Blog
/

Inside the SOC

/
January 26, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities of Ivanti CS/PS Appliances

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
26
Jan 2024
Darktrace’s teams have observed a surge in malicious activities targeting Ivanti Connect Secure (CS) and Ivanti Policy Secure (PS) appliances. Learn more!

What are 'Unknown Unknowns'?

When critical vulnerabilities in Internet-facing assets are not yet publicly disclosed, they can provide unfettered access to organizations’ networks. Threat actors’ exploitation of these vulnerabilities are prime examples of “unknown unknowns” – behaviors which security teams are not even aware that they are not aware of.  

Therefore, it is not surprising that zero-day vulnerabilities in Internet-facing assets are so attractive to state-linked actors and cybercriminals. These criminals will abuse the access these vulnerabilities afford them to progress towards harmful or disruptive objectives. This trend in threat actor activity was particularly salient in January 2024, following the disclosure of two critical vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure (CS) and Ivanti Policy Secure (PS) appliances. The widespread exploitation of these vulnerabilities was mirrored across Darktrace’s customer base in mid-January 2024, with Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) and Threat Research teams observing a surge in malicious activities targeting customers’ CS/PS appliances.

Vulnerabilities in Ivanti CS/PS

On January 10, 2024, Ivanti published a Security Advisory [1] and a Knowledge Base article [2] relating to the following two vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure (CS) and Ivanti Policy Secure (PS):

  • CVE-2023-46805 (CVSS: 8.2; Type: Authentication bypass vulnerability)
  • CVE-2024-21887 (CVSS: 9.1; Type: Command injection vulnerability)

Conjoined exploitation of these vulnerabilities allows for unauthenticated, remote code execution (RCE) on vulnerable Ivanti systems. Volexity [3] and Mandiant [4] reported clusters of CS/PS compromises, tracked as UTA0178 and UNC5221 respectively. UTA0178 and UNC5221 compromises involve exploitation of CVE-2023-46805 and CVE-2024-21887 to deliver web shells and JavaScript credential harvesters to targeted CS/PS appliances. Both Volexity and Mandiant linked these compromises to a likely espionage-motivated, state-linked actor. GreyNoise [5] and Volexity [6] also reported likely cybercriminal activities targeting CS/PS appliances to deliver cryptominers.

The scale of this recent Ivanti CS/PS exploitation is illustrated by research findings recently shared by Censys [7]. According to these findings, as of January 22, around 1.5% of 26,000 Internet-exposed Ivanti CS appliances have been compromised, with the majority of compromised hosts falling within the United States. As cybercriminal interest in these Ivanti CS/PS vulnerabilities continues to grow, it is likely that so too will the number of attacks targeting them.

Observed Malicious Activities

Since January 15, 2024, Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research team have observed a significant volume of malicious activities targeting customers’ Ivanti CS/PS appliances. Amongst the string of activities that were observed, the following threads were identified as salient:

  • Exploit validation activity
  • Exfiltration of system information
  • Delivery of C2 implant from AWS
  • Delivery of JavaScript credential stealer
  • SimpleHelp usage
  • Encrypted C2 on port 53
  • Delivery of cryptominer

Exploit Validation Activity

Malicious actors were observed using the out-of-band application security testing (OAST) services, Interactsh and Burp Collaborator, to validate exploits for CS/PS vulnerabilities. Malicious use of OAST services for exploit validation is common and has been seen in the early stages of previous campaigns targeting Ivanti systems [8]. In this case, the Interact[.]sh exploit tests were evidenced by CS/PS appliances making GET requests with a cURL User-Agent header to subdomains of 'oast[.]live', 'oast[.]site', 'oast[.]fun', 'oast[.]me', 'oast[.]online' and 'oast[.]pro'.  Burp Collaborator exploit tests were evidenced by CS/PS appliances making GET requests with a cURL User-Agent header to subdomains of ‘collab.urmcyber[.]xyz’ and ‘dnslog[.]store’.

Figure 1: Event Log showing a CS/PS appliance contacting an 'oast[.]pro' endpoint.
Figure 2: Event Log showing a CS/PS appliance contacting a 'collab.urmcyber[.]xyz' endpoint.
Figure 3: Packet capture (PCAP) of an Interactsh GET request.
Figure 4: PCAP of a Burp Collaborator GET request.

Exfiltration of System Information

The majority of compromised CS/PS appliances identified by Darktrace were seen using cURL to transfer hundreds of MBs of data to the external endpoint, 139.180.194[.]132. This activity appeared to be related to a threat actor attempting to exfiltrate system-related information from CS/PS appliances. These data transfers were carried out via HTTP on ports 443 and 80, with the Target URIs ‘/hello’ and ‘/helloq’ being seen in the relevant HTTP POST requests. The files sent over these data transfers were ‘.dat’ and ‘.sys’ files with what seems to be the public IP address of the targeted appliance appearing in each file’s name.

Figure 5: Event Log shows a CS/PS appliance making a POST request to 139.180.194[.]132 whilst simultaneously receiving connections from suspicious external endpoints.
Figure 6: PCAP of a POST request to 139.180.194[.]132.

Delivery of Command-and-Control (C2) implant from Amazon Web Services (AWS)

In many of the compromises observed by Darktrace, the malicious actor in question was observed delivering likely Rust-based ELF payloads to the CS/PS appliance from the AWS endpoints, archivevalley-media.s3.amazonaws[.]com, abode-dashboard-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws[.]com, shapefiles.fews.net.s3.amazonaws[.]com, and blooming.s3.amazonaws[.]com. In one particular case, these downloads were immediately followed by the delivery of an 18 MB payload (likely a C2 implant) from the AWS endpoint, be-at-home.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws[.]com, to the CS/PS appliance. Post-delivery, the implant seems to have initiated SSL beaconing connections to the external host, music.farstream[.]org. Around this time, Darktrace also observed the actor initiating port scanning and SMB enumeration activities from the CS/PS appliance, likely in preparation for moving laterally through the network.

