Blog
/

Inside the SOC

/
June 20, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
20
Jun 2024
This blog investigates the network-based activity detected by Darktrace in compromises stemming from the exploitation of a vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall devices, namely CVE-2024-3400.

Update:
Following the initial publication of this blog detailing exploitation campaigns utilizing the recently disclosed vulnerability, Darktrace analysts expanded the scope of the threat research investigation to identify potential earlier, pre-CVE disclosure, exploitation of CVE 2024-3400. While the majority of PAN-OS exploitation activity seen in the Darktrace customer base occurred after the public release of the CVE, Darktrace did also see tooling activity likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation prior to the vulnerability's disclosure. Unlike the post-CVE-release exploitation activity, which largely reflected indiscriminate, opportunistic targeting of unpatched systems, these pre-CVE release activities likely represented selective targeting by more calculated actors.

Between March 26 and 28, Darktrace identified two Palo Alto firewall devices within the network of a public sector customer making HTTP GET requests utilizing both cURL and wget user agents, versions of which were seen in later compromise activity in April. The devices requested multiple shell script files (.sh) from rare external IP addresses. These IPs are likely associated with an operational relay box (ORB) network[1]. The connections also occurred without a specified hostname lookup, suggesting the IPs were hardcoded into process code or already cached through unexpected running processes. One of the destination IPs was later confirmed by Palo Alto Network’s Unit 42 as associated with exploitation of the PAN-OS vulnerability[2]. This observed activity closely resembles post-exploitation activity seen on affected firewall devices in mid-April. However, unlike the more disruptive and noisier follow-on exploitation activity seen in post-CVE-release incidents, the pre-CVE-release case observed by Darktrace appears to have been much more discreet, likely due to the relevant threat actor's desire to remain undetected.

--

Introduction

Perimeter devices such as firewalls, virtual private networks (VPNs), and intrusion prevention systems (IPS), have long been the target of adversarial actors attempting to gain access to internal networks. However, recent publications and public service announcements by leading public institutions underscore the increased emphasis threat actors are putting on leveraging such products to initiate compromises.

A blog post by the UK National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) released in early 2024 notes that as improvements are made in the detection of phishing email payloads, threat actors have again begun re-focusing efforts to exploiting network edge devices, many of which are not secure by design, as a means of breach initiation.[i] As such, it comes as no surprise that new Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are constantly discovered that exploit such internet-exposed systems.

Darktrace analysts frequently observe the impacts of such CVEs first through their investigations via Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC). Beginning in April 2024, Darktrace’s SOC began handling alerts and customer requests for potential incidents involving Palo Alto Networks firewall devices.  Just days prior, external researchers publicly disclosed what would later be classified as PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability that affects several versions of Palo Alto Networks’ firewall operating system (PAN-OS), namely PAN-OS 11.1, 11.0 and 10.2. At the time, multiple Darktrace customers were unaware of the recently announced vulnerability.

The increase in observed SOC activity for Palo Alto firewall devices, coupled with the public announcement of the new CVE prompted Darktrace researchers to look for evidence of PAN-OS exploitation on customer networks. Researchers also focused on documenting post-exploitation activity from threat actors leveraging the recently disclosed vulnerability.

As such, this blog highlights the network-based behaviors involved in the CVE-2024-3400 attack chains investigated by Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams. Moreover, this investigation also provides a deeper insight into the post-compromise activities of threat actors leveraging the novel CVE.  Such insights will not only prove relevant for cybersecurity teams looking to inhibit compromises in this specific instance, but also highlights general patterns of behavior by threat actors utilizing such CVEs to target internet-facing systems.

CVE-2024-3400

In mid-April 2024, the Darktrace SOC observed an uptick in activity involving recurring patterns of malicious activity from Palo Alto firewall appliances. In response to this trend, Darktrace initiated a Threat Research investigation into such activity to try and identify common factors and indicators across seemingly parallel events. Shortly before the Threat Research team opened their investigation, external researchers provided public details of CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability in the GlobalProtect feature on Palo Alto Network firewall devices running PAN-OS versions: 10.2, 11.0, and 11.1.[ii]

In their proof of concept, security researchers at watchTowr demonstrated how an attacker can pass session ID (SESSID) values to these PAN-OS devices to request files that do not exist. In response, the system creates a zero-byte file with root privileges with the same name.[iii] Log data is passed on devices running telemetry services to external servers through command line functionality.[iv] Given this functionality, external actors could then request non-existent files in the SESSID containing command parameters which then be interpreted by the command line functionality.[v] Although researchers first believed the exploit could only be used against devices running telemetry services, this was later discovered to be untrue.[vi]

As details of CVE-2024-3400 began to surface, Darktrace’s Threat Research analysts quickly identified distinct overlaps in the observed activity on specific customer deployments and the post-exploitation behavior reported by external researchers. Given the parallels, Darktrace correlated the patterns of activity observed by the SOC team to exploitation of the newly discovered vulnerability in PAN-OS firewall appliances.

Campaign Analysis

Between the April and May 2024, Darktrace identified four main themes of post-exploitation activity involving Palo Alto Network firewall devices likely targeted via CVE-2024-3400: exploitation validation, shell command and tool retrieval, configuration data exfiltration, and ongoing command and control through encrypted channels and application protocols.

1. Exploit Validation and Further Vulnerability Enumeration

Many of the investigated attack chains began with malicious actors using out-of-band application security testing (OAST) services such as Interactsh to validate exploits against Palo Alto firewall appliances. This exploit validation activity typically resulted in devices attempting to contact unusual external endpoints (namely, subdomains of ‘oast[.]pro’, ‘oast[.]live’, ‘oast[.]site’, ‘oast[.]online’, ‘oast[.]fun’, ‘oast[.]me’, and ‘g3n[.]in’) associated with OAST services such as Interactsh. These services can be used by developers to inspect and debug internet traffic, but also have been easily abused by threat actors.

While attempted connections to OAST services do not alone indicate CVE-2024-3400 exploitation, the prevalence of such activities in observed Palo Alto firewall attack chains suggests widespread usage of these OAST services to validate initial access methods and possibly further enumerate systems for additional vulnerabilities.

Figure 1: Model alert log details showcasing a PAN-OS device making DNS queries for Interactsh domain names in what could be exploit validation, and/or further host enumeration.

2. Command and Payload Transmission

The most common feature across analyzed incidents was HTTP GET requests for shell scripts and Linux executable files (ELF) from external IPs associated with exploitation of the CVE. These HTTP requests were frequently initiated using the utilities, cURL and wget. On nearly every device likely targeted by threat actors leveraging the CVE, Darktrace analysts highlighted the retrieval of shell scripts that either featured enumeration commands, the removal of evidence of compromise activity, or commands to retrieve and start binaries on the destination device.

a) Shell Script Retrieval

Investigated devices commonly performed HTTP GET requests to retrieve shell command scripts. Despite this commonality, there was some degree of variety amongst the retrieved payloads and their affiliation with certain command tools. Several distinct types of shell commands and files were identified during the analyzed breaches. For example, some firewall devices were seen requesting .txt files associated with both Sliver C2, whose malicious use has previously been investigated by Darktrace, and Cobalt Strike. The target URIs of devices’ HTTP requests for these files included, “36shr.txt”, “2.txt”, “bin.txt”, and “data.txt”.

More interestingly, though, was the frequency with which analyzed systems requested bash scripts from rare external IP addresses, sometimes over non-standard ports for the HTTP protocol. These bash scripts would feature commands usually for the recipient system to check for certain existing files and or running processes. If the file did not exist, the system would then use cURL or wget to obtain content from external sites, change the permissions of the file, and then execute, sending output to dev/null as a means of likely defense evasion. In some scripts, the system would first make a new folder, and change directories prior to acquiring external content. Additionally, some samples highlighted multiple attempts at enumeration of the host system.

Figure 2: Packet capture (PCAP) data highlighting the incoming shell scripts providing instructions to use cURL to obtain external content, change the permissions of the file to execute, and then run the binary using the credentials and details provided.
Figure 3: PCAP data highlighting a variation of a shell script seen in an HTTP response processed by compromised devices. The script provides instructions to make a directory, retrieve and execute external content, and to hide the output.

Not every retrieved file that was not explicitly a binary featured bash scripts. Model alerts on some deployments also included file masquerading attempts by threat actors, whereby the Palo Alto firewall device would request content with a misleading extension in the URI. In one such instance, the requested URI, and HTTP response header suggests the returned content is an image/png, but the actual body response featured configuration parameters for a new daemon service to be run on the system.

Figure 4: PCAP data indicating configuration details likely for a new daemon on an investigated host. Such HTTP body content differs from the image/png extension within the request URI and declared content type in the HTTP response header.

Bash scripts analyzed across customer deployments also mirrored those identified by external security teams. External researchers previously reported on a series of identifiable shell commands in some cases of CVE-2024-3400 exploitation analyzed by their teams. Commands frequently involved a persistence mechanism they later labeled as the “UPSTYLE” backdoor.[vii]  This python-based program operates by reading commands hidden in error logs generated by 404 requests to the compromised server. The backdoor interprets the requests and writes the output to CSS files on the device. In many cases, Darktrace’s Threat Research team noted clear parallels between shell commands retrieved via HTTP GET request with those directly involving UPSTYLE. There were also matches with some URI patterns identified with the backdoor and requests observed on Darktrace deployments.

Figure 5: HTTP response data containing shell commands potentially relating to the UPSTYLE backdoor.

The presence of these UPSTYLE-related shell commands in response to Palo Alto firewall devices’ HTTP requests provides further evidence for initial exploitation of the CVE. Many bash scripts in examined cases interacted with folders and files likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation. These scripts frequently sought to delete contents of certain folders, such as “/opt/panlogs/tmp/device_telemetry/minute/*” where evidence of exploitation would likely reside. Moreover, recursive removal and copy commands were frequently seen targeting CSS files within the GlobalProtect folder, already noted as the vulnerable element within PAN-OS versions. This evidence is further corroborated by host-based forensic analysis conducted by external researchers.[viii]

Figure 6: PCAP data from investigated system indicating likely defense evasion by removing content on folders where CVE exploitation occurred.

b) Executable File Retrieval

Typically, following command processing, compromised Palo Alto firewall devices proceeded to make web requests for several unusual and potentially malicious files. Many such executables would be retrieved via processed scripts. While there a fair amount of variety in specific executables and binaries obtained, overall, these executables involved either further command tooling such as Sliver C2 or Cobalt Strike payloads, or unknown executables. Affected systems would also employ uncommon ports for HTTP connections, in a likely attempt to evade detection. Extensions featured within the URI, when visible, frequently noted ‘.elf’ (Linux executable) or ‘.exe’ payloads. While most derived hashes did not feature identifiable open-source intelligence (OSINT) details, some samples did have external information tying the sample to specific malware. For example, one such investigation featured a compromised system requesting a file with a hash identified as the Spark malware (backdoor) while another investigated case included a host requesting a known crypto-miner.

Figure 7: PCAP data highlighting compromised system retrieving ELF content from a rare external server running a simple Python HTTP server.
Figure 8: Darktrace model alert logs highlighting a device labeled “Palo Alto” making a HTTP request on an uncommon port for an executable file following likely CVE exploitation.

3. Configuration Data Exfiltration and Unusual HTTP POST Activity

During Darktrace’s investigations, there were also several instances of sensitive data exfiltration from PAN-OS firewall devices. Specifically, targeted systems were observed making HTTP POST requests via destination port 80 to rare external endpoints that OSINT sources associate with CVE-2024-3400 exploitation and activity. PCAP analysis of such HTTP requests revealed that they often contained sensitive configuration details of the targeted Palo Alto firewall devices, including the IP address, default gateway, domain, users, superusers, and password hashes, to name only a few. Threat actors frequently utilized Target URIs such as “/upload” in their HTTP POST requests of this multi-part boundary form data. Again, the User-Agent headers of these HTTP requests largely involved versions of cURL, typically 7.6.1, and wget.

Figure 9: PCAP datahighlighting Palo Alto Firewall device running vulnerable version of PAN-OSposting configuration details to rare external services via HTTP.
Figure 10: Model alert logs highlighting a Palo Alto firewall device performing HTTP POSTs to a rare external IP, without a prior hostname lookup, on an uncommon port using a URI associated with configuration data exfiltration across analyzed incidents
Figure 11: Examples of TargetURIs of HTTP POST requests involving base64 encoded IPs and potential dataegress.

4. Ongoing C2 and Miscellaneous Activity

Lastly, a smaller number of affected Palo Alto firewall devices were seen engaging in repeated beaconing and/or C2 communication via both encrypted and unencrypted protocols during and following the initial series of kill chain events. Such encrypted channels typically involved protocols such as TLS/SSL and SSH. This activity likely represented ongoing communication of targeted systems with attacker infrastructure. Model alerts typically highlighted unusual levels of repeated external connectivity to rare external IP addresses over varying lengths of time. In some investigated incidents, beaconing activity consisted of hundreds of thousands of connections over several days.

Figure 12:  Advanced search details highlighting high levels of ongoing external communication to endpoints associated with C2 infrastructure exploiting CVE-2024-3400.

Some beaconing activity appears to have involved the use of the WebSocket protocol, as indicated by the appearance of “/ws” URIs and validated within packet captures. Such connections were then upgraded to an encrypted connection.

Figure 13:  PCAP highlighting use of WebSocket protocol to engage in ongoing external connectivity to likely C2 infrastructure following CVE-2024-3400 compromise.

While not directly visible in all the deployments, some investigations also yielded evidence of attempts at further post-exploitation activity. For example, a handful of the analyzed binaries that were downloaded by examined devices had OSINT information suggesting a relation to crypto-mining malware strains. However, crypto-mining activity was not directly observed at this time. Furthermore, several devices also triggered model alerts relating to brute-forcing activity via several authentication protocols (namely, Keberos and RADIUS) during the time of compromise. This brute-force activity likely represented attempts to move laterally from the affected firewall system to deeper parts of the network.

Figure 14: Model alert logs noting repeated SSL connectivity to a Sliver C2-affiliated endpoint in what likely constitutes C2 connectivity.
Figure 15: Model alert logs featuring repeated RADIUS login failures from a compromised PAN-OS device using generic usernames, suggesting brute-force activity.

Conclusion

Between April and late May 2024, Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams identified several instances of likely PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400 exploitation across the Darktrace customer base. The subsequent investigation yielded four major themes that categorize the observed network-based post-exploitation activity. These major themes were exploit validation activity, retrieval of binaries and shell scripts, data exfiltration via HTTP POST activity, and ongoing C2 communication with rare external endpoints. The insights shared in this article will hopefully contribute to the ongoing discussion within the cybersecurity community about how to handle the likely continued exploitation of this vulnerability. Moreover, this article may also help cybersecurity professionals better respond to future exploitation of not only Palo Alto PAN-OS firewall devices, but also of edge devices more broadly.

Threat actors will continue to discover and leverage new CVEs impacting edge infrastructure. Since it is not yet known which CVEs threat actors will exploit next, relying on rules and signatures for the detection of exploitation of such CVEs is not a viable approach. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection, however, is well positioned to robustly adapt to threat actors’ changing methods, since although threat actors can change the CVEs they exploit, they cannot change the fact that their exploitation of CVEs results in highly unusual patterns of activity.

Credit to Adam Potter, Cyber Analyst, Sam Lister, Senior Cyber Analyst

Appendices ‍

Pre-CVE-Release IoCs

38.54[.]104[.]14/3.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/1.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/co.sh
38.54[.]104[.]14/

Indicators of Compromise

Indicator – Type – Description

94.131.120[.]80              IP             C2 Endpoint

94.131.120[.]80:53/?src=[REDACTED]=hour=root                  URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/?src=[REDACTED]min=root             URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]mips64            URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]x86_64             URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?deer               URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?host=IDS   URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/ldr[.]sh           URL        Payload

91ebcea4e6d34fd6e22f99713eaf67571b51ab01  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

185.243.115[.]250/snmpd2[.]elf        URL        Payload

23.163.0[.]111/com   URL        Payload

80.92.205[.]239/upload            URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43/upload            URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com          Hostname         C2 Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com:63869/snmpgp      URL        Payload

146.70.87[.]237              IP address         C2 Endpoint

146.70.87[.]237:63867/snmpdd         URL        Payload

393c41b3ceab4beecf365285e8bdf0546f41efad   SHA1 File Hash               Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/r URL        Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/clientr     URL        Payload

138.68.44[.]59/manage            URL        Payload

72.5.43[.]90/patch      URL        Payload

217.69.3[.]218                 IP             C2 Endpoint

5e8387c24b75c778c920f8aa38e4d3882cc6d306                  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

217.69.3[.]218/snmpd[.]elf   URL        Payload

958f13da6ccf98fcaa270a6e24f83b1a4832938a    SHA1 File Hash               Payload

6708dc41b15b892279af2947f143af95fb9efe6e     SHA1 File Hash               Payload

dc50c0de7f24baf03d4f4c6fdf6c366d2fcfbe6c       SHA1 File Hash               Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/data[.]txt                  URL        Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/bin[.]txt   URL        Payload

bc9dc2e42654e2179210d98f77822723740a5ba6                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/123              URL        Payload

65283921da4e8b5eabb926e60ca9ad3d087e67fa                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

img.dxyjg[.]com/6hiryXjZN0Mx[.]sh                  URL        Payload

149.56.18[.]189/IC4nzNvf7w/2[.]txt                 URL        Payload

228d05fd92ec4d19659d71693198564ae6f6b117 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

54b892b8fdab7c07e1e123340d800e7ed0386600                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

165.232.121[.]217/rules          URL        Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request          URL        Payload

938faec77ebdac758587bba999e470785253edaf SHA1 File Hash               Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request63   URL        Payload

165.232.121[.]217:4443/termite/165.232.121[.]217             URL        Payload

92.118.112[.]60/snmpd2[.]elf               URL        Payload

2a90d481a7134d66e8b7886cdfe98d9c1264a386                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

92.118.112[.]60/36shr[.]txt   URL        Payload

d6a33673cedb12811dde03a705e1302464d8227f                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

c712712a563fe09fa525dfc01ce13564e3d98d67  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

091b3b33e0d1b55852167c3069afcdb0af5e5e79 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

5eebf7518325e6d3a0fd7da2c53e7d229d7b74b6                  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

183be7a0c958f5ed4816c781a2d7d5aa8a0bca9f SHA1 File Hash               Payload

e7d2f1224546b17d805617d02ade91a9a20e783e                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

e6137a15df66054e4c97e1f4b8181798985b480d SHA1 File Hash               Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/sea[.]png    URL        Payload

95.164.7[.]33/rules     URL        Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/lb64                URL        Payload

c2bc9a7657bea17792048902ccf2d77a2f50d2d7 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

923369bbb86b9a9ccf42ba6f0d022b1cd4f33e9d SHA1 File Hash               Payload

52972a971a05b842c6b90c581b5c697f740cb5b9                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

95d45b455cf62186c272c03d6253fef65227f63a    SHA1 File Hash               Payload

322ec0942cef33b4c55e5e939407cd02e295973e                  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

6335e08873b4ca3d0eac1ea265f89a9ef29023f2  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

134.213.29[.]14              IP             C2 Endpoint

185.243.115[.]250       IP             C2 Endpoint

80.92.205[.]239              IP             C2 Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43              IP             C2 Endpoint

92.118.112[.]60              IP             C2 Endpoint

109.120.178[.]253       IP             C2 Endpoint

23.163.0[.]111                 IP             C2 Endpoint

72.5.43[.]90     IP             C2 Endpoint

165.232.121[.]217       IP             C2 Endpoint

8.210.242[.]112              IP             C2 Endpoint

149.56.18[.]189              IP             C2 Endpoint

95.164.7[.]33  IP             C2 Endpoint

138.68.44[.]59                 IP             C2 Endpoint

Img[.]dxyjg[.]com         Hostname         C2 Endpoint

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage

·      Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·      Device / New User Agent (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

·      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

·      Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

·      Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

·      Anomalous File / Suspicious Octet Stream Download

·      Anomalous File / Numeric File Download

·      Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

·      Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

·      Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

·      Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

·      Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

·      Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

·      Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

·      Compromise / SSH Beacon

·      Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

·      Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

·      Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

·      Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

·      Compromise / Connection to Suspicious SSL Server

·      Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

·      Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

·      Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·      Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint

·      Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon

·      Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

·      Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

·      Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

·      Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

·      Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

·      Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

·      Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·      Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

·      Device / Multiple C2 Model Breaches

MITRE ATTACK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

Initial Access  T1190 – Exploiting Public-Facing Application

Execution           T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

Persistence      T1543.002 – Create or Modify System Processes: Systemd Service

Defense Evasion           T1070.004 – Indicator Removal: File Deletion

Credential Access       T1110.001 – Brute Force: Password Guessing

Discovery           T1083 – File and System Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

Collection         T1005 – Data From Local System

Command and Control            

T1071.001 – Application Layer Protocol:  Web Protocols

T1573.002 – Encrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

Exfiltration        

T1041 – Exfiltration over C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

References

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/china-nexus-espionage-orb-networks

[2] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cve-2024-3400/

[i]  https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/products-on-your-perimeter

[ii] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

[iii] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[iv] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[v] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[vi] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

[vii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/04/12/zero-day-exploitation-of-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-vulnerability-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[viii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/05/15/detecting-compromise-of-cve-2024-3400-on-palo-alto-networks-globalprotect-devices/

‍

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
Adam Potter
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
Get in touch
Share this article
CATEGORIES
McLaren
PREVENT
RESPOND
Cloud
Ransomware
Inside the SOC
Thought Leadership
Crypto
Email
Threat Finds
OT
Related blogs
No items found.
Trending blogs
1
Darktrace Releases 2024 Half-Year Threat Insights
Aug 6, 2024
2
Introducing ‘Defend Beyond’: Our promise to customers in the face of evolving threats
Aug 27, 2024
3
Darktrace: Microsoft UK Partner of the Year 2024
Jun 27, 2024
4
CDR is just NDR for the Cloud... Right?
Jul 31, 2024
5
What you need to know about the new SEC Cybersecurity rules
Jul 17, 2024

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

September 26, 2024

/

Inside the SOC

Thread Hijacking: How Attackers Exploit Trusted Conversations to Infiltrate Networks

Default blog imageDefault blog image

What is Thread Hijacking?

Cyberattacks are becoming increasingly stealthy and targeted, with malicious actors focusing on high-value individuals to gain privileged access to their organizations’ digital environments. One technique that has gained prominence in recent years is thread hijacking. This method allows attackers to infiltrate ongoing conversations, exploiting the trust within these threads to access sensitive systems.

Thread hijacking typically involves attackers gaining access to a user’s email account, monitoring ongoing conversations, and then inserting themselves into these threads. By replying to existing emails, they can send malicious links, request sensitive information, or manipulate the conversation to achieve their goals, such as redirecting payments or stealing credentials. Because such emails appear to come from a trusted source, they often bypass human security teams and traditional security filters.

How does threat hijacking work?

  1. Initial Compromise: Attackers first gain access to a user’s email account, often through phishing, malware, or exploiting weak passwords.
  2. Monitoring: Once inside, they monitor the user’s email threads, looking for ongoing conversations that can be exploited.
  3. Infiltration: The attacker then inserts themselves into these conversations, often replying to existing emails. Because the email appears to come from a trusted source within an ongoing thread, it bypasses many traditional security filters and raises less suspicion.
  4. Exploitation: Using the trust established in the conversation, attackers can send malicious links, request sensitive information, or manipulate the conversation to achieve their goals, such as redirecting payments or stealing credentials.

A recent incident involving a Darktrace customer saw a malicious actor attempt to manipulate trusted email communications, potentially exposing critical data. The attacker created a new mailbox rule to forward specific emails to an archive folder, making it harder for the customer to notice the malicious activity. This highlights the need for advanced detection and robust preventive tools.

Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is able to recognize subtle deviations in normal behavior, whether in a device or a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) user. This capability enables it to detect emerging attacks in their early stages. In this post, we’ll delve into the attacker’s tactics and illustrate how Darktrace / IDENTITY™ successfully identified and mitigated a thread hijacking attempt, preventing escalation and potential disruption to the customer’s network.

Threat hijacking attack overview & Darktrace coverage

On August 8, 2024, Darktrace detected an unusual email received by a SaaS account on a customer’s network. The email appeared to be a reply to a previous chain discussing tax and payment details, likely related to a transaction between the customer and one of their business partners.

Headers of the suspicious email received.
Figure 1: Headers of the suspicious email received.

A few hours later, Darktrace detected the same SaaS account creating a new mailbox rule named “.”, a tactic commonly used by malicious actors to evade detection when setting up new email rules [2]. This rule was designed to forward all emails containing a specific word to the user’s “Archives” folder. This evasion technique is typically used to move any malicious emails or responses to a rarely opened folder, ensuring that the genuine account holder does not see replies to phishing emails or other malicious messages sent by attackers [3].

Darktrace recognized the newly created email rule as suspicious after identifying the following parameters:

  • AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob: False
  • Force: False
  • MoveToFolder: Archive
  • Name: “.”
  • FromAddressContainsWords: [Redacted]
  • MarkAsRead: True
  • StopProcessingRules: True

Darktrace also noted that the user attempting to create this new email rule had logged into the SaaS environment from an unusual IP address. Although the IP was located in the same country as the customer and the ASN used by the malicious actor was typical for the customer’s network, the rare IP, coupled with the anomalous behavior, raised suspicions.

Figure 2: Hijacked SaaS account creating the new mailbox rule.

Given the suspicious nature of this activity, Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) investigated the incident and alerted the customer’s security team of this incident.

Due to a public holiday in the customer's location (likely an intentional choice by the threat actor), their security team did not immediately notice or respond to the notification. Fortunately, the customer had Darktrace's Autonomous Response capability enabled, which allowed it to take action against the suspicious SaaS activity without human intervention.

In this instance, Darktrace swiftly disabled the seemingly compromised SaaS user for 24 hours. This action halted the spread of the compromise to other accounts on the customer’s SaaS platform and prevented any sensitive data exfiltration. Additionally, it provided the security team with ample time to investigate the threat and remove the user from their environment. The customer also received detailed incident reports and support through Darktrace’s Security Operations Support service, enabling direct communication with Darktrace’s expert Analyst team.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection allowed it to identify the subtle deviations from the user’s expected behavior, indicating a potential compromise on the customer’s SaaS platform. In this case, Darktrace detected a login to a SaaS platform from an unusual IP address, despite the attacker’s efforts to conceal their activity by using a known ASN and logging in from the expected country.

Despite the attempted SaaS hijack occurring on a public holiday when the customer’s security team was likely off-duty, Darktrace autonomously detected the suspicious login and the creation of a new email rule. It swiftly blocked the compromised SaaS account, preventing further malicious activity and safeguarding the organization from data exfiltration or escalation of the compromise.

This highlights the growing need for AI-driven security capable of responding to malicious activity in the absence of human security teams and detect subtle behavioral changes that traditional security tools.

Credit to: Ryan Traill, Threat Content Lead for his contribution to this blog

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections‍

SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

Experimental / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS Client Block

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Email Rule Block

References

[1] https://blog.knowbe4.com/whats-the-best-name-threadjacking-or-man-in-the-inbox-attacks

[2] https://darktrace.com/blog/detecting-attacks-across-email-saas-and-network-environments-with-darktraces-combined-ai-approach

[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/alert-grading-playbook-inbox-manipulation-rules

Continue reading
About the author
Maria Geronikolou
Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

September 26, 2024

/
No items found.

How AI can help CISOs navigate the global cyber talent shortage

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The global picture

4 million cybersecurity professionals are needed worldwide to protect and defend the digital world – twice the number currently in the workforce.1

Innovative technologies are transforming business operations, enabling access to new markets, personalized customer experiences, and increased efficiency. However, this digital transformation also challenges Security Operations Centers (SOCs) with managing and protecting a complex digital environment without additional resources or advanced skills.

At the same time, the cybersecurity industry is suffering a severe global skills shortage, leaving many SOCs understaffed and under-skilled. With a 72% increase in data breaches from 2021-20232, SOCs are dealing with overwhelming alert volumes from diverse security tools. Nearly 60% of cybersecurity professionals report burnout3, leading to high turnover rates. Consequently, only a fraction of alerts are thoroughly investigated, increasing the risk of undetected breaches. More than half of organizations that experienced breaches in 2024 admitted to having short-staffed SOCs.4

How AI can help organizations do more with less

Cyber defense needs to evolve at the same pace as cyber-attacks, but the global skills shortage is making that difficult. As threat actors increasingly abuse AI for malicious purposes, using defensive AI to enable innovation and optimization at scale is reshaping how organizations approach cybersecurity.

The value of AI isn’t in replacing humans, but in augmenting their efforts and enabling them to scale their defense capabilities and their value to the organization. With AI, cybersecurity professionals can operate at digital speed, analyzing vast data sets, identifying more vulnerabilities with higher accuracy, responding and triaging faster, reducing risks, and implementing proactive measures—all without additional staff.

Research indicates that organizations leveraging AI and automation extensively in security functions—such as prevention, detection, investigation, or response—reduced their average mean time to identify (MTTI) and mean time to contain (MTTC) data breaches by 33% and 43%, respectively. These organizations also managed to contain breaches nearly 100 days faster on average compared to those not using AI and automation.5

First, you've got to apply the right AI to the right security challenge. We dig into how different AI technologies can bridge specific skills gaps in the CISO’s Guide to Navigating the Cybersecurity Skills Shortage.

Cases in point: AI as a human force multiplier

Let’s take a look at just some of the cybersecurity challenges to which AI can be applied to scale defense efforts and relieve the burden on the SOC. We go further into real-life examples in our white paper.

Automated threat detection and response

AI enables 24/7 autonomous response, eliminating the need for after-hours SOC shifts and providing security leaders with peace of mind. AI can scale response efforts by analyzing vast amounts of data in real time, identifying anomalies, and initiating precise autonomous actions to contain incidents, which buys teams time for investigation and remediation.  

Triage and investigation

AI enhances the triage process by automatically categorizing and prioritizing security alerts, allowing cybersecurity professionals to focus on the most critical threats. It creates a comprehensive picture of an attack, helps identify its root cause, and generates detailed reports with key findings and recommended actions.  

Automation also significantly reduces overwhelming alert volumes and high false positive rates, enabling analysts to concentrate on high-priority threats and engage in more proactive and strategic initiatives.

Eliminating silos and improving visibility across the enterprise

Security and IT teams are overwhelmed by the technological complexity of operating multiple tools, resulting in manual work and excessive alerts. AI can correlate threats across the entire organization, enhancing visibility and eliminating silos, thereby saving resources and reducing complexity.

With 88% of organizations favoring a platform approach over standalone solutions, many are consolidating their tech stacks in this direction. This consolidation provides native visibility across clouds, devices, communications, locations, applications, people, and third-party security tools and intelligence.

Upskilling your existing talent in AI

As revealed in the State of AI Cybersecurity Survey 2024, only 26% of cybersecurity professionals say they have a full understanding of the different types of AI in use within security products.6

Understanding AI can upskill your existing staff, enhancing their expertise and optimizing business outcomes. Human expertise is crucial for the effective and ethical integration of AI. To enable true AI-human collaboration, cybersecurity professionals need specific training on using, understanding, and managing AI systems. To make this easier, the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform is designed to enable collaboration and reduce the learning curve – lowering the barrier to entry for junior or less skilled analysts.  

However, to bridge the immediate expertise gap in managing AI tools, organizations can consider expert managed services that take the day-to-day management out of the SOC’s hands, allowing them to focus on training and proactive initiatives.

Conclusion

Experts predict the cybersecurity skills gap will continue to grow, increasing operational and financial risks for organizations. AI for cybersecurity is crucial for CISOs to augment their teams and scale defense capabilities with speed, scalability, and predictive insights, while human expertise remains vital for providing the intuition and problem-solving needed for responsible and efficient AI integration.

If you’re thinking about implementing AI to solve your own cyber skills gap, consider the following:

  • Select an AI cybersecurity solution tailored to your specific business needs
  • Review and streamline existing workflows and tools – consider a platform-based approach to eliminate inefficiencies
  • Make use of managed services to outsource AI expertise
  • Upskill and reskill existing talent through training and education
  • Foster a knowledge-sharing culture with access to knowledge bases and collaboration tools

Interested in how AI could augment your SOC to increase efficiency and save resources? Read our longer CISO’s Guide to Navigating the Cybersecurity Skills Shortage.

And to better understand cybersecurity practitioners' attitudes towards AI, check out Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity 2024 report.

References

  1. https://www.isc2.org/research  
  2. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/it-and-tech/cybersecurity-statistics/  
  3. https://www.informationweek.com/cyber-resilience/the-psychology-of-cybersecurity-burnout  
  4. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/1KZ3XE9D  
  5. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/1KZ3XE9D  
  6. https://darktrace.com/resources/state-of-ai-cyber-security-2024
Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI