains were observed in the 2016 version.
The PHP endpoints in the URI have also changed. In the version from 2016, the PHP endpoints always ended in ‘/[DGA-string]/index.php’. C2 traffic is often seen to be sent to ‘index.php’ endpoints. Defenders started monitoring the static URI Indicator of Compromise (IoC) ‘index.php’. The malware authors know this as well and have adapted their C2 communication accordingly. As shown in the above screenshots, the PHP endpoint is now in the format of ‘[DGA-string].php’. This further shows that legacy controls – such as static monitoring for quickly outdated Indicators of Compromise – do not scale in today’s threat landscape.
Conclusion
Although the malware authors intended for their implant to stay covert and defeat common security controls, Darktrace instantly alerted on the anomalous behavior. Darktrace’s detections could not have been clearer. The following graphic shows a part of the communication exhibited by the infected device around the time of the infection. Blue lines represent outgoing connections from the device. Every colored dot represents a high-level Darktrace alert:
Using no blacklists or signatures, Darktrace detected this highly anomalous malware behavior instantly. A piece of malware that was meant to stay covert for months was quickly identified using anomaly detection on network data.
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
Max Heinemeyer
Chief Product Officer
Max is a cyber security expert with over a decade of experience in the field, specializing in a wide range of areas such as Penetration Testing, Red-Teaming, SIEM and SOC consulting and hunting Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups. At Darktrace, Max is closely involved with Darktrace’s strategic customers & prospects. He works with the R&D team at Darktrace, shaping research into new AI innovations and their various defensive and offensive applications. Max’s insights are regularly featured in international media outlets such as the BBC, Forbes and WIRED. Max holds an MSc from the University of Duisburg-Essen and a BSc from the Cooperative State University Stuttgart in International Business Information Systems.
Disarming the WarmCookie Backdoor: Darktrace’s Oven-Ready Solution
26
Jul 2024
What is WarmCookie malware?
WarmCookie, also known as BadSpace [2], is a two-stage backdoor tool that provides functionality for threat actors to retrieve victim information and launch additional payloads. The malware is primarily distributed via phishing campaigns according to multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) providers.
Backdoor malware: A backdoor tool is a piece of software used by attackers to gain and maintain unauthorized access to a system. It bypasses standard authentication and security mechanisms, allowing the attacker to control the system remotely.
Two-stage backdoor malware: This means the backdoor operates in two distinct phases:
1. Initial Stage: The first stage involves the initial infection and establishment of a foothold within the victim's system. This stage is often designed to be small and stealthy to avoid detection.
2. Secondary Stage: Once the initial stage has successfully compromised the system, it retrieves or activates the second stage payload. This stage provides more advanced functionalities for the attacker, such as extensive data exfiltration, deeper system control, or the deployment of additional malicious payloads.
How does WarmCookie malware work?
Reported attack patterns include emails attempting to impersonate recruitment firms such as PageGroup, Michael Page, and Hays. These emails likely represented social engineering tactics, with attackers attempting to manipulate jobseekers into engaging with the emails and following malicious links embedded within [3].
This backdoor tool also adopts stealth and evasion tactics to avoid the detection of traditional security tools. Reported evasion tactics included custom string decryption algorithms, as well as dynamic API loading to prevent researchers from analyzing and identifying the core functionalities of WarmCookie [1].
Before this backdoor makes an outbound network request, it is known to capture details from the target machine, which can be used for fingerprinting and identification [1], this includes:
- Computer name
- Username
- DNS domain of the machine
- Volume serial number
WarmCookie samples investigated by external researchers were observed communicating communicated over HTTP to a hardcoded IP address using a combination of RC4 and Base64 to protect its network traffic [1]. Ultimately, threat actors could use this backdoor to deploy further malicious payloads on targeted networks, such as ransomware.
Darktrace Coverage of WarmCookie
Between April and June 2024, Darktrace’s Threat Research team investigated suspicious activity across multiple customer networks indicating that threat actors were utilizing the WarmCookie backdoor tool. Observed cases across customer environments all included the download of unusual executable (.exe) files and suspicious outbound connectivity.
Affected devices were all observed making external HTTP requests to the German-based external IP, 185.49.69[.]41, and the URI, /data/2849d40ade47af8edfd4e08352dd2cc8.
Less than a minute later, the same device was observed making HTTP requests to the rare external IP address: 185.49.69[.]41, which had never previously been observed on the network, for the URI /data/b834116823f01aeceed215e592dfcba7. The device then proceeded to download masqueraded executable file from this endpoint. Darktrace recognized that these connections to an unknown endpoint, coupled with the download of a masqueraded file, likely represented malicious activity.
Following this download, the device began beaconing back to the same IP, 185.49.69[.]41, with a large number of external connections observed over port 80. This beaconing related behavior could further indicate malicious software communicating with command-and-control (C2) servers.
Darktrace’s model alert coverage included the following details:
[Model Alert: Device / Unusual BITS Activity]
- Associated device type: desktop
- Time of alert: 2024-04-23T14:10:23 UTC
- ASN: AS28753 Leaseweb Deutschland GmbH
- User agent: Microsoft BITS/7.8
[Model Alert: Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location]
[Model Alert: Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare]
- Associated device type: desktop
- Time of alert: 2024-04-23T14:15:24 UTC
- Destination IP: 185.49.69[.]41
- Destination port: 80
- Protocol: TCP
- Application protocol: HTTP
- ASN: AS28753 Leaseweb Deutschland GmbH
- User agent: Mozilla / 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;.NET CLR 1.0.3705)
Between May 7 and June 4, Darktrace identified a wide range of suspicious external connectivity on another customer’s environment. Darktrace’s Threat Research team further investigated this activity and assessed it was likely indicative of WarmCookie exploitation on customer devices.
Similar to the initial use case, BITS activity was observed on affected devices, which is utilized to download WarmCookie [1]. This initial behavior was observed with the device after triggering the model: Device / Unusual BITS Activity on May 7.
Just moments later, the same device was observed making HTTP requests to the aforementioned German IP address, 185.49.69[.]41 using the same URI /data/2849d40ade47af8edfd4e08352dd2cc8, before downloading a suspicious executable file.
Just like the first use case, this device followed up this suspicious download with a series of beaconing connections to 185.49.69[.]41, again with a large number of connections via port 80.
Similar outgoing connections to 185.49.69[.]41 and model alerts were observed on additional devices during the same timeframe, indicating that numerous customer devices had been compromised.
Darktrace’s model alert coverage included the following details:
[Model Alert: Device / Unusual BITS Activity]
- Associated device type: desktop
- Time of alert: 2024-05-07T09:03:23 UTC
- ASN: AS28753 Leaseweb Deutschland GmbH
- User agent: Microsoft BITS/7.8
[Model Alert: Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location]
[Model Alert: Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname]
- Associated device type: desktop
- Time of alert: 2024-05-07T09:04:14 UTC
- Destination IP: 185.49.69[.]41
- Application protocol: HTTP
- URI: /data/2849d40ade47af8edfd4e08352dd2cc8
- User agent: Microsoft BITS/7.8
[Model Alert: Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint]
- Associated device type: desktop
- Time of alert: 2024-05-07T09:08:47 UTC
- Destination IP: 185.49.69[.]41
- Protocol: TCP
- Application protocol: HTTP
- ASN: AS28753 Leaseweb Deutschland GmbH
- URI: /
- User agent: Mozilla / 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;.NET CLR 1.0.3705) \
Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst Coverage Details around the external destination, ‘185.49.69[.]41’.
Figure 2: External Sites Summary verifying the geographical location of the external IP, 185.49.69[.]41’.
Fortunately, this particular customer was subscribed to Darktrace’s Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service and the Darktrace Security Operation Center (SOC) promptly investigated the activity and alerted the customer. This allowed their security team to address the activity and begin their own remediation process.
In this instance, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was configured in Human Confirmation mode, meaning any mitigative actions required manual application by the customer’s security team.
Despite this, Darktrace recommended two actions to contain the activity: blocking connections to the suspicious IP address 185.49.69[.]41 and any IP addresses ending with '69[.]41', as well as the ‘Enforce Pattern of Life’ action. By enforcing a pattern of life, Darktrace can restrict a device (or devices) to its learned behavior, allowing it to continue regular business activities uninterrupted while blocking any deviations from expected activity.
Figure 3: Actions suggested by Darktrace to contain the emerging activity, including blocking connections to the suspicious endpoint and restricting the device to its ‘pattern of life’.
Conclusion
Backdoor tools like WarmCookie enable threat actors to gather and leverage information from target systems to deploy additional malicious payloads, escalating their cyber attacks. Given that WarmCookie’s primary distribution method seems to be through phishing campaigns masquerading as trusted recruitments firms, it has the potential to affect a large number of organziations.
In the face of such threats, Darktrace’s behavioral analysis provides organizations with full visibility over anomalous activity on their digital estates, regardless of whether the threat bypasses by human security teams or email security tools. While threat actors seemingly managed to evade customers’ native email security and gain access to their networks in these cases, Darktrace identified the suspicious behavior associated with WarmCookie and swiftly notified customer security teams.
Had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability been fully enabled in these cases, it could have blocked any suspicious connections and subsequent activity in real-time, without the need of human intervention, effectively containing the attacks in the first instance.
Credit to Justin Torres, Cyber Security Analyst and Dylan Hinz, Senior Cyber Security Analyst
Appendices
Darktrace Model Detections
- Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
- Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer
- Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
- Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
- Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint
- Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
- Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
- Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections
- Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing
- Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
- Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
- Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
- Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint
- Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint
- Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
- Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
AI Analyst Incident Coverage:
- Unusual Repeated Connections
- Possible SSL Command and Control to Multiple Endpoints
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Understanding AI Technologies
24
Jul 2024
About the State of AI Cybersecurity Report
Darktrace surveyed 1,800 CISOs, security leaders, administrators, and practitioners from industries around the globe. Our research was conducted to understand how the adoption of new AI-powered offensive and defensive cybersecurity technologies are being managed by organizations.
How familiar are security professionals with supervised machine learning
Just 31% of security professionals report that they are “very familiar” with supervised machine learning.
Many participants admitted unfamiliarity with various AI types. Less than one-third felt "very familiar" with the technologies surveyed: only 31% with supervised machine learning and 28% with natural language processing (NLP).
Most participants were "somewhat" familiar, ranging from 46% for supervised machine learning to 36% for generative adversarial networks (GANs). Executives and those in larger organizations reported the highest familiarity.
Combining "very" and "somewhat" familiar responses, 77% had familiarity with supervised machine learning, 74% generative AI, and 73% NLP. With generative AI getting so much media attention, and NLP being the broader area of AI that encompasses generative AI, these results may indicate that stakeholders are understanding the topic on the basis of buzz, not hands-on work with the technologies.
If defenders hope to get ahead of attackers, they will need to go beyond supervised learning algorithms trained on known attack patterns and generative AI. Instead, they’ll need to adopt a comprehensive toolkit comprised of multiple, varied AI approaches—including unsupervised algorithms that continuously learn from an organization’s specific data rather than relying on big data generalizations.
Different types of AI
Different types of AI have different strengths and use cases in cyber security. It’s important to choose the right technique for what you’re trying to achieve.
Supervised machine learning: Applied more often than any other type of AI in cyber security. Trained on human attack patterns and historical threat intelligence.
Large language models (LLMs): Applies deep learning models trained on extremely large data sets to understand, summarize, and generate new content. Used in generative AI tools.
Natural language processing (NLP): Applies computational techniques to process and understand human language.
Unsupervised machine learning: Continuously learns from raw, unstructured data to identify deviations that represent true anomalies.
What impact will generative AI have on the cybersecurity field?
More than half of security professionals (57%) believe that generative AI will have a bigger impact on their field over the next few years than other types of AI.
Figure 1: Chart from Darktrace's State of AI in Cybersecurity Report
Security stakeholders are highly aware of generative AI and LLMs, viewing them as pivotal to the field's future. Generative AI excels at abstracting information, automating tasks, and facilitating human-computer interaction. However, LLMs can "hallucinate" due to training data errors and are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks. Despite improvements in securing LLMs, the best cyber defenses use a mix of AI types for enhanced accuracy and capability.
AI education is crucial as industry expectations for generative AI grow. Leaders and practitioners need to understand where and how to use AI while managing risks. As they learn more, there will be a shift from generative AI to broader AI applications.
Do security professionals fully understand the different types of AI in security products?
Only 26% of security professionals report a full understanding of the different types of AI in use within security products.
Confusion is prevalent in today’s marketplace. Our survey found that only 26% of respondents fully understand the AI types in their security stack, while 31% are unsure or confused by vendor claims. Nearly 65% believe generative AI is mainly used in cybersecurity, though it’s only useful for identifying phishing emails. This highlights a gap between user expectations and vendor delivery, with too much focus on generative AI.
Key findings include:
Executives and managers report higher understanding than practitioners.
Larger organizations have better understanding due to greater specialization.
As AI evolves, vendors are rapidly introducing new solutions faster than practitioners can learn to use them. There's a strong need for greater vendor transparency and more education for users to maximize the technology's value.
To help ease confusion around AI technologies in cybersecurity, Darktrace has released the CISO’s Guide to Cyber AI. A comprehensive white paper that categorizes the different applications of AI in cybersecurity. Download the White Paper here.
Do security professionals believe generative AI alone is enough to stop zero-day threats?
No! 86% of survey participants believe generative AI alone is NOT enough to stop zero-day threats
This consensus spans all geographies, organization sizes, and roles, though executives are slightly less likely to agree. Asia-Pacific participants agree more, while U.S. participants agree less.
Despite expecting generative AI to have the most impact, respondents recognize its limited security use cases and its need to work alongside other AI types. This highlights the necessity for vendor transparency and varied AI approaches for effective security across threat prevention, detection, and response.
Stakeholders must understand how AI solutions work to ensure they offer advanced, rather than outdated, threat detection methods. The survey shows awareness that old methods are insufficient.
![Cyber AI Analyst Coverage Details around the external destination, ‘185.49.69[.]41’.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/66a3e9519710d78dcbea06b5_66a3de28f7ac7a01b4b94b45_Screenshot%25202024-07-26%2520at%252010.33.48%2520AM.png)
![External Sites Summary verifying the geographical location of the external IP, 185.49.69[.]41’.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/66a3e9519710d78dcbea06ad_66a3de6808c6bac429c4520e_Screenshot%25202024-07-26%2520at%252010.34.08%2520AM.png)
