Blog
/
/
July 22, 2020

Resurgence of Ursnif Banking Trojan "May's Most Wanted Malware"

The Ursnif banking trojan tries to blend into the network as legitimate Zoom and Webex activity, trying to capture credentials. See how Darktrace stops it!
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.
Written by
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
22
Jul 2020

Earlier this month, Darktrace’s Cyber AI detected the Ursnif banking trojan, described as May’s most wanted malware, making a resurgence across its customers’ networks. This blog follows the malicious activity in one financial services company in the US, detailing how and why Darktrace Antigena stepped in and autonomously stopped the attack in real time.

Banking trojans continue to present a credible and persistent threat to organizations of all sizes across the globe. This attack was delivered via phishing email, which initiated a download of an executable file masquerading as a .cab extension.

This specific banking trojan is particularly sophisticated, with multiple new command and control (C2) domains registered – identifiable because several distinct Domain Generation Algorithms (DGA) were observed across different networks – the majority of which were only registered the day prior to the campaign.

Figure 1: A timeline of the attack

Phishing email catches organizations unaware

The malware itself was delivered via phishing email. The attack was not recognized by antivirus solutions at the time of delivery, slipping through the organization’s perimeter solutions and landing in employees’ inboxes. Unknowingly, an employee opened a disguised attachment containing macros, downloading an executable file masquerading as a .cab extension.

Interestingly, the malware also used new User Agents imitating Zoom and Webex, a clear attempt to blend in with assumed network traffic. After the malware was downloaded, several devices were observed making connections using these Zoom or Webex User Agents to non-Zoom and non-Webex domains, another attempt to blend in.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s Breach Event Log shows a number of models were triggered

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Device Event Log showing the device was connected to Outlook at the time of the executable file download

After the downloads, Darktrace’s AI observed beaconing to rare DGA domains. The majority of these domains were Russian and registered within the previous 24 hours.

Figure 4: A screenshot taken from one of the C2 domains observed, tobmojiol2adf[.]com, which appears to host a login page

Figure 5: The External Sites Summary of one of the C2 domains observed, tobmojiol2adf[.]com, which was identified as 100% rare for the network at the time of the model breach.

This attack managed to evade the rest of the organization’s security stack since the domains observed were recently registered and the majority of the file hashes and IoCs had not yet been flagged by OSINT tools, thus bypassing all signature-based detections. The initial file downloads also purported to be .cab files, but Darktrace’s AI identified that these were in fact executable files.

Multiple Darktrace detections, including the ‘Masqueraded File Transfer’ model and the ‘Initial Breach Chain Compromise’ model, alerted the security team to this activity. At the same time, the models triggered Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst to launch an automated investigation into the security incident, which surfaced additional vital information and dramatically reduced time to triage.

Figure 6: The Cyber AI Analyst output showing the subsequent C2 connections made by the device after the executable file download

Figure 7: Model breaches from the affected device, showing the malicious file download and subsequent command and control beaconing activity

Figure 8: Model Breach Event Log, showing Antigena’s response after the masqueraded file download and a new outbound connection

The case for Autonomous Response

The Ursnif banking trojan presents a particularly lethal threat: silent, stealthy, and capable of stealing vital financial information, email credentials, and other sensitive data at machine speeds. The rise of advanced malware like this demonstrates the need for security technology that can stay ahead of attackers. For this organization, the malware download and subsequent command and control activity could have represented the start of a costly attack.

Luckily the organization had Antigena Network installed in active mode. The C2 communications from infected devices were blocked seconds after the initial connection, preventing further C2 activity and the download of any additional malware. Using information surfaced by the Cyber AI Analyst, the security team could catch up and the threat was quickly contained.

This attack highlights the continuously evolving approaches used by malicious actors to evade detection. In the same week as the events explained above, Darktrace identified the Urnsnif malware in numerous other customers in the US and Italy, across multiple industries. Attackers are targeting businesses indiscriminately and are not slowing down.

Thanks to Darktrace analysts Grace Carballo and Hiromi Watanabe for their insights on the above threat find.

Technical details

IoCs:

Commenttobmojiol2adf[.]com – C2 domain, registered July 9
qumogtromb2a[.]com – Not yet registered
amehota2gfgh[.]com – C2 domain, registered July 8
gofast22gfor[.]com – C2 domain, registered July 8
xquptbabzxhxw[.]com – Not yet registered
e9bja[.]com

Masqueraded file download source9ygw2[.]com
Masqueraded file download sourcen2f79[.]com
Masqueraded file download sourceioyyf[.]com
Masqueraded file download sourcehq3ll[.]com
Masqueraded file download sourcehxxp://9ygw2[.]com/iz5/yaca.php?l=kpt1.cab
File path hxxp://e9bja[.]com/iz5/yaca.php?l=kpt4.cab
File path hxxp://n2f79[.]com/iz5/yaca.php?l=kpt1.cab
File path hxxp://ioyyf[.]com/iz5/yaca.php?l=kpt4.cab
File path hxxp://hq3ll[.]com/iz5/yaca.php?l=kpt12.cabFile path

MD5 hashes

  • fa6fc057b3c1bb1e84cc37dbd14e7c10
  • 37c28815f462115ff1439e251324ed5b
  • 40f69d093a720c338963bebb3e274593
  • 5602508f262b92f25dc36c4266f410b4
  • 619e5f5d56de5dfbe7b76bba924fd631
  • 30ea60c337c5667be79539f26b613449
  • 688380643b0d70a0191b7fbbea6fb313
  • 719f36d41379574569248e599767937f
  • 7a7ba75af1210e707c495990e678f83e
  • 7c4207591c6d07ce1c611a8bc4b61898
  • 8eec0a8518e87d7248d2882c6f05a551
  • 94915a540ce01fabec9ba1e7913837ea
  • 94e6d6c3cef950ed75b82428475681c7
  • bac0246599a070c8078a966d11f7089d
  • dc17489e558d0f07b016636bc0ab0dbe
  • dff18317acadc40e68f76d3b33ea4304
  • cee72b840f4e79ed5ffde7adc680a7cd

SHA1 hashes

  • 42dd5e8ad3f0d4de95eaa46eef606e24f3d253f0
  • 97d2158a44b0eaa2465f3062413427e33cc2ac50
  • 435c5ae175b40e5d64907bdb212290af607232eb
  • 4b9845e5e7475156efa468a4e58c3c72cf0d4e7e
  • a0494bf812cf1a5b075109fea1adc0d8d1f236f9
  • 297b1b5137249a74322330e80d478e68e70add0d
  • 46a9c4679169d46563cdebae1d38e4a14ed255c9
  • 4f4f65acf3a35da9b8da460cf7910cd883fe2e46
  • 60aee8045e0eb357b88db19775c0892f6bd388f1
  • 7d92dad4971d3c2abfc368a8f47049032ef4d8a9
  • 9631216035a58d1c3d4404607bd85bf0c80ccfe8
  • aab6a948d500de30b6b75a928f43891f5daaa2a8
  • c31dcf7bc391780ecf1403d504af5e844821e9a4
  • c41a9a7f416569a7f412d1a82a78f7977395ce2a
  • c7323a5596be025c693535fbb87b84beeacc7733
  • d64a6c135d7eac881db280c4cb04443b7d2e2a0b
  • 331ede8915e42d273722802a20e8bb9a448b39c5

Darktrace model breaches

  • Anomalous File/Masqueraded File Transfer
  • Compromise/ Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity to Rare Endpoint
  • Compromise/ HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
  • Compromise/ Slow Beaconing Activity to External rare
  • Compromise/ Beaconing Activity to External Rare
  • Device/ Initial Breach Chain Compromise
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.
Written by
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

February 26, 2026

What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders

Image of the Earth from spaceDefault blog imageDefault blog image

The challenge for today’s CISOs

At the broadest level, the defining characteristic of cybersecurity in 2026 is the sheer pace of change shaping the environments we protect. Organizations are operating in ecosystems that are larger, more interconnected, and more automated than ever before – spanning cloud platforms, distributed identities, AI-driven systems, and continuous digital workflows.  

The velocity of this expansion has outstripped the slower, predictable patterns security teams once relied on. What used to be a stable backdrop is now a living, shifting landscape where technology, risk, and business operations evolve simultaneously. From this vantage point, the central challenge for security leaders isn’t reacting to individual threats, but maintaining strategic control and clarity as the entire environment accelerates around them.

Strategic takeaways from the Annual Threat Report

The Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 reinforces a reality every CISO feels: the center of gravity isn’t the perimeter, vulnerability management, or malware, but trust abused via identity. For example, our analysis found that nearly 70% of incidents in the Americas region begin with stolen or misused accounts, reflecting the global shift toward identity‑led intrusions.

Mass adoption of AI agents, cloud-native applications, and machine decision-making means CISOs now oversee systems that act on their own. This creates an entirely new responsibility: ensuring those systems remain safe, predictable, and aligned to business intent, even under adversarial pressure.

Attackers increasingly exploit trust boundaries, not firewalls – leveraging cloud entitlements, SaaS identity transitions, supply-chain connectivity, and automation frameworks. The rise of non-human identities intensifies this: credentials, tokens, and agent permissions now form the backbone of operational risk.

Boards are now evaluating CISOs on business continuity, operational recovery, and whether AI systems and cloud workloads can fail safely without cascading or causing catastrophic impact.

In this environment, detection accuracy, autonomous response, and blast radius minimization matter far more than traditional control coverage or policy checklists.

Every organization will face setbacks; resilience is measured by how quickly security teams can rise, respond, and resume momentum. In 2026, success will belong to those that adapt fastest.

Managing business security in the age of AI

CISO accountability in 2026 has expanded far beyond controls and tooling. Whether we asked for it or not, we now own outcomes tied to business resilience, AI trust, cloud assurance, and continuous availability. The role is less about certainty and more about recovering control in an environment that keeps accelerating.

Every major 2026 initiative – AI agents, third-party risk, cloud, or comms protection – connects to a single board-level question: Are we still in control as complexity and automation scale faster than humans?

Attackers are not just getting more sophisticated; they are becoming more automated. AI changes the economics of attack, lowering cost and increasing speed. That asymmetry is what CISOs are being measured against.

CISOs are no longer evaluated on tool coverage, but on the ability to assure outcomes – trust in AI adoption, resilience across cloud and identity, and being able to respond to unknown and unforeseen threats.

Boards are now explicitly asking whether we can defend against AI-driven threats. No one can predict every new behavior – survival depends on detecting malicious deviations from normal fast and responding autonomously.  

Agents introduce decision-making at machine speed. Governance, CI/CD scanning, posture management, red teaming, and runtime detection are no longer differentiators but the baseline.

Cloud security is no longer architectural, it is operational. Identity, control planes, and SaaS exposure now sit firmly with the CISO.

AI-speed threats already reshaping security in 2026

We’re already seeing clear examples of how quickly the threat landscape has shifted in 2026. Darktrace’s work on React2Shell exposed just how unforgiving the new tempo is: a honeypot stood up with an exposed React was hit in under two minutes. There was no recon phase, no gradual probing – just immediate, automated exploitation the moment the code appeared publicly. Exposure now equals compromise unless defenses can detect, interpret, and act at machine speed. Traditional operational rhythms simply don’t map to this reality.

We’re also facing the first wave of AI-authored malware, where LLMs generate code that mutates on demand. This removes the historic friction from the attacker side: no skill barrier, no time cost, no limit on iteration. Malware families can regenerate themselves, shift structure, and evade static controls without a human operator behind the keyboard. This forces CISOs to treat adversarial automation as a core operational risk and ensure that autonomous systems inside the business remain predictable under pressure.

The CVE-2026-1731 BeyondTrust exploitation wave reinforced the same pattern. The gap between disclosure and active, global exploitation compressed into hours. Automated scanning, automated payload deployment, coordinated exploitation campaigns, all spinning up faster than most organizations can push an emergency patch through change control. The vulnerability-to-exploit window has effectively collapsed, making runtime visibility, anomaly detection, and autonomous containment far more consequential than patching speed alone.

These cases aren’t edge scenarios; they represent the emerging norm. Complexity and automation have outpaced human-scale processes, and attackers are weaponizing that asymmetry.  

The real differentiator for CISOs in 2026 is less about knowing everything and more about knowing immediately when something shifts – and having systems that can respond at the same speed.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Mike Beck
Global CISO

Blog

/

Network

/

February 19, 2026

CVE-2026-1731: How Darktrace Sees the BeyondTrust Exploitation Wave Unfolding

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Note: Darktrace's Threat Research team is publishing now to help defenders. We will continue updating this blog as our investigations unfold.

Background

On February 6, 2026, the Identity & Access Management solution BeyondTrust announced patches for a vulnerability, CVE-2026-1731, which enables unauthenticated remote code execution using specially crafted requests.  This vulnerability affects BeyondTrust Remote Support (RS) and particular older versions of Privileged Remote Access (PRA) [1].

A Proof of Concept (PoC) exploit for this vulnerability was released publicly on February 10, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) reported exploitation attempts within 24 hours [2].

Previous intrusions against Beyond Trust technology have been cited as being affiliated with nation-state attacks, including a 2024 breach targeting the U.S. Treasury Department. This incident led to subsequent emergency directives from  the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and later showed attackers had chained previously unknown vulnerabilities to achieve their goals [3].

Additionally, there appears to be infrastructure overlap with React2Shell mass exploitation previously observed by Darktrace, with command-and-control (C2) domain  avg.domaininfo[.]top seen in potential post-exploitation activity for BeyondTrust, as well as in a React2Shell exploitation case involving possible EtherRAT deployment.

Darktrace Detections

Darktrace’s Threat Research team has identified highly anomalous activity across several customers that may relate to exploitation of BeyondTrust since February 10, 2026. Observed activities include:

Outbound connections and DNS requests for endpoints associated with Out-of-Band Application Security Testing; these services are commonly abused by threat actors for exploit validation.  Associated Darktrace models include:

  • Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

Suspicious executable file downloads. Associated Darktrace models include:

  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Outbound beaconing to rare domains. Associated Darktrace models include:

  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)
  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)
  • Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint
  • Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination

Unusual cryptocurrency mining activity. Associated Darktrace models include:

  • Compromise / Monero Mining
  • Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

And model alerts for:

  • Compromise / Rare Domain Pointing to Internal IP

IT Defenders: As part of best practices, we highly recommend employing an automated containment solution in your environment. For Darktrace customers, please ensure that Autonomous Response is configured correctly. More guidance regarding this activity and suggested actions can be found in the Darktrace Customer Portal.  

Appendices

Potential indicators of post-exploitation behavior:

·      217.76.57[.]78 – IP address - Likely C2 server

·      hXXp://217.76.57[.]78:8009/index.js - URL -  Likely payload

·      b6a15e1f2f3e1f651a5ad4a18ce39d411d385ac7  - SHA1 - Likely payload

·      195.154.119[.]194 – IP address – Likely C2 server

·      hXXp://195.154.119[.]194/index.js - URL – Likely payload

·      avg.domaininfo[.]top – Hostname – Likely C2 server

·      104.234.174[.]5 – IP address - Possible C2 server

·      35da45aeca4701764eb49185b11ef23432f7162a – SHA1 – Possible payload

·      hXXp://134.122.13[.]34:8979/c - URL – Possible payload

·      134.122.13[.]34 – IP address – Possible C2 server

·      28df16894a6732919c650cc5a3de94e434a81d80 - SHA1 - Possible payload

References:

1.        https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1731

2.        https://www.securityweek.com/beyondtrust-vulnerability-targeted-by-hackers-within-24-hours-of-poc-release/

3.        https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-cve-2026-1731-critical-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-rce-beyondtrust-remote-support-rs-privileged-remote-access-pra/

Continue reading
About the author
Emma Foulger
Global Threat Research Operations Lead
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI