November 23, 2022

How Darktrace Could Have Stopped a Surprise DDoS Incident

Learn how Darktrace could revolutionize DDoS defense, enabling companies to stop threats without 24/7 monitoring. Read more about how we thwart attacks!

Written by

Steven Sosa

Analyst Team Lead

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

Steven Sosa

Analyst Team Lead

Nov 2022

When is the best time to be hit with a cyber-attack?

The answer that springs to most is ‘Never’, however in today’s threat landscape, this is often wishful thinking. The next best answer is ‘When we’re ready for it’. Yet, this does not take into account the intention of those committing attacks. The reality is that the best time for a cyber-attack is when no one else is around to stop it.

When do cyber attacks happen?

Previous analysis from Mandiant reveals that over half of ransomware compromises occur at out of work hours, a trend Darktrace has also witnessed in the past two years [1]. This is deliberate, as the fewer people that are online, the harder it is to get ahold of security teams and the higher the likelihood there is of an attacker achieving their goals. Given this landscape, it is clear that autonomous response is more important than ever. In the absence of human resources, autonomous security can fill in the gap long enough for IT teams to begin remediation.

This blog will detail an incident where autonomous response provided by Darktrace RESPOND would have entirely prevented an infection attempt, despite it occurring in the early hours of the morning. Because the customer had RESPOND in human confirmation mode (AI response must first be approved by a human), the attempt by XorDDoS was ultimately successful. Given that the attack occurred in the early hours of the morning, there was likely no one around to confirm Darktrace RESPOND actions and prevent the attack.

XorDDoS Primer

XorDDoS is a botnet, a type of malware that infects devices for the purpose of controlling them as a collective to carry out specific actions. In the case of XorDDoS, it infects devices in order to carry out denial of service attacks using said devices. This year, Microsoft has reported a substantial increase in activity from this malware strain, with an increased focus on Linux based operating systems [2]. XorDDoS most commonly finds its way onto systems via SSH brute-forcing, and once deployed, encrypts its traffic with an XOR cipher. XorDDoS has also been known to download additional payloads such as backdoors and cryptominers. Needless to say, this is not something you have on a corporate network.

Initial Intrusion of XorDDoS

The incident begins with a device first coming online on 10^th August. The device appeared to be internet facing and Darktrace saw hundreds of incoming SSH connections to the device from a variety of endpoints. Over the course of the next five days, the device received thousands of failed SSH connections from several IP addresses that, according to OSINT, may be associated with web scanners [3]. Successful SSH connections were seen from internal IP addresses as well as IP addresses associated with IT solutions relevant to Asia-Pacific (the customer’s geographic location). On midnight of 15^th August, the first successful SSH connection occurred from an IP address that has been associated with web scanning. This connection lasted around an hour and a half, and the external IP uploaded around 3.3 MB of data to the client device. Given all of this, and what the industry knows about XorDDoS, it is likely that the client device had SSH exposed to the Internet which was then brute-forced for initial access.

There were a few hours of dwell until the device downloaded a ZIP file from an Iraqi mirror site, mirror[.]earthlink[.]iq at around 6AM in the customer time zone. The endpoint had only been seen once before and was 100% rare for the network. Since there has been no information on OSINT around this particular endpoint or the ZIP files downloaded from the mirror site, the detection was based on the unusualness of the download.

Following this, Darktrace saw the device make a curl request to the external IP address 107.148.210[.]218. This was highlighted as the user agent associated with curl had not been seen on the device before, and the connection was made directly to an IP address without a hostname (suggesting that the connection was scripted). The URIs of these requests were ‘1.txt’ and ‘2.txt’.

The ‘.txt’ extensions on the URIs were deceiving and it turned out that both were executable files masquerading as text files. OSINT on both of the hashes revealed that the files were likely associated with XorDDoS. Additionally, judging from packet captures of the connection, the true file extension appeared to be ‘.ELF’. As XorDDoS primarily affects Linux devices, this would make sense as the true extension of the payload.

*Figure 1: Packet capture of the curl request made by the breach device.*

C2 Connections

Immediately after the ‘.ELF’ download, Darktrace saw the device attempting C2 connections. This included connections to DGA-like domains on unusual ports such as 1525 and 8993. Luckily, the client’s firewall seems to have blocked these connections, but that didn’t stop XorDDoS. XorDDoS continued to attempt connections to C2 domains, which triggered several Proactive Threat Notifications (PTNs) that were alerted by SOC. Following the PTNs, the client manually quarantined the device a few hours after the initial breach. This lapse in actioning was likely due to an early morning timing with the customer’s employees not being online yet. After the device was quarantined, Darktrace still saw XorDDoS attempting C2 connections. In all, hundreds of thousands of C2 connections were detected before the device was removed from the network sometime on 7^th September.

*Figure 2: AI Analyst was able to identify the anomalous activity and group it together in an easy to parse format.*

An Alternate Timeline

Although the device was ultimately removed, this attack would have been entirely prevented had RESPOND/Network not been in human confirmation mode. Autonomous response would have kicked in once the device downloaded the ‘.ZIP file’ from the Iraqi mirror site and blocked all outgoing connections from the breach device for an hour:

*Figure 3: Screenshot of the first Antigena (RESPOND) breach that would have prevented all subsequent activity.*

The model breach in Figure 3 would have prevented the download of the XorDDoS executables, and then prevented the subsequent C2 connections. This hour would have been crucial, as it would have given enough time for members of the customer’s security team to get back online should the compromised device have attempted anything else. With everyone attentive, it is unlikely that this activity would have lasted as long as it did. Had the attack been allowed to progress further, the infected device would have at the very least been an unwilling participant in a future DDoS attack. Additionally, the device could have a backdoor placed within it, and additional malware such as cryptojackers might have been deployed.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, we do not exist in the alternate timeline that autonomous response would have prevented this whole series of events.Luckily, although it was not in place, the PTN alerts provided by Darktrace’s SOC team still sped up the process of remediation in an event that was never intended to be discovered given the time it occurred. Unusual times of attack are not just limited to ransomware, so organizations need to have measures in place for the times that are most inconvenient to them, but most convenient to attackers. With Darktrace/RESPOND however, this is just one click away.

Thanks to Brianna Leddy for their contribution.

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Below is a list of model breaches in order of trigger. The Proactive Threat Notification models are in bold and only the first Antigena [RESPOND] breach that would have prevented the initial compromise has been included. A manual quarantine breach has also been added to show when the customer began remediation.

Compliance / Incoming SSH, August 12^th 23:39 GMT +8
Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location, August 15^th, 6:07 GMT +8
Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block, August 15^th 6:36 GMT +8 [part of the RESPOND functionality]
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8‍
Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8‍
Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8
Compromise / Rare Domain Pointing to Internal IP, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8‍
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise, August 15^th 6:59 GMT +8
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections, August 15^th 7:01 GMT +8
Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score, August 15^th 7:04 GMT +8
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA, August 15^th 7:04 GMT +8‍
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2, August 15^th 7:04 GMT +8
Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device, August 15^th 8:54 GMT +8 [part of the RESPOND functionality]

List of IOCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Reference List

[1] They Come in the Night: Ransomware Deployment Trends

[2] Rise in XorDdos: A deeper look at the stealthy DDoS malware targeting Linux devices

[3] Alien Vault: Domain Navicatadvvr & https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/navicatadvvr.com & https://maltiverse.com/hostname/navicatadvvr.com

Written by

Steven Sosa

Analyst Team Lead

Inside the SOC

Written by

Steven Sosa

Analyst Team Lead

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

•

March 26, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

In today's threat landscape, blending in to normal activity is the key to success for attackers and the growing reliance on residential proxies shows a significant shift in how threat actors are attempting to bypass IP detection tools.

The increasing dependency on residential proxies has exposed how prevalent proxy services are and how reliant a diverse range of threat actors are on them. From cybercriminal groups to state‑sponsored actors, the need to bypass IP detection tools is fundamental to the success of these groups. One malware that has quietly become notorious for its ability to avoid anomaly detection is GhostSocks, a malware that turns compromised devices into residential proxies.

What is GhostSocks?

Originally marketed on the Russian underground forum xss[.]is as a Malware‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS), GhostSocks enables threat actors to turn compromised devices into residential proxies, leveraging the victim's internet bandwidth to route malicious traffic through it.

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

The malware offers the threat actor a “clean” IP address, making it look like it is coming from a household user. This enables the bypassing of geographic restrictions and IP detection tools, a perfect tool for avoiding anomaly detection. It wasn’t until 2024, when a partnership was announced with the infamous information stealer Lumma Stealer, that GhostSocks surged into widespread adoption and alluded to who may be the author of the proxy malware.

Written in GoLang, GhostSocks utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy protocol, creating a SOCKS5 connection on infected devices. It uses a relay‑based C2 implementation, where an intermediary server sits in between the real command-and-control (C2) server and the infected device.

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

To further increase evasion, the Ghostsocks malware wraps its SOCKS5 tunnels in TLS encryption, allowing its malicious traffic to blend into normal network traffic.

Early variants of GhostSocks do not implement a persistence mechanism; however, later versions achieve persistence via registry run keys, ensuring sustained proxy operational time [1].

While proxying is its primary purpose, GhostSocks also incorporates backdoor functionality, enabling malicious actors to run arbitrary commands and download and deploy additional malicious payloads. This was evident with the well‑known ransomware group Black Basta, which reportedly used GhostSocks as a way of maintaining long‑term access to victims’ networks [1].

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Darktrace observed a steady increase in GhostSocks activity across its customer base from late 2025, with its Threat Research team identifying multiple incidents involving the malware. In one notable case from December 2025, Darktrace detected GhostSocks operating alongside Lumma Stealer, reinforcing that the partnership between Lumma and GhostSocks remains active despite recent attempts to disrupt Lumma’s infrastructure.

Darktrace’s first detection of GhostSocks‑related activity came when a device on the network of a customer in the education sector began making connections to an endpoint with a suspicious self‑signed certificate that had never been seen on the network before.

The endpoint in question, 159.89.46[.]92 with the hostname retreaw[.]click, has been flagged by multiple open‑source intelligence (OSINT) sources as being associated with Lumma Stealer’s C2 infrastructure [2], indicating its likely role in the delivery of malicious payloads.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious SSL connections to retreaw[.]click, indicating an attempted link to Lumma C2 infrastructure.

Less than two minutes later, Darktrace observed the same device downloading the executable (.exe) file “Renewable.exe” from the IP 86.54.24[.]29, which Darktrace recognized as 100% rare for this network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device downloading the unusual executable file “Renewable.exe”.

Both the file MD5 hash and the executable itself have been identified by multiple OSINT vendors as being associated with the GhostSocks malware [3], with the executable likely the backdoor component of the GhostSocks malware, facilitating the distribution of additional malicious payloads [4].

Following this detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability recommended a blocking action for the device in an early attempt to stop the malicious file download. In this instance, Darktrace was configured in Human Confirmation Mode, meaning the customer’s security team was required to manually apply any mitigative response actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled at the time of the attack, the connections to 86.54.24[.]29 would have been blocked, rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its C2 infrastructure and halting any further malicious communication.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability suggesting blocking the suspicious connections to the unusual endpoint from which the malicious executable was downloaded.

As the attack was able to progress, two days later the device was detected downloading additional payloads from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site (23.106.58[.]48), including “Setup.exe”, “,.exe”, and “/vp6c63yoz.exe”.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a malicious payload being downloaded from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site.

Once again, Darktrace recognized the anomalous nature of these downloads and suggested that a “group pattern of life” be enforced on the offending device in an attempt to contain the activity. By enforcing a pattern of life on a device, Darktrace restricts its activity to connections and behaviors similar to those performed by peer devices within the same group, while still allowing it to carry out its expected activity, effectively preventing deviations indicative of compromise while minimizing disruption. As mentioned earlier, these mitigative actions required manual implementation, so the activity was able to continue. Darktrace proceeded to suggest further actions to contain subsequent malicious downloads, including an attempt to block all outbound traffic to stop the attack from progressing.

Figure 5: An overview of download activity and the Autonomous Response actions recommended by Darktrace to block the downloads.

Around the same time, a third executable download was detected, this time from the hostname hxxp[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront.net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe, along with the file “udppump.exe”.While GhostSocks may have been present only to facilitate the delivery of additional payloads, there is no indication that these CloudFront endpoints or files are functionally linked to GhostSocks. Rather, the evidence points to broader malicious file‑download activity.

Shortly after the multiple executable files had been downloaded, Darktrace observed the device initiating a series of repeated successful connections to several rare external endpoints, behavior consistent with early-stage C2 beaconing activity.

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of additional malicious file downloads from malicious CloudFront endpoints.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst carried out its own autonomous investigation, piecing together seemingly separate events into one wider incident encompassing the first suspicious downloads beginning on December 4, the unusual connectivity to many suspicious IPs that followed, and the successful beaconing activity observed two days later. By analyzing these events in real-time and viewing them as part of the bigger picture, Cyber AI Analyst was able to construct an in‑depth breakdown of the attack to aid the customer’s investigation and remediation efforts.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the sequence of events on the compromised device, highlighting its extensive connectivity to rare endpoints, the related malicious file‑download activity, and finally the emergence of C2 beaconing behavior.

Conclusion

The versatility offered by GhostSocks is far from new, but its ability to convert compromised devices into residential proxy nodes, while enabling long‑term, covert network access—illustrates how threat actors continue to maximise the value of their victims’ infrastructure. Its growing popularity, coupled with its ongoing partnership with Lumma, demonstrates that infrastructure takedowns alone are insufficient; as long as threat actors remain committed to maintaining anonymity and can rapidly rebuild their ecosystems, related malware activity is likely to persist in some form.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Gernice Lee (Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead – APJ)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References

1. https://bloo.io/research/malware/ghostsocks

2. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/retreaw.click/community

3. https://synthient.com/blog/ghostsocks-from-initial-access-to-residential-proxy

4. https://www.joesandbox.com/analysis/1810568/0/html

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/fab6525bf6e77249b74736cb74501a9491109dc7950688b3ae898354eb920413

Darktrace Model Detections

Real-time Detection Models

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Compromise / Possible Fast Flux C2 Activity

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Autonomous Response Models

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

Resource Development – T1588 - Malware

Initial Access - T1189 - Drive-by Compromise

Persistence – T1112 – Modify Registry

Command and Control – T1071 – Application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1095 – Non-application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1071 – Web Protocols

Command and Control – T1571 – Non-Standard Port

Command and Control – T1102 – One-Way Communication

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

86.54.24[.]29 - IP - Likely GhostSocks C2

http[://]86.54.24[.]29/Renewable[.]exe - Hostname - GhostSocks Distribution Endpoint

http[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront[.]net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe - CDN - Payload Distribution Endpoint

www.lbfs[.]site - Hostname - Likely C2 Endpoint

retreaw[.]click - Hostname - Lumma C2 Endpoint

alltipi[.]com - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

w2.bruggebogeyed[.]site - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

9b90c62299d4bed2e0752e2e1fc777ac50308534 - SHA1 file hash – Likely GhostSocks payload

3d9d7a7905e46a3e39a45405cb010c1baa735f9e - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

10f928e00a1ed0181992a1e4771673566a02f4e3 - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

About the author

Gernice Lee

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

Blog

AI

March 27, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

The findings in this blog are taken from Darktrace's annual State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2026.

AI is already embedded in day-to-day enterprise activity, with 78% of participants in one recent survey reporting that their organizations are using generative AI in at least one business function. Generative AI now acts as an always-on assistant, researcher, creator, and coach across an expanding array of departments and functions. Autonomous agents are performing multi-step operational workflows from end to end. AI features have been layered on top of every SaaS application. And vibe coding is making it possible for employees without deep technical expertise to build their own AI-powered automations.

According to Gartner, more than 80% of enterprises will have deployed GenAI models, applications, or APIs in production environments by the end of this year, up from less than 5% in 2023. Companies report a 130% increase in spending on AI over the same period, with 72% of business leaders using AI tools at least weekly. The outsized efficiency and productivity gains that were once a future vision are quickly becoming everyday reality.

AI is currently driving business growth and innovation, and organizations risk falling behind peers if they don’t keep up with the pace of adoption, but it is also quietly expanding the enterprise attack surface. The modern CISO is challenged to both enable innovation and protect the business from these emerging threats.

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

AI agents are playing growing roles in enterprise production environments. In many cases, these agents act with broad permissions across multiple software systems and platforms. This means they’re granted far-reaching access – to sensitive data, business-critical applications, tokens and APIs, and IT and security tools. With this access comes risk for security leaders – 92% are concerned about the use of AI agents across the workforce and their impact on security.

These agents must be governed as identities, with least-privilege access and ongoing monitoring. They can’t be thought of as invisible aspects of the application estate. Understanding how AI agents behave, and how to manage their permissions, control their behavior, and limit their data access will be a top security priority throughout 2026.

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

Prompts are how users – both human and agentic – interact with AI systems, and they’re where natural language gets translated into model behavior. Natural language is infinite in its potential combinations and permutations, making this aspect of the attack surface open-ended and far more complex than traditional CVEs. With carefully crafted prompts, bad actors may be able to coax models into disclosing sensitive data, bypassing guardrails, or initiating undesirable actions.

Among security leaders, the biggest worries about AI usage in their environments all involve ways that systems might be manipulated to bypass traditional controls.

61% are most concerned about the exposure of sensitive data
56% are most concerned about potential data security and policy violations
51% are most concerned about the misuse or abuse of AI tools

The more employees rely on AI in their day-to-day workflows, the more critical it becomes for security teams to understand how prompt behavior determines model behavior – and where that behavior could go wrong.

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

AI adoption opens new security risks that blur the boundaries between traditional security disciplines. A single malicious interaction with an AI model could involve identity misuse, sensitive data exposure, application logic abuse, and supply chain risk – all within a single workflow. Protecting this dynamic and rapidly evolving attack surface requires an approach that spans identity security, cloud security, application security, data security, software development security, and more.

The task for security leaders is to implement the tools, policies, and frameworks to mitigate these novel, expansive, and cross-disciplinary risks.

However, within most enterprises, AI policy creation remains in its infancy. Just 37% of security leaders report that their organization has a formal AI policy, representing a small but worrisome decrease from last year. Conversations about AI abound: in 52% of organizations, there’s discussion about an AI policy. Still, talk is cheap, and leaders will need to take action if they’re to successfully enable secure AI innovation.

To govern and protect their AI systems, organizations must take a multi-pronged approach. This requires building out policies, but it also demands that they are able to:

Monitor the prompts driving GenAI assistants and agents in real time. Organizations must be able to inspect prompts, sessions, and responses across enterprise GenAI tools, low- and high-code environments, and SaaS and SASE so that they can detect clever conversational prompt attacks and malicious chaining.
Secure all business AI agent identities. Security teams need to identify all the agents acting within their environment and supply chain, map their connections and interactions via MCP and services like Amazon S3, and audit their behavior across the cloud, SaaS environments, and on the network and endpoint devices.
Maintain centralized, comprehensive visibility. Understanding intent, assessing risks, and enforcing policies all require that security teams have a single view that spans AI interactions across the entire business.
Discover and control shadow AI. Teams need to be able to identify unsanctioned AI activities, distinguish the misuse of legitimate tools from their appropriate use, and apply policies to protect data, while guiding users towards approved solutions.

Scaling AI safely and responsibly

The approach that most cybersecurity vendors have taken – using historical patterns to predict future threats – doesn’t work well for AI systems. Because AI changes its behavior in response to the information it encounters while taking action, previous patterns don’t indicate what it will do next. Looking at past attacks can’t tell you how complex models will behave in your individual business.

Securing AI requires interpreting ambiguous interactions, uncovering subtleties that reveal intent within extended conversations, understanding how access accumulates over time, and recognizing when behavior – both human and machine – begins to drift towards areas of risk. To do this, you need to understand what “normal” looks like in each unique organization: how users, systems, applications, and AI agents behave, how they communicate, and how data flows between them.

Darktrace has spent more than a decade designing AI-powered solutions that can understand and adapt to evolving behavior in complex environments. This technology learns directly from the environment it protects, identifying malicious actions that deviate from normal operations, so that it can stop AI-related threats on the very first encounter.

As AI adoption reshapes enterprise operations, humans and machines will collaborate more and more often. This collaboration might dramatically expand the attack surface, but it also has the potential to be a force multiplier for defenders.

‍

Explore the full State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 report for deeper insights into how security leaders are responding to AI-driven risks.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: How Darktrace Could Have Stopped a Surprise DDoS Incident

How Darktrace Could Have Stopped a Surprise DDoS Incident

When is the best time to be hit with a cyber-attack?

When do cyber attacks happen?

XorDDoS Primer

Initial Intrusion of XorDDoS

C2 Connections

An Alternate Timeline

Conclusions

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

ClearFake: From Fake CAPTCHAs to Blockchain-Driven Payload Retrieval

ML Integration for Third-Party EDR Alerts

Prevent Data Exfiltration & Know When to Respond

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

What is GhostSocks?

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Detections

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

AI

March 27, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

Scaling AI safely and responsibly