Figure 7: Advanced Search logs showing a CS/PS appliance beaconing to music.farstream[.]org after downloading several payloads from AWS.

Delivery of JavaScript credential stealer

In a small number of observed cases, Darktrace observed malicious actors delivering what appeared to be a JavaScript credential harvester to targeted CS/PS appliances. The relevant JavaScript code contains instructions to send login credentials to likely compromised websites. In one case, the website, www.miltonhouse[.]nl, appeared in the code snippet, and in another, the website, cpanel.netbar[.]org, was observed. Following the delivery of this JavaScript code, HTTPS connections were observed to these websites.  This likely credential harvester appears to strongly resemble the credential stealer observed by Mandiant (dubbed ‘WARPWIRE’) in UNC5221 compromises and the credential stealer observed by Veloxity in UTA0178 compromises.

Figure 8: PCAP of ‘/3.js’ GET request for JavaScript credential harvester.
Figure 9: Snippet of response to '/3.js’ GET request.
Figure 10: PCAP of ‘/auth.js’ GET request for JavaScript credential harvester.
Figure 11: Snippet of response to '/auth.js’ GET request.
Figure 12: Advanced Search logs showing VPN-connected devices sending data to www.miltonhouse[.]nl after the Ivanti CS appliance received the JavaScript code.

The usage of this JavaScript credential harvester did not occur in isolation, but rather appears to have occurred as part of a chain of activity involving several further steps. The delivery of the ‘www.miltonhouse[.]nl’ JavaScript stealer seems to have occurred as a step in the following attack chain:  

1. Ivanti CS/PS appliance downloads a 8.38 MB ELF file over HTTP (with Target URI ‘/revsocks_linux_amd64’) from 188.116.20[.]38

2. Ivanti CS/PS appliance makes a long SSL connection (JA3 client fingerprint: 19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e) over port 8444 to 185.243.112[.]245, with several MBs of data being exchanged

3. Ivanti CS/PS appliance downloads a Perl script over HTTP (with Target URI ‘/login.txt’) from 188.116.20[.]38

4. Ivanti CS/PS appliance downloads a 1.53 ELF MB file over HTTP (with Target URI ‘/aparche2’) from 91.92.240[.]113

5. Ivanti CS/PS appliance downloads a 4.5 MB ELF file over HTTP (with Target URI ‘/agent’) from 91.92.240[.]113

6. Ivanti CS/PS appliance makes a long SSL connection (JA3 client fingerprint: 19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e) over port 11601 to 45.9.149[.]215, with several MBs of data being exchanged

7. Ivanti CS/PS appliance downloads Javascript credential harvester over HTTP (with Target URI ‘/auth.js’) from 91.92.240[.]113

8. Ivanti CS/PS appliance downloads a Perl script over HTTP (with Target URI ‘/login.cgi’) from 91.92.240[.]113

9. Ivanti CS/PS appliance makes a long SSL connection (JA3 client fingerprint: 19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e) over port 11601 to 91.92.240[.]71, with several MBs of data being exchanged

10. Ivanti CS/PS appliance makes a long SSL connection (JA3 client fingerprint: 19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e) over port 11601 to 45.9.149[.]215, with several MBs of data being exchanged

11. Ivanti CS/PS appliance makes a long SSL connection (JA3 client fingerprint: 19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e) over port 8080 to 91.92.240[.]113, with several MBs of data being exchanged

12. Ivanti CS/PS appliance makes a long SSL connection (JA3 client fingerprint: 19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e) over port 11601 to 45.9.149[.]112, with several MBs of data being exchanged  

These long SSL connections likely represent a malicious actor creating reverse shells from the targeted CS/PS appliance to their C2 infrastructure. Whilst it is not certain that these behaviors are part of the same attack chain, the similarities between them (such as the Target URIs, the JA3 client fingerprint and the use of port 11601) seem to suggest a link.  

Figure 13: Advanced Search logs showing a chain of malicious behaviours from a CS/PS appliance.
Figure 14: Advanced Search data showing the JA3 client fingerprint ‘19e29534fd49dd27d09234e639c4057e’ exclusively appearing in the aforementioned, long SSL connections from the targeted CS/PS appliance.
Figure 15: PCAP of ‘/login.txt’ GET request for a Perl script.
Figure 16: PCAP of ‘/login.cgi’ GET request for a Pearl script.

SimpleHelp Usage

After gaining a foothold on vulnerable CS/PS appliances, certain actors attempted to deepen their foothold within targeted networks. In several cases, actors were seen using valid account credentials to pivot over RDP from the vulnerable CS/PS appliance to other internal systems. Over these RDP connections, the actors appear to have installed the remote support tool, SimpleHelp, onto targeted internal systems, as evidenced by these systems’ subsequent HTTP requests. In one of the observed cases, a lateral movement target downloaded a 7.33 MB executable file over HTTP (Target URI: /ta.dat; User-Agent header: Microsoft BITS/7.8) from 45.9.149[.]215 just before showing signs of SimpleHelp usage. The apparent involvement of 45.9.149[.]215 in these SimpleHelp threads may indicate a connection between them and the credential harvesting thread outlined above.

Figure 17: Advanced Search logs showing an internal system making SimpleHelp-indicating HTTP requests immediately after receiving large volumes of data over RDP from an CS/PS appliance.
Figure 18: PCAP of a SimpleHelp-related GET request.

