Blog
‍

PREVENT

Improve Security with Attack Path Modelling| Darktrace

Aug 2023

Learn how to prioritize vulnerabilities effectively with attack path modeling. Learn from Darktrace experts and stay ahead of cyber threats.

TLDR: There are too many technical vulnerabilities and there is too little organizational context for IT teams to patch effectively. Attack path modelling provides the organizational context, allowing security teams to prioritize vulnerabilities. The result is a system where CVEs can be parsed in, organizational context added, and attack paths considered, ultimately providing a prioritized list of vulnerabilities that need to be patched.

Figure 1: The Darktrace user interface presents risk-prioritized vulnerabilities

This blog post explains how Darktrace addresses the challenge of vulnerability prioritization. Most of the industry focusses on understanding the technical impact of vulnerabilities globally (‘How could this CVE generally be exploited? Is it difficult to exploit? Are there pre-requisites to exploitation? …’), without taking local context of a vulnerability into account. We’ll discuss here how we create that local context through attack path modelling and map it to technical vulnerability information. The result is a stunningly powerful way to prioritize vulnerabilities.

We will explore:

1) The challenge and traditional approach to vulnerability prioritization
2) Creating local context through machine learning and attack path modelling
3) Examining the result – contextualized, vulnerability prioritization

The Challenge

Anyone dealing with Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM) knows this situation:

You have a vulnerability scanning report with dozens or hundreds of pages. There is a long list of ‘critical’ vulnerabilities. How do you start prioritizing these vulnerabilities, assuming your goal is reducing the most risk?

Sometimes the challenge is even more specific – you might have 100 servers with the same critical vulnerability present (e.g. MoveIT). But which one should you patch first, as all of those have the same technical vulnerability priority (‘critical’)? Which one will achieve the biggest risk reduction (critical asset e.g.)? Which one will be almost meaningless to patch (asset with no business impact e.g.) and thus just a time-sink for the patch and IT team?

There have been recent improvements upon flat CVE-scoring for vulnerability prioritization by adding threat-intelligence about exploitability of vulnerabilities into the mix. This is great, examples of that additional information are Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) and Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalogue (KEV).

Figure 2: The idea behind EPSS – focus on actually exploited CVEs. (diagram taken from https://www.first.org/epss/model)

With CVE and CVSS scores we have the theoretical technical impact of vulnerabilities, and with EPSS and KEV we have information about the likelihood of exploitation of vulnerabilities. That’s a step forward, but still doesn’t give us any local context. Now we know even more about the global and generic technical risk of a vulnerability, but we still lack the local impact on the organization.

Let’s add that missing link via machine learning and attack path modelling.

Adding Attack Path Modelling for Local Context

To prioritize technical vulnerabilities, we need to know as much as we can about the asset on which the vulnerability is present in the context of the local organization. Is it a crown jewel? Is it a choke point? Does it sit on a critical attack path? Is it a dead end, never used and has no business relevance? Does it have organizational priority? Is the asset used by VIP users, as part of a core business or IT process? Does it share identities with elevated credentials? Is the human user on the device susceptible to social engineering?

Those are just a few typical questions when trying to establish local context of an asset. Knowing more about the threat landscape, exploitability, or technical information of a CVE won’t help answer any of the above questions. Gathering, evaluating, maintaining, and using this local context for vulnerability prioritization is the hard part. This local context often resides informally in the head of the TVM or IT team member, having been assembled by having been at the organization for a long time, ‘knowing’ systems, applications and identities in question and talking to asset and application owners if time permits. This does unfortunately not scale, is time-consuming and heavily dependent on individuals.

Understanding all attack paths for an organization provides this local context programmatically.

We discover those attack paths, and these are bespoke for each organization through Darktrace PREVENT^™, using the following method (simplified):

1) Build an adaptive model of the local business. Collect, combine, and analyze (using machine learning and non-machine learning techniques) data from various data domains:

a. Network, Cloud, IT, and OT data (network-based attack paths, communication patterns, peer-groups, choke-points, …). Natively collected by Darktrace technology.

b. Email data (social engineering attack paths, phishing susceptibility, external exposure, security awareness level, …). Natively collected by Darktrace technology.

c. Identity data (account privileges, account groups, access levels, shared permissions, …). Collected via various integrations, e.g. Active Directory.

d. Attack surface data (internet-facing exposure, high-impact vulnerabilities, …). Natively collected by Darktrace technology.

e. SaaS information (further identity context). Natively collected by Darktrace

f. Vulnerability information (CVEs, CVSS, EPSS, KEV, …). Collected via integrations, e.g. Vulnerability Scanners or Endpoint products.

Figure 3: Darktrace PREVENT revealing each stage of an attack path

2) Understand what ‘crown jewels’ are and how to get to them. Calculate entity importance (user, technical asset), exposure levels, potential damage levels (blast radius) weakness levels, and other scores to identify most important entities and their relationships to each other (‘crown jewels’).

Various forms of machine learning and non-machine learning techniques are used to achieve this. Further details on some of the exact methods can be found here. The result is a holistic, adaptive and dynamic model of the organization that shows most important entities and how to get to them across various data domains.

The combination of local context and technical context, around the severity and likelihood of exploitation, creates the Darktrace Vulnerability Score. This enables effective risk-based prioritisation of CVE patching.

Figure 4: List of devices with the highest damage potential in the organization - local context

3) Map the attack path model of the organization to common cyber domain knowledge. We can then combine things like MITRE ATT&CK techniques with those identified connectivity patterns and attack paths – making it easy to understand which techniques, tools and procedures (TTPs) can be used to move through the organization, and how difficult it is to exploit each TTP.

Figure 5: An example attack path with associated MITRE techniques and difficulty scores for each TTP

We can now easily start prioritizing CVE patching based on actual, organizational risk and local context.

Bringing It All Together

Finally, we overlay the attack paths calculated by Darktrace with the CVEs collected from a vulnerability scanner or EDR. This can either happen as a native integration in Darktrace PREVENT, if we are already ingesting CVE data from another solution, or via CSV upload.

Figure 6: Darktrace's global CVE prioritization in action.

But you can also go further than just looking at the CVE that delivers the biggest risk reduction globally in your organization if it is patched. You can also look only at certain group of vulnerabilities, or a sub-set of devices to understand where to patch first in this reduced scope:

Figure 7: An example of the information Darktrace reveals around a CVE

This also provides the TVM team clear justification for the patch and infrastructure teams on why these vulnerabilities should be prioritized and what the positive impact will be on risk reduction.

Attack path modelling can be utilized for various other use cases, such as threat modelling and improving SOC efficiency. We’ll explore those in more depth at a later stage.

Want to explore more on using machine learning for vulnerability prioritization? Want to test it on your own data, for free? Arrange a demo today.

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

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.

Adam Stevens

Director of Product /Cloud

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

share this article

More in this series

No items found.

Blog
‍

Thought Leadership

The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Understanding AI Technologies

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.

This blog continues the conversation from “The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners”. This blog will focus on security professionals’ understanding of AI technologies in cybersecurity tools.

To access download the full report, click here.

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.

Chart showing the types of AI expected to impact security the most — 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.

To access the full report, click here.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Blog
‍

Inside the SOC

Jupyter Ascending: Darktrace’s Investigation of the Adaptive Jupyter Information Stealer

Jul 2024

What is Malware as a Service (MaaS)?

Malware as a Service (MaaS) is a model where cybercriminals develop and sell or lease malware to other attackers.

This approach allows individuals or groups with limited technical skills to launch sophisticated cyberattacks by purchasing or renting malware tools and services. MaaS is often provided through online marketplaces on the dark web, where sellers offer various types of malware, including ransomware, spyware, and trojans, along with support services such as updates and customer support.

The Growing MaaS Marketplace

The Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) marketplace is rapidly expanding, with new strains of malware being regularly introduced and attracting waves of new and previous attackers. The low barrier for entry, combined with the subscription-like accessibility and lucrative business model, has made MaaS a prevalent tool for cybercriminals. As a result, MaaS has become a significant concern for organizations and their security teams, necessitating heightened vigilance and advanced defense strategies.

Examples of Malware as a Service

‍Ransomware as a Service (RaaS): Providers offer ransomware kits that allow users to launch ransomware attacks and share the ransom payments with the service provider.‍
Phishing as a Service: Services that provide phishing kits, including templates and email lists, to facilitate phishing campaigns.‍
Botnet as a Service: Renting out botnets to perform distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks or other malicious activities.
Information Stealer: Information stealers are a type of malware specifically designed to collect sensitive data from infected systems, such as login credentials, credit card numbers, personal identification information, and other valuable data.

How does information stealer malware work?

Information stealers are an often-discussed type MaaS tool used to harvest personal and proprietary information such as administrative credentials, banking information, and cryptocurrency wallet details. This information is then exfiltrated from target networks via command-and-control (C2) communication, allowing threat actors to monetize the data. Information stealers have also increasingly been used as an initial access vector for high impact breaches including ransomware attacks, employing both double and triple extortion tactics.

After investigating several prominent information stealers in recent years, the Darktrace Threat Research team launched an investigation into indicators of compromise (IoCs) associated with another variant in late 2023, namely the Jupyter information stealer.

What is Jupyter information stealer and how does it work?

The Jupyter information stealer (also known as Yellow Cockatoo, SolarMarker, and Polazert) was first observed in the wild in late 2020. Multiple variants have since become part of the wider threat landscape, however, towards the end of 2023 a new variant was observed. This latest variant achieved greater stealth and updated its delivery method, targeting browser extensions such as Edge, Firefox, and Chrome via search engine optimization (SEO) poisoning and malvertising. This then redirects users to download malicious files that typically impersonate legitimate software, and finally initiates the infection and the attack chain for Jupyter [3][4]. In recently noted cases, users download malicious executables for Jupyter via installer packages created using InnoSetup – an open-source compiler used to create installation packages in the Windows OS.

The latest release of Jupyter reportedly takes advantage of signed digital certificates to add credibility to downloaded executables, further supplementing its already existing tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for detection evasion and sophistication [4]. Jupyter does this while still maintaining features observed in other iterations, such as dropping files into the %TEMP% folder of a system and using PowerShell to decrypt and load content into memory [4]. Another reported feature includes backdoor functionality such as:

C2 infrastructure
Ability to download and execute malware
Execution of PowerShell scripts and commands
Injecting shellcode into legitimate windows applications

Darktrace Coverage of Jupyter information stealer

In September 2023, Darktrace’s Threat Research team first investigated Jupyter and discovered multiple IoCs and TTPs associated with the info-stealer across the customer base. Across most investigated networks during this time, Darktrace observed the following activity:

HTTP POST requests over destination port 80 to rare external IP addresses (some of these connections were also made via port 8089 and 8090 with no prior hostname lookup).
HTTP POST requests specifically to the root directory of a rare external endpoint.
Data streams being sent to unusual external endpoints
Anomalous PowerShell execution was observed on numerous affected networks.

Taking a further look at the activity patterns detected, Darktrace identified a series of HTTP POST requests within one customer’s environment on December 7, 2023. The HTTP POST requests were made to the root directory of an external IP address, namely 146.70.71[.]135, which had never previously been observed on the network. This IP address was later reported to be malicious and associated with Jupyter (SolarMarker) by open-source intelligence (OSINT) [5].

Figure 1: Device Event Log indicating several connections from the source device to the rare external IP address 146.70.71[.]135 over port 80.

This activity triggered the Darktrace / NETWORK model, ‘Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname’. This model alerts for devices that have been seen posting data out of the network to rare external endpoints without a hostname. Further investigation into the offending device revealed a significant increase in external data transfers around the time Darktrace alerted the activity.

Figure 2: This External Data Transfer graph demonstrates a spike in external data transfer from the internal device indicated at the top of the graph on December 7, 2023, with a time lapse shown of one week prior.

Packet capture (PCAP) analysis of this activity also demonstrates possible external data transfer, with the device observed making a POST request to the root directory of the malicious endpoint, 146.70.71[.]135.

Figure 3: PCAP of a HTTP POST request showing streams of data being sent to the endpoint, 146.70.71[.]135.

In other cases investigated by the Darktrace Threat Research team, connections to the rare external endpoint 67.43.235[.]218 were detected on port 8089 and 8090. This endpoint was also linked to Jupyter information stealer by OSINT sources [6].

Darktrace recognized that such suspicious connections represented unusual activity and raised several model alerts on multiple customer environments, including ‘Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections’ and ‘Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port’.

In one instance, a device that was observed performing many suspicious connections to 67.43.235[.]218 was later observed making suspicious HTTP POST connections to other malicious IP addresses. This included 2.58.14[.]246, 91.206.178[.]109, and 78.135.73[.]176, all of which had been linked to Jupyter information stealer by OSINT sources [7] [8] [9].

Darktrace further observed activity likely indicative of data streams being exfiltrated to Jupyter information stealer C2 endpoints.

Figure 4: Graph displaying the significant increase in the number of HTTP POST requests with No Get made by an affected device, likely indicative of Jupyter information stealer C2 activity.

In several cases, Darktrace was able to leverage customer integrations with other security vendors to add additional context to its own model alerts. For example, numerous customers who had integrated Darktrace with Microsoft Defender received security integration alerts that enriched Darktrace’s model alerts with additional intelligence, linking suspicious activity to Jupyter information stealer actors.

Figure 5: The security integration model alerts ‘Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection’ and (right image) ‘Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection’, linking suspicious activity observed by Darktrace with Jupyter information stealer (SolarMarker).

Conclusion

The MaaS ecosystems continue to dominate the current threat landscape and the increasing sophistication of MaaS variants, featuring advanced defense evasion techniques, poses significant risks once deployed on target networks.

Leveraging anomaly-based detections is crucial for staying ahead of evolving MaaS threats like Jupyter information stealer. By adopting AI-driven security tools like Darktrace / NETWORK, organizations can more quickly identify and effectively detect and respond to potential threats as soon as they emerge. This is especially crucial given the rise of stealthy information stealing malware strains like Jupyter which cannot only harvest and steal sensitive data, but also serve as a gateway to potentially disruptive ransomware attacks.

Credit to Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst), Vivek Rajan (Cyber Analyst)

References

1. https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-multi-extortion-ransomware

2. https://flashpoint.io/blog/evolution-stealer-malware/

3. https://blogs.vmware.com/security/2023/11/jupyter-rising-an-update-on-jupyter-infostealer.html

4. https://www.morphisec.com/hubfs/eBooks_and_Whitepapers/Jupyter%20Infostealer%20WEB.pdf

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/146.70.71.135

6. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/67.43.235.218/community

7. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/2.58.14.246/community

8. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/91.206.178.109/community

9. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/78.135.73.176/community

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint
Compromise / Excessive Posts to Root
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection
Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

AI Analyst Incidents:

Unusual Repeated Connections
Possible HTTP Command and Control to Multiple Endpoints
Possible HTTP Command and Control

List of IoCs

Indicators – Type – Description

‍

146.70.71[.]135

IP Address