Encrypted C2 over port 53

In a handful of the recently observed CS/PS compromises, Darktrace identified malicious actors dropping a 16 MB payload which appears to use SSL-based C2 communication on port 53. C2 communication on port 53 is a commonly used attack method, with various malicious payloads, including Cobalt Strike DNS, being known to tunnel C2 communications via DNS requests on port 53. Encrypted C2 communication on port 53, however, is less common. In the cases observed by Darktrace, payloads were downloaded from 103.13.28[.]40 and subsequently reached back out to 103.13.28[.]40 over SSL on port 53.

Figure 19: PCAP of a ‘/linb64.png’ GET request.
Figure 20: Advanced Search logs showing a CS/PS appliance making SSL conns over port 53 to 103.13.28[.]40 immediately after downloading a 16 MB payload from 103.13.28[.]40.

Delivery of cryptominer

As is often the case, financially motivated actors also appeared to have sought to exploit the Ivanti appliances, with actors observed exploiting CS/PS appliances to deliver cryptomining malware. In one case, Darktrace observed an actor installing a Monero cryptominer onto a vulnerable CS/PS appliance, with the miner being downloaded via HTTP on port 8089 from 192.252.183[.]116.

Figure 21: PCAP of GET request for a Bash script which appeared to kill existing cryptominers.
Figure 22: PCAP of a GET request for a JSON config file – returned config file contains mining details such as ‘auto.3pool[.]org:19999’.
Figure 23: PCAP of a GET request for an ELF payload

Potential Pre-Ransomware Post-Compromise Activity

In one observed case, a compromise of a customer’s CS appliance was followed by an attacker using valid account credentials to connect to the customer’s CS VPN subnet. The attacker used these credentials to pivot to other parts of the customer’s network, with tools and services such as PsExec, Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) service, and Service Control being abused to facilitate the lateral movement. Other Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools, such as AnyDesk and ConnectWise Control (previously known as ScreenConnect), along with certain reconnaissance tools such as Netscan, Nmap, and PDQ, also appear to have been used. The attacker subsequently exfiltrated data (likely via Rclone) to the file storage service, put[.]io, potentially in preparation for a double extortion ransomware attack. However, at the time of writing, it was not clear what the relation was between this activity and the CS compromise which preceded it.

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace has observed malicious actors carrying out a variety of post-exploitation activities on Internet-exposed CS/PS appliances, ranging from data exfiltration to the delivery of C2 implants and crypto-miners. These activities inevitably resulted in CS/PS appliances displaying patterns of network traffic greatly deviating from their typical “patterns of life”.

Darktrace DETECT™ identified these deviations and generated a variety of model breaches (i.e, alerts) highlighting the suspicious activity. Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ autonomously investigated the ongoing compromises and connected the individual model breaches, viewing them as related incidents rather than isolated events. When active and configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace RESPOND™ containted attackers’ operations by autonomously blocking suspicious patterns of network traffic as soon as they were identified by Darktrace DETECT.

The exploit validation activities carried out by malicious actors resulted in CS/PS servers making HTTP connections with cURL User-Agent headers to endpoints associated with OAST services such as Interactsh and Burp Collaborator. Darktrace DETECT recognized that this HTTP activity was suspicious for affected devices, causing the following models to breach:

  • Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services
  • Device / Suspicious Domain
  • Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System
  • Device / New User Agent
Figure 24: Event Log showing a CS/PS appliance breaching models due to its Interactsh HTTP requests.
Figure 25: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Event highlighting a CS/PS appliance's Interactsh connections.

Malicious actors’ uploads of system information to 139.180.194[.]132 resulted in cURL POST requests being sent from the targeted CS/PS appliances. Darktrace DETECT judged these HTTP POST requests to be anomalous, resulting in combinations of the following model breaches:

  • Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Figure 26: Event Log showing the creation of a model breach due to a CS/PS appliance’s POST request to 139.180.194[.]132.
Figure 27: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Event highlighting POST requests from a CS/PS appliance to 139.180.194[.]132.

The installation of AWS-hosted C2 implants onto vulnerable CS/PS appliances resulted in beaconing connections which Darktrace DETECT recognized as anomalous, leading to the following model breaches:

  • Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
  • Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

When enabled in autonomous response mode, Darktrace RESPOND was able to follow up these detections by blocking affected devices from connecting externally over port 80, 443, 445 or 8081, effectively shutting down the attacker’s beaconing activity.

Figure 28: Event Log showing the creation of a model breach and the triggering of an autonomous RESPOND action due to a CS/PS appliance's beaconing connections.

The use of encrypted C2 on port 53 by malicious actors resulted in CS/PS appliances making SSL connections over port 53. Darktrace DETECT judged this port to be uncommon for SSL traffic and consequently generated the following model breach:

  • Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
Figure 29: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Event highlighting a ‘/linb64.png’ GET request from a CS/PS appliance to 103.13.28[.]40.
Figure 30: Event Log showing the creation of a model breach due to CS/PS appliance’s external SSL connection on port 53.
Figure 31: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Event highlighting a CS/PS appliance’s SSL connections over port 53 to 103.13.28[.]40.

Malicious actors’ attempts to run cryptominers on vulnerable CS/PS appliances resulted in downloads of Bash scripts and JSON files from external endpoints rarely visited by the CS/PS appliances themselves or by neighboring systems. Darktrace DETECT identified these deviations in device behavior and generated the following model breaches:

  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download

Darktrace RESPOND, when configured to respond autonomously, was subsequently able to carry out a number of actions to contain the attacker’s activity. This included blocking all outgoing traffic on offending devices and enforcing a “pattern of life” on devices ensuring they had to adhere to expected network behavior.

Figure 32: Event Log showing the creation of model breaches and the triggering of autonomous RESPOND actions in response to a CS/PS appliance’s cryptominer download.
Figure 33: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Event highlighting a CS/PS appliance’s cryptominer download.

The use of RDP to move laterally and spread SimpleHelp to other systems resulted in CS/PS appliances using privileged credentials to initiate RDP sessions. These RDP sessions, and the subsequent traffic resulting from usage of SimpleHelp, were recognized by Darktrace DETECT as being highly out of character, prompting the following model breaches:

  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session
  • Device / New User Agent
  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Compromise / Suspicious HTTP Beacons to Dotted Quad
  • Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Figure 34: Event Log showing the creation of a model breach due to a CS/PS appliance’s usage of an admin credential to RDP to another internal system.
Figure 35: Event Log showing the creation of model breaches due to SimpleHelp-HTTP requests from a device targeted for lateral movement.
Figure 36: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Event highlighting the SimpleHelp-indicating HTTP requests made by an internal system.

Conclusion

The recent widespread exploitation of Ivanti CS/PS is a stark reminder of the threat posed by malicious actors armed with exploits for Internet-facing assets.

Based on the telemetry available to Darktrace, a wide range of malicious activities were carried out against CS/PS appliances, likely via exploitation of the recently disclosed CVE-2023-46805 and CVE-2024-21887 vulnerabilities.

These activities include the usage of OAST services for exploit validation, the exfiltration of system information to 139.180.194[.]132, the delivery of AWS-hosted C2 implants, the delivery of JavaScript credential stealers, the usage of SimpleHelp, the usage of SSL-based C2 on port 53, and the delivery of crypto-miners. These activities are far from exhaustive, and many more activities will undoubtedly be uncovered as the situation develops and our understanding grows.

While there were no patches available at the time of writing, Ivanti stated that they were expected to be released shortly, with the “first version targeted to be available to customers the week of 22 January 2023 and the final version targeted to be available the week of 19 February” [9].

Fortunately for vulnerable customers, in their absence of patches Darktrace DETECT was able to identify and alert for anomalous network activity that was carried out by malicious actors who had been able to successfully exploit the Ivanti CS and PS vulnerabilities. While the activity that followed these zero-day vulnerabilities may been able to have bypass traditional security tools reliant upon existing threat intelligence and indicators of compromise (IoCs), Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach allows it to identify such activity based on the subtle deviations in a devices behavior that typically emerge as threat actors begin to work towards their goals post-compromise.

In addition to Darktrace’s ability to identify this type of suspicious behavior, its autonomous response technology, Darktrace RESPOND is able to provide immediate follow-up with targeted mitigative actions to shut down malicious activity on affected customer environments as soon as it is detected.

Credit to: Nahisha Nobregas, SOC Analyst, Emma Foulger, Principle Cyber Analyst, and the Darktrace Threat Research Team

Appendices

List of IoCs Possible IoCs:

-       curl/7.19.7 (i686-redhat-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.63.0 OpenSSL/1.0.2n zlib/1.2.3

-       curl/7.19.7 (i686-redhat-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.63.0 OpenSSL/1.0.2n zlib/1.2.7

Mid-high confidence IoCs:

-       http://139.180.194[.]132:443/hello

‍-       http://139.180.194[.]132:443/helloq

‍-       http://blooming.s3.amazonaws[.]com/Ea7fbW98CyM5O (SHA256 hash: 816754f6eaf72d2e9c69fe09dcbe50576f7a052a1a450c2a19f01f57a6e13c17)

-       http://abode-dashboard-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws[.]com/kaffMm40RNtkg (SHA256 hash: 47ff0ae9220a09bfad2a2fb1e2fa2c8ffe5e9cb0466646e2a940ac2e0cf55d04)

-       http://archivevalley-media.s3.amazonaws[.]com/bbU5Yn3yayTtV (SHA256 hash: c7ddd58dcb7d9e752157302d516de5492a70be30099c2f806cb15db49d466026)

-       http://shapefiles.fews.net.s3.amazonaws[.]com/g6cYGAxHt4JC1 (SHA256 hash: c26da19e17423ce4cb4c8c47ebc61d009e77fc1ac4e87ce548cf25b8e4f4dc28)

-       http://be-at-home.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws[.]com/2ekjMjslSG9uI

‍-       music.farstream[.]org  • 104.21.86[.]153 / 172.67.221[.]78

-       http://197.243.22[.]27/3.js

‍-       http://91.92.240[.]113/auth.js

‍-       www.miltonhouse[.]nl • 88.240.53[.]22

-       cpanel.netbar[.]org • 146.19.212[.]12

-       http://188.116.20[.]38/revsocks_linux_amd64

‍-       185.243.112[.]245:8444

-        http://188.116.20[.]38/login.txt

‍-       http://91.92.240[.]113/aparche2 (SHA256 hash: 9d11c3cf10b20ff5b3e541147f9a965a4e66ed863803c54d93ba8a07c4aa7e50)

-       http://91.92.240[.]113/agent (SHA256 hash: 7967def86776f36ab6a663850120c5c70f397dd3834f11ba7a077205d37b117f)

-       45.9.149[.]215:11601

-       45.9.149[.]112:11601

-       http://91.92.240[.]113/login.cgi

-       91.92.240[.]71:11601

-       91.92.240[.]113:8080

-       http://45.9.149[.]215/ta.dat (SHA256 hash: 4bcf1333b3ad1252d067014c606fb3a5b6f675f85c59b69ca45669d45468e923)

-       91.92.241[.]18

-       94.156.64[.]252

-       http://144.172.76[.]76/lin86

‍-       144.172.122[.]14:443

-       http://185.243.115[.]58:37586/

‍-       http://103.13.28[.]40/linb64.png

-       103.13.28[.]40:53

-       159.89.82[.]235:8081

-       http://192.252.183[.]116:8089/u/123/100123/202401/d9a10f4568b649acae7bc2fe51fb5a98.sh

-       http://192.252.183[.]116:8089/u/123/100123/202401/sshd

-       http://192.252.183[.]116:8089/u/123/100123/202401/31a5f4ceae1e45e1a3cd30f5d7604d89.json

-       http://103.27.110[.]83/module/client_amd64

‍-       http://103.27.110[.]83/js/bootstrap.min.js?UUID=...

-       http://103.27.110[.]83/js/jquery.min.js

-       http://95.179.238[.]3/bak

‍-       http://91.92.244[.]59:8080/mbPHenSdr6Cf79XDAcKEVA

‍-       31.220.30[.]244

-       http://172.245.60[.]61:8443/SMUkbpX-0qNtLGsuCIuffAOLk9ZEBCG7bIcB2JT6GA/

-       http://172.245.60[.]61/ivanti

-       http://89.23.107[.]155:8080/l-5CzlHWjkp23gZiVLzvUg

-       http://185.156.72[.]51:8080/h7JpYIZZ1-rrk98v3YEy6w

-       http://185.156.72[.]51:8080/8uSQsOTwFyEAsXVwbAJ2mA

-       http://185.156.72[.]51:8080/vuln

-       185.156.72[.]51:4440

-       185.156.72[.]51:8080

-       185.156.72[.]51:4433

-       185.156.72[.]51:4446

-       185.156.72[.]51:4445

-       http://185.156.72[.]51/set.py

-       185.156.72[.]51:7777

-       45.9.151[.]107:7070

-       185.195.59[.]74:7070

-       185.195.59[.]74:20958

-       185.195.59[.]74:34436

-       185.195.59[.]74:37464

-       185.195.59[.]74:41468    

References

[1] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/CVE-2023-46805-Authentication-Bypass-CVE-2024-21887-Command-Injection-for-Ivanti-Connect-Secure-and-Ivanti-Policy-Secure-Gateways?language=en_US

[2] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/KB-CVE-2023-46805-Authentication-Bypass-CVE-2024-21887-Command-Injection-for-Ivanti-Connect-Secure-and-Ivanti-Policy-Secure-Gateways?language=en_US

[3] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/01/10/active-exploitation-of-two-zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-ivanti-connect-secure-vpn/

[4] https://www.mandiant.com/resources/blog/suspected-apt-targets-ivanti-zero-day

[5] https://www.greynoise.io/blog/ivanti-connect-secure-exploited-to-install-cryptominers

[6] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/01/18/ivanti-connect-secure-vpn-exploitation-new-observations/

[7] https://censys.com/the-mass-exploitation-of-ivanti-connect-secure/

[8] https://darktrace.com/blog/entry-via-sentry-analyzing-the-exploitation-of-a-critical-vulnerability-in-ivanti-sentry


[9] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/CVE-2023-46805-Authentication-Bypass-CVE-2024-21887-Command-Injection-for-Ivanti-Connect-Secure-and-Ivanti-Policy-Secure-Gateways?language=en_US  

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
Sam Lister
SOC Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
Get in touch
Share this article
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
Navigating buying and adoption journeys for AI cybersecurity tools
Oct 15, 2024
5
How Darktrace won an email security trial by learning the business, not the breach
Oct 9, 2024

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

December 9, 2024

/

Inside the SOC

A snake in the net: Defending against AiTM phishing threats and Mamba 2FA

Default blog imageDefault blog image

What are Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing kits?

Phishing-as-a-Service (PhaaS) platforms have significantly lowered the barriers to entry for cybercriminals, enabling a new wave of sophisticated phishing attacks. Among the most concerning developments in this landscape is the emergence of Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing kits, which enhance traditional phishing tactics by allowing attackers to intercept and manipulate communications in real-time. The PhaaS marketplace offers a wide variety of innovative capabilities, with basic services starting around USD 120 and more advanced services costing around USD 250 monthly [1].

These AiTM kits are designed to create convincing decoy pages that mimic legitimate login interfaces, often pre-filling user information to increase credibility. By acting as a man-in-the-middle, attackers can harvest sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, and even multi-factor authentication (MFA) tokens without raising immediate suspicion. This capability not only makes AiTM attacks more effective but also poses a significant challenge for cybersecurity defenses [2].

Mamba 2FA is one such example of a PhaaS strain with AiTM capabilities that has emerged as a significant threat to users of Microsoft 365 and other enterprise systems. Discovered in May 2024, Mamba 2FA employs advanced AiTM tactics to bypass MFA, making it particularly dangerous for organizations relying on these security measures.

What is Mamba 2FA?

Phishing Mechanism

Mamba 2FA employs highly convincing phishing pages that closely mimic legitimate Microsoft services like OneDrive and SharePoint. These phishing URLs are crafted with a specific structure, incorporating Base64-encoded parameters. This technique allows attackers to tailor the phishing experience to the targeted organization, making the deception more effective. If an invalid parameter is detected, users are redirected to a benign error page, which helps evade automated detection systems [5].

‍

Figure 1: Phishing page mimicking the Microsoft OneDrive service.

Real-Time Communication

A standout feature of Mamba 2FA is its use of the Socket.IO JavaScript library. This library facilitates real-time communication between the phishing page and the attackers' backend servers. As users input sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, and MFA tokens on the phishing site, this data is immediately relayed to the attackers, enabling swift unauthorized access [5].

Multi-Factor Authentication Bypass

Mamba 2FA specifically targets MFA methods that are not resistant to phishing, such as one-time passwords (OTPs) and push notifications. When a user enters their MFA token, it is captured in real-time by the attackers, who can then use it to access the victim's account immediately. This capability significantly undermines traditional security measures that rely on MFA for account protection.

Infrastructure and Distribution

The platform's infrastructure consists of two main components: link domains and relay servers. Link domains handle initial phishing attempts, while relay servers are responsible for stealing credentials and completing login processes on behalf of the attacker. The relay servers are designed to mask their IP addresses by using proxy services, making it more difficult for security systems to block them [3].

Evasion Techniques

To evade detection by security tools, Mamba 2FA employs several strategies:

  • ‍Sandbox Detection: The platform can detect if it is being analyzed in a sandbox environment and will redirect users to harmless pages like Google’s 404 error page.‍
  • Dynamic URL Generation: The URLs used in phishing attempts are frequently rotated and often short-lived to avoid being blacklisted by security solutions.‍
  • HTML Attachments: Phishing emails often include HTML attachments that appear benign but contain hidden JavaScript that redirects users to the phishing page [5].

Darktrace’s Coverage of Mamba 2FA

Starting in July 2024, the Darktrace Threat Research team detected a sudden rise in Microsoft 365 customer accounts logging in from unusual external sources. These accounts were accessed from an anomalous endpoint, 2607:5500:3000:fea[::]2, and exhibited unusual behaviors upon logging into Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) accounts. This activity strongly correlates with a phishing campaign using Mamba 2FA, first documented in late June 2024 and tracked as Mamba 2FA by Sekoia [2][3].

Darktrace / IDENTITY  was able to identify the initial stages of the Mamba 2FA campaign by correlating subtle anomalies, such as unusual SaaS login locations. Using AI based on peer group analysis, it detected unusual behavior associated with these attacks. By leveraging Autonomous Response actions, Darktrace was able to neutralize these threats in every instance of the campaign detected.

On July 23, a SaaS user was observed logging in from a rare ASN and IP address, 2607:5500:3000:fea::2, originating from the US and successfully passed through MFA authentication.

Figure 2: Model Alert Event Log showing Darktrace’s detection of a SaaS user mailbox logging in from an unusual source it correlates with Mamba 2FA relay server.

Almost an hour later, the SaaS user was observed logging in from another suspicious IP address, 45.133.172[.]86, linked to ASN AS174 COGENT-174. This IP, originating from the UK, successfully passed through MFA validation.

Following this unusual access, the SaaS user was notably observed reading emails and files that could contain sensitive payment and contract information. This behavior suggests that the attacker may have been leveraging contextual information about the target to craft further malicious phishing emails or fraudulent invoices. Subsequently, the user was detected creating a new mailbox rule titled 'fdsdf'. This rule was configured to redirect emails from a specific domain to the 'Deleted Items' folder and automatically mark them as read.

Implications of Unusual Email Rules

Such unusual email rule configurations are a common tactic employed by attackers. They often use these rules to automatically forward emails containing sensitive keywords—such as "invoice”, "payment", or "confidential"—to an external address. Additionally, these rules help conceal malicious activities, keeping them hidden from the target and allowing the attacker to operate undetected.

Figure 3: The model alert “SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule,” pertaining to the unusual email rule created by the SaaS user named ‘fdsdf’.

Blocking the action

A few minutes later, the SaaS user from the unusual IP address 45.133.172[.]86 was observed attempting to send an email with the subject “RE: Payments.” Subsequently, Darktrace detected the user engaging in activities that could potentially establish persistence in the compromised account, such as registering a new authenticator app. Recognizing this sequence of anomalous behaviors, Darktrace implemented an Autonomous Response inhibitor, disabling the SaaS user for two hours. This action effectively contained potential malicious activities, such as the distribution of phishing emails and fraudulent invoices, and gave the customer’s security team the necessary time to conduct a thorough investigation and implement appropriate security measures.

Figure 4: Device Event Log displaying Darktrace’s Autonomous Response taking action by blocking the SaaS account.
Figure 5: Darktrace / IDENTITY highlighting the 16 model alerts that triggered during the observed compromise.

In another example from mid-July, similar activities related to the campaign were observed on another customer network. A SaaS user was initially detected logging in from the unusual external endpoint 2607:5500:3000:fea[::]2.

Figure 6: The SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login model alert was triggered by an unusual login from a suspicious IP address linked to Mamba 2FA.

A few minutes later, in the same manner as demonstrated in the previous case, the actor was observed logging in from another rare endpoint, 102.68.111[.]240. However, this time it was from a source IP located in Lagos, Nigeria, which no other user on the network had been observed connecting from. Once logged in, the SaaS user updated the settings to "User registered Authenticator App with Notification and Code," a possible attempt to maintain persistence in the SaaS account.

Figure 7: Darktrace / IDENTITY highlighted the regular locations for the SaaS user. The rarity scores associated with the Mamba 2FA IP location and another IP located in Nigeria were classified as having very low regularity scores for this user.

Based on unusual patterns of user behavior, a Cyber AI Analyst Incident was also generated, detailing all potential account hijacking activities. Darktrace also applied an Autonomous Response action, disabling the user for over five hours. This swift action was crucial in preventing further unauthorized access, potential data breaches and further implications.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst Incident detailing the unusual activities related to the SaaS account hijacking.

Since the customer had subscribed to Darktrace Security Operations Centre (SOC) services, Darktrace analysts conducted an additional human investigation confirming the account compromise.

How Darktrace Combats Phishing Threats

The initial entry point for Mamba 2FA account compromises primarily involves phishing campaigns using HTML attachments and deceptive links. These phishing attempts are designed to mimic legitimate Microsoft services, such as OneDrive and SharePoint, making them appear authentic to unsuspecting users. Darktrace / EMAIL leverages multiple capabilities to analyze email content for known indicators of phishing. This includes looking for suspicious URLs, unusual attachments (like HTML files with embedded JavaScript), and signs of social engineering tactics commonly used in phishing campaigns like Mamba 2FA. With these capabilities, Darktrace successfully detected Mamba 2FA phishing emails in networks where this tool is integrated into the security layers, consequently preventing further implications and account hijacks of their users.

Mamba 2FA URL Structure and Domain Names

The URL structure used in Mamba 2FA phishing attempts is specifically designed to facilitate the capture of user credentials and MFA tokens while evading detection. These phishing URLs typically follow a pattern that incorporates Base64-encoded parameters, which play a crucial role in the operation of the phishing kit.

The URLs associated with Mamba 2FA phishing pages generally follow this structure [6]:

https://{domain}/{m,n,o}/?{Base64 string}

Below are some potential Mamba 2FA phishing emails, with the Base64 strings already decoded, that were classified as certain threats by Darktrace / EMAIL. This classification was based on identifying multiple suspicious characteristics, such as HTML attachments containing JavaScript code, emails from senders with no previous association with the recipients, analysis of redirect links, among others. These emails were autonomously blocked from being delivered to users' inboxes.

Figure 9: Darktrace / EMAIL highlighted a possible phishing email from Mamba 2FA, which was classified as a 100% anomaly.
Figure 10: Darktrace / EMAIL highlighted a URL that resembles the characteristics associated with Mamba 2FA.

Conclusion

The rise of PhaaS platforms and the advent of AiTM phishing kits represent a concerning evolution in cyber threats, pushing the boundaries of traditional phishing tactics and exposing significant vulnerabilities in current cybersecurity defenses. The ability of these attacks to effortlessly bypass traditional security measures like MFA underscores the need for more sophisticated, adaptive strategies to combat these evolving threats.

By identifying and responding to anomalous activities within Microsoft 365 accounts, Darktrace not only highlights the importance of comprehensive monitoring but also sets a new standard for proactive threat detection. Furthermore, the autonomous threat response capabilities and the exceptional proficiency of Darktrace / EMAIL in intercepting and neutralizing sophisticated phishing attacks illustrate a robust defense mechanism that can effectively safeguard users and maintain the integrity of digital ecosystems.

Credit to Patrick Anjos (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login
  • SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use
  • SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Suspicious Internal Exchange Activity
  • SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update
  • SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified
  • SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login, Sent Mail, Deleted Sent
  • SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage
  • SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual External Sources For SaaS Credential
  • IaaS / Compliance / Uncommon Azure External User Invite
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 External User Added to Group
  • SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified
  • SaaS/ Unusual Activity / Unusual MFA Auth and SaaS Activity
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents:

  • Possible Hijack of Office365 Account
  • Possible Hijack of AzureActiveDirectory Account
  • Possible Unsecured Office365 Resource

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC       Type    Description + Confidence

2607:5500:3000:fea[::]2 - IPv6 - Possible Mamba 2FA relay server

2607:5500:3000:1cab:[:]2 - IPv6 - Possible Mamba 2FA relay server

References

1.     https://securityaffairs.com/136953/cyber-crime/caffeine-phishing-platform.html

2.     https://any.run/cybersecurity-blog/analysis-of-the-phishing-campaign/

3.     https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-mamba-2fa-bypass-service-targets-microsoft-365-accounts/

4.     https://cyberinsider.com/microsoft-365-accounts-targeted-by-new-mamba-2fa-aitm-phishing-threat/

5.     https://blog.sekoia.io/mamba-2fa-a-new-contender-in-the-aitm-phishing-ecosystem/

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - Cloud Accounts

DISCOVERY - Cloud Service Dashboard

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Compromise Accounts

CREDENTIAL ACCESS - Steal Web Session Cookie

PERSISTENCE - Account Manipulation

PERSISTENCE - Outlook Rules

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Email Accounts

INITIAL ACCESS - Phishing

Continue reading
About the author
Patrick Anjos
Senior Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

December 9, 2024

/

Cloud

Protecting your hybrid cloud: The future of cloud security in 2025 and beyond

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Cloud security in 2025

The future of cybersecurity is being shaped by the rapid adoption of cloud technologies.

As Gartner reports, “By 2027, more than 70% of enterprises will use industry cloud platforms to accelerate their business initiatives, up from less than 15% in 2023” [1].

As organizations continue to transition workloads and sensitive data to cloud environments, the complexity of securing distributed infrastructures grows. In 2025, cloud security will need to address increasingly sophisticated threats with innovative approaches to ensure resilience and trust.

Emerging threats in cloud security:

  1. Supply chain attacks in the cloud: Threat actors are targeting vulnerabilities in cloud networks, including third-party integrations and APIs. These attacks can have wide-spanning impacts, jeopardizing data security and possibly even compromising multiple organizations at once. As a result, robust detection and response capabilities are essential to identify and neutralize these attacks before they escalate.
  2. Advanced misconfiguration exploits: Misconfigurations remain a leading cause of cloud security breaches. Attackers are exploiting these vulnerabilities across dynamic infrastructures, underscoring the need for tools that provide continuous compliance validation in the future of cloud computing.
  3. Credential theft with evolving Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs): While credential theft can result from phishing attacks, it can also happen through other means like malware, lateral movement, data breaches, weak and reused passwords, and social engineering. Adversarial innovation in carrying out these attacks requires security teams to use proactive defense strategies.
  4. Insider threats and privilege misuse: Inadequate monitoring of Identity and Access Management (IAM) in cloud security increases the risk of insider threats. The adoption of zero-trust architectures is key to mitigating these risks.
  5. Threats exploiting dynamic cloud scaling: Attackers take advantage of the dynamic nature of cloud computing, leveraging ephemeral workloads and autoscaling features to evade detection. This makes adaptive and AI-driven detection and response critical because it can more easily parse behavioral data that would take human security teams longer to investigate.

Where the industry is headed

In 2025, cloud infrastructures will become even more distributed and interconnected. Multi-cloud and hybrid models will dominate, so organizations will have to optimize workloads across platforms. At the same time, the growing adoption of edge computing and containerized applications will decentralize operations further. These trends demand security solutions that are agile, unified, and capable of adapting to rapid changes in cloud environments.

Emerging challenges in securing cloud environments

The transition to highly distributed and dynamic cloud ecosystems introduces the following key challenges:

  1. Limited visibility
    As organizations adopt multiple platforms and services, gaining a unified view of cloud architectures becomes increasingly difficult. This lack of visibility makes it unclear where sensitive data resides, which identities can access it and how, and if there are potential vulnerabilities in configurations and API infrastructure. Without end-to-end monitoring, detecting and mitigating threats in real time becomes nearly impossible.
  2. Complex environments
    The blend of public, private, and hybrid clouds, coupled with diverse service types (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS), creates a security landscape rife with configuration challenges. Each layer adds complexity, increasing the risk of misconfigurations, inconsistent policy enforcement, and gaps in defenses – all of which attackers may exploit.
  3. Dynamic nature of cloud
    Cloud infrastructures are designed to scale resources on demand, but this fluidity poses significant challenges to threat detection and incident response. Changes in configurations, ephemeral workloads, and fluctuating access points mean that on-prem network security mindsets cannot be applied to cloud security and many traditional cloud security approaches still fall short in addressing threats in real time.

Looking forward: Protecting the cloud in 2025 and beyond

Addressing these challenges requires innovation in visibility tools, AI-driven threat detection, and policy automation. The future of cloud security hinges on solutions that adapt to complexity and scale, ensuring organizations can securely navigate the growing demands of cloud-first operations.‍

‍Unsupervised Machine Learning (ML) enhances cloud security

Unlike supervised ML, which relies on labeled datasets, unsupervised ML identifies patterns and deviations in data without predefined rules, making it particularly effective in dynamic and unpredictable environments like the cloud. By analyzing the baseline behavior in cloud environments, such as typical user activity, network traffic, and resource utilization, unsupervised ML and supporting models can identify behavioral deviations linked to suspicious activity like unusual login times, irregular API calls, or unexpected data transfers, therefore flagging them as potential threats.

Learn more about how multi-layered ML improves real-time cloud detection and response in the data sheet “AI enhances cloud security.”

Agent vs. Agentless deployment

The future of cloud security is increasingly focused on combining agent-based and agentless solutions to address the complexities of hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

This integrated approach enables organizations to align security measures with the specific risks and operational needs of their assets, ensuring comprehensive protection.

Agent-based systems provide deep monitoring and active threat mitigation, making them ideal for high-security environments like financial services and healthcare, where compliance and sensitive data require stringent safeguards.

Meanwhile, agentless systems offer broad visibility and scalability, seamlessly covering dynamic cloud resources without the need for extensive deployment efforts.

Together, a combination of these approaches ensures that all parts of the cloud environment are protected according to their unique risk profiles and functional requirements.

The growing adoption of this strategy highlights a shift toward adaptive, scalable, and efficient security solutions, reflecting the priorities of a rapidly evolving cloud landscape.

Shifting responsibilities: security teams must get more comfortable with cloud mindsets

Traditionally, many organizations left cloud security to dedicated cloud teams. However, it is becoming more and more common for security teams to take on the responsibilities of securing the cloud. This is also true of organizations undergoing cloud migration and spinning up cloud infrastructure for the first time.

Notably, the usual approaches to other types of cybersecurity can’t be applied the exact same way to the cloud. With the inherent dynamism and flexibility of the cloud, the necessary security mindset differs greatly from those for the network or datacenters, with which security teams may be more familiar.

For example, IAM is both critical and distinct to cloud computing, and the associated policies, rules, and downstream impacts require intentional care. IAM rules not only govern people, but also non-human entities like service accounts, API keys, and OAuth tokens. These considerations are unique to cloud security, and established teams may need to learn new skills to reduce security gaps in the cloud.

The importance of visibility: The future of network security in the cloud

As organizations transition to cloud environments, they still have much of their data in on-premises networks, meaning that maintaining visibility across both on-premises and cloud environments is essential for securing critical assets and ensuring seamless operations. Without a unified security strategy, gaps between these infrastructures and the teams which manage them can leave organizations vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

Shared visibility across both on-premises and cloud environments unifies SecOps and DevOps teams, enabling them to generate actionable insights and develop a cohesive approach. This alignment helps confidently mitigate risks across the cloud and network while streamlining workflows and accelerating the cloud migration journey—all without compromising security or operational continuity.

‍

Cloud security ciso's guide screenshot

Ready to transform your cloud security approach? Download the CISO's Guide to Cloud Security now!

‍

‍

‍

‍

References:

[1] Gartner, June 5, 2024, “The Expanding Enterprise Investment in Cloud Security,” Available at: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-06-05-the-expanding-enterprise-investment-in-cloud-security

Continue reading
About the author
Kellie Regan
Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI