July 26, 2022

Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Explore the differences between zero-day and n-day attacks on different customer servers to learn how Darktrace detects and prevents cyber threats effectively.

Written by

Lewis Morgan

Cyber Analyst

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

Lewis Morgan

Cyber Analyst

Jul 2022

‍Key Terms:

Zero-day | A recently discovered security vulnerability in computer software that has no currently available fix or patch. Its name come from the reality that vendors have “zero days” to act and respond.

N-day | A vulnerability that emerges in computer software in which a vendor is aware and may have already issued (or are currently working on) a patch or fix. Active exploits often already exist and await abuse by nefarious actors.

Traditional security solutions often apply signature-based-detection when identifying cyber threats, helping to defend against legacy attacks but consequently missing novel ones. Therefore, security teams often lend a lot of focus to ensuring that the risk of zero-day vulnerabilities is reduced [1]. As explored in this blog, however, organizations can face just as much of a risk from n-day attacks, since they invite the most attention from malicious actors [2]. This is due in part to the reduced complexity, cost and time invested in researching and finding new exploits compared with that found when attackers exploit zero-days.

This blog will examine both a zero-day and n-day attack that two different Darktrace customers faced in the fall of 2021. This will include the activity Darktrace detected, along with the steps taken by Darktrace/Network to intervene. It will then compare the incidents, discuss the possible dangers of third-party integrations, and assess the deprecation of legacy security tools.

Revisiting zero-day attacks

Zero-days are among the greatest concerns security teams face in the era of modern technology and networking. Defending critical systems from zero-day compromises is a task most legacy security solutions are often unable to handle. Due to the complexity of uncovering new security flaws and developing elaborate code that can exploit them, these attacks are often carried out by funded or experienced groups such as nation-state actors and APTs. One of history’s most prolific zero-days, ‘Stuxnet’, sent security teams worldwide into a global panic in 2010. This involved a widespread attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure and was widely accepted to be a result of nation-state actors [3]. The Stuxnet worm took advantage of four zero-day exploits, compromising over 200,000 devices and physically damaging around 10% of the 9,000 critical centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear site.

More recently, 2021 saw the emergence of several critical zero-day vulnerabilities within SonicWall’s product suite [4]. SonicWall is a security hardware manufacturer that provides hardware firewall devices, unified threat management, VPN gateways and network security solutions. Some of these vulnerabilities lie within their Secure Mobile Access (SMA) 100 series (for example, CVE-2019-7481, CVE-2021-20016 and CVE-2021-20038 to name a few). These directly affected VPN devices and often allowed attackers easy remote access to company devices. CVE-2021-20016 in particular incorporates an SQL-Injection vulnerability within SonicWall’s SSL VPN SMA 100 product line [5]. If exploited, this defect would allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to perform their own malicious SQL query in order to access usernames, passwords and other session related information.

The N-day underdog

The shadow cast by zero-day attacks often shrouds that of n-day attacks. N-days, however, often pose an equal - if not greater - risk to the majority of organizations, particularly those in industrial sectors. Since these vulnerabilities have fixes available, all of the hard work around research is already done; malicious actors only need to view proof of concepts (POCs) or, if proficient in coding, reverse-engineer software to reveal code-changes (binary diffing) in order to exploit these security flaws in the wild. These vulnerabilities are typically attributed to opportunistic hackers and script-kiddies, where little research or heavy lifting is required.

August 2021 gave rise to a critical vulnerability in Atlassian Confluence servers, namely CVE-2021-26084 [6]. Confluence is a widely used collaboration wiki tool and knowledge-sharing platform. As introduced and discussed a few months ago in a previous Darktrace blog (Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities), this vulnerability allows attackers to remotely execute code on internet-facing servers after exploiting injection vulnerabilities in Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL). Whilst Confluence had patches and fixes available to users, attackers still jumped on this opportunity and began scanning the internet for signs of critical devices serving this outdated software [7]. Once identified, they would exploit the vulnerability, often installing crypto mining software onto the device. More recently, Darktrace explored a new vulnerability (CVE-2022-26134), disclosed midway through 2022, that affected Confluence servers and data centers using similar techniques to that found in CVE-2021-26084 [8].

SonicWall in the wild – 1. Zero-day attack

At the beginning of August 2021, Darktrace prevented an attack from taking place within a European automotive customer’s environment (Figure 1). The attack targeted a vulnerable internet-facing SonicWall VPN server, and while the attacker’s motive remains unclear, similar historic events suggest that they intended to perform ransomware encryption or data exfiltration.

Figure 1: Timeline of the SonicWall attack

Darktrace was unable to confirm the definite tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) used by the attacker to compromise the customer’s environment, as the device was compromised before Darktrace installation and coverage. However, from looking at recently disclosed SonicWall VPN vulnerabilities and patterns of behaviour, it is likely CVE-2021-20016 played a part. At some point after this initial infection, it is also believed the device was able to move laterally to a domain controller (DC) using administrative credentials; it was this server that then initiated the anomalous activity that Darktrace detected and alerted on.

On August 5^th 2021 , Darktrace observed this compromised domain controller engaging in unusual ICMP scanning - a protocol used to discover active devices within an environment and create a map of an organization’s network topology. Shortly after, the infected server began scanning devices for open RDP ports and enumerating SMB shares using unorthodox methods. SMB delete and HTTP requests (over port 445 and 80 respectively) were made for files named delete.me in the root directory of numerous network shares using the user agent Microsoft WebDAV. However, no such files appeared to exist within the environment. This may have been the result of an attacker probing devices in the network in an effort to see their responses and gather information on properties and vulnerabilities they could later exploit.

Soon the infected DC began establishing RDP tunnels back to the VPN server and making requests to an internal DNS server for multiple endpoints relating to exploit kits, likely in an effort to strengthen the attacker’s foothold within the environment. Some of the endpoints requested relate to:

- EternalBlue vulnerability

- Petit Potam NTLM hash attack tool

- Unusual GitHub repositories

- Unusual Python repositories

The DC made outgoing NTLM requests to other internal devices, implying the successful installation of Petit Potam exploitation tools. The server then began performing NTLM reconnaissance, making over 1,000 successful logins under ‘Administrator’ to several other internal devices. Around the same time, the device was also seen making anonymous SMBv1 logins to numerous internal devices, (possibly symptomatic of the attacker probing machines for EternalBlue vulnerabilities).

Interestingly, the device also made numerous failed authentication attempts using a spoofed credential for one of the organization’s security managers. This was likely in an attempt to hide themselves using ‘Living off the Land’ (LotL) techniques. However, whilst the attacker clearly did their research on the company, they failed to acknowledge the typical naming convention used for credentials within the environment. This ultimately backfired and made the compromise more obvious and unusual.

In the morning of the following day, the initially compromised VPN server began conducting further reconnaissance, engaging in similar activity to that observed by the domain controller. Until now, the customer had set Darktrace RESPOND to run in human confirmation mode, meaning interventions were not made autonomously but required confirmation by a member of the internal security team. However, thanks to Proactive Threat Notifications (PTNs) delivered by Darktrace’s dedicated SOC team, the customer was made immediately aware of this unusual behaviour, allowing them to apply manual Darktrace RESPOND blocks to all outgoing connections (Figure 2). This gave the security team enough time to respond and remediate before serious damage could be done.

Figure 2: Darktrace RESPOND model breach showing the manually applied “Quarantine Device” action taken against the compromised VPN server. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

Confluence in the wild – 2. N-day attack

Towards the end of 2021, Darktrace saw a European broadcasting customer leave an Atlassian Confluence internet-facing server unpatched and vulnerable to crypto-mining malware using CVE-2021-26084. Thanks to Darktrace, this attack was entirely immobilized within only a few hours of the initial infection, protecting the organization from damage (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Timeline of the Confluence attack

On midday on September 1^st 2021, an unpatched Confluence server was seen receiving SSL connections over port 443 from a suspicious new endpoint, 178.238.226[.]127. The connections were encrypted, meaning Darktrace was unable to view the contents and ascertain what requests were being made. However, with the disclosure of CVE-2021-26084 just 7 days prior to this activity, it is likely that the TTPs used involved injecting OGNL expressions to Confluence server memory; allowing the attacker to remotely execute code on the vulnerable server.

Immediately after successful exploitation of the Confluence server, the infected device was observed making outgoing HTTP GET requests to several external endpoints using a new user agent (curl/7.61.1). Curl was used to silently download and configure multiple suspicious files relating to XMRig cryptocurrency miner, including ld.sh, XMRig and config.json. Subsequent outgoing connections were then made to europe.randomx-hub.miningpoolhub[.]com · 172.105.210[.]117 using the JSON-RPC protocol, seen alongside the mining credential maillocal.confluence (Figure 4). Only 3 seconds after initial compromise, the infected device began attempting to mine cryptocurrency using the Minergate protocol but was instantly and autonomously blocked by Darktrace RESPOND. This prevented the server from abusing system resources and generating profits for the attacker.

Figure 4: A graph showing the frequency of external connections using the JSON-RPC protocol made by the breach device over a 48-hour window. The orange-red dots represent models that breached as a result of this activity, demonstrating the “waterfall” effect commonly seen when a device suffers a compromise. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

In the afternoon, the malware persisted with its infection. The compromised server began making successive HTTP GET requests to a new rare endpoint 195.19.192[.]28 using the same curl user agent (Figures 5 & 6). These requests were for executable and dynamic library files associated with Kinsing malware (but fortunately were also blocked by Darktrace RESPOND). Kinsing is a malware strain found in numerous attack campaigns which is often associated with crypto-jacking, and has appeared in previous Darktrace blogs [9].

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst summarising the unusual download of Kinsing software using the new curl user agent. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

The attacker then began making HTTP POST requests to an IP 185.154.53[.]140, using the same curl user agent; likely a method for the attacker to maintain persistence within the network and establish a foothold using its C2 infrastructure. The Confluence server was then again seen attempting to mine cryptocurrency using the Minergate protocol. It made outgoing JSON-RPC connections to a different new endpoint, 45.129.2[.]107, using the following mining credential: ‘42J8CF9sQoP9pMbvtcLgTxdA2KN4ZMUVWJk6HJDWzixDLmU2Ar47PUNS5XHv4Kmfdh8aA9fbZmKHwfmFo8Wup8YtS5Kdqh2’. This was once again blocked by Darktrace RESPOND (Figure 7).

Figure 6: VirusTotal showing the unusualness of one of these external IPs [10]

Figure 7: Log data showing the action taken by Darktrace RESPOND in response to the device breaching the “Crypto Currency Mining Activity” model. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

The final activity seen from this device involved the download of additional shell scripts over HTTP associated with Kinsing, namely spre.sh and unk.sh, from 194.38.20[.]199 and 195.3.146[.]118 respectively (Figure 8). A new user agent (Wget/1.19.5 (linux-gnu)) was used when connecting to the latter endpoint, which also began concurrently initiating repeated connections indicative of C2 beaconing. These scripts help to spread the Kinsing malware laterally within the environment and may have been the attacker's last ditch efforts at furthering their compromise before Darktrace RESPOND blocked all connections from the infected Confluence server [11]. With Darktrace RESPOND's successful actions, the customer’s security team were then able to perform their own response and remediation.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst revealing the last ditch efforts made by the threat actor to download further malicious software. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

Darktrace Coverage: N- vs Zero-days

In the SonicWall case the attacker was unable to achieve their actions on objectives (thanks to Darktrace's intervention). However, this incident displayed tactics of a more stealthy and sophisticated attacker - they had an exploited machine but waited for the right moment to execute their malicious code and initiate a full compromise. Due to the lack of visibility over attacker motive, it is difficult to deduce what type of actor led to this intrusion. However, with the disclosure of a zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2021-20016) not long before this attack, along with a seemingly dormant initially compromised device, it is highly possible that it was carried out by a sophisticated cyber criminal or gang.

On the other hand, the Confluence case engaged in a slightly more noisy approach; it dropped crypto mining malware on vulnerable devices in the hope that the target’s security team did not maintain visibility over their network or would merely turn a blind eye. The files downloaded and credentials observed alongside the mining activity heavily imply the use of Kinsing malware [11]. Since this vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) emerged as an n-day attack with likely easily accessible POCs, as well as there being a lack of LotL techniques and the motive being long term monetary gain, it is possible this attack was conducted by a less sophisticated or amateur actor (script-kiddie); one that opportunistically exploits known vulnerabilities in internet-facing devices in order to make a quick profit [12].

Whilst Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in human confirmation mode only during the start of the SonicWall attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst still offered invaluable insight into the unusual activity associated with the infected machines during both the Confluence and SonicWall compromises. SOC analysts were able to see these uncharacteristic behaviours and escalate the incident through Darktrace’s PTN and ATE services. Analysts then worked through these tickets with the customers, providing support and guidance and, in the SonicWall case, quickly helping to configure Darktrace RESPOND. In both scenarios, Darktrace RESPOND was able to block abnormal connections and enforce a device’s pattern of life, affording the security team enough time to isolate the infected machines and prevent further threats such as ransomware detonation or data exfiltration.

Concluding thoughts and dangers of third-party integrations

Organizations with internet-facing devices will inevitably suffer opportunistic zero-day and n-day attacks. While little can be done to remove the risk of zero-days entirely, ensuring that organizations keep their systems up to date will at the very least help prevent opportunistic and script-kiddies from exploiting n-day vulnerabilities.

However, it is often not always possible for organizations to keep their systems up to date, especially for those who require continuous availability. This may also pose issues for organizations that rely on, and put their trust in, third party integrations such as those explored in this blog (Confluence and SonicWall), as enforcing secure software is almost entirely out of their hands. Moreover, with the rising prevalence of remote working, it is essential now more than ever that organizations ensure their VPN devices are shielded from external threats, guidance on which has been released by the NSA/CISA [13].

These two case studies have shown that whilst organizations can configure their networks and firewalls to help identify known indicators of compromise (IoC), this ‘rearview mirror’ approach will not account for, or protect against, any new and undisclosed IoCs. With the aid of Self-Learning AI and anomaly detection, Darktrace can detect the slightest deviation from a device’s normal pattern of life and respond autonomously without the need for rules and signatures. This allows for the disruption and prevention of known and novel attacks before irreparable damage is caused- reassuring security teams that their digital estates are secure.

Thanks to Paul Jennings for his contributions to this blog.

Appendices: SonicWall (Zero-day)

Darktrace model detections

· AIA / Suspicious Chain of Administrative Credentials

· Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

· Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Remote Desktop

· Compliance / High Priority Compliance Model Breach

· Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

· Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

· Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

· Device / ICMP Address Scan

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

· Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

· Device / RDP Scan

· Device / Reverse DNS Sweep

· Device / SMB Session Bruteforce

· Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (as displayed in example)

· Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IoCs

‍

Appendices: Confluence (N-day)

Darktrace model detections

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location

· Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

· Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· Device / New User Agent

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (displayed in example)

· Antigena / Network / Compliance / Antigena Crypto Currency Mining Block

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

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

· Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Block Enhanced Monitoring

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IOCs

References:

[1] https://securitybrief.asia/story/why-preventing-zero-day-attacks-is-crucial-for-businesses

[2] https://electricenergyonline.com/energy/magazine/1150/article/Security-Sessions-More-Dangerous-Than-Zero-Days-The-N-Day-Threat.htm

[3] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

[4] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=SonicWall+2021

[5] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-20016

[6] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-26084

[7] https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cybercom-says-mass-exploitation-of-atlassian-confluence-vulnerability-ongoing-and-expected-to-accelerate/

[8] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2022-26134

[9] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0599/

[10] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/195.19.192.28/detection

[11] https://sysdig.com/blog/zoom-into-kinsing-kdevtmpfsi/

[12] https://github.com/alt3kx/CVE-2021-26084_PoC

[13] https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/2791320/nsa-cisa-release-guidance-on-selecting-and-hardening-remote-access-vpns/

Written by

Lewis Morgan

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Lewis Morgan

Cyber Analyst

Malware Research Lead

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

May 14, 2026

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Darktrace have identified activity consistent with Chinese-nexus operations, a Twill Typhoon-linked campaign targeting customer environments, primarily within the Asia-Pacific & Japan (APJ) region

Beginning in late September 2025, multiple affected hosts were observed making requests to domains impersonating content delivery networks (CDNs), including infrastructure masquerading as Yahoo- and Apple-affiliated services. Across these cases, Darktrace identified a consistent behavioral execution pattern: the retrieval of legitimate binaries alongside malicious Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs), enabling sideloading and execution of a modular .NET-based Remote Access Trojan (RAT) framework.

The activity aligns with patterns described in Darktrace’s previous Chinese-nexus operations report, Crimson Echo. In this case, observed modular intrusion chains built on legitimate software, and staged payload delivery. Threat actors retrieve legitimate binaries alongside configuration files and malicious DLLs to enable sideloading of a .NET-based RAT.

Observed Campaign

Across cases, the same ordered sequence appears: retrieval of a legitimate executable, (2) retrieval of a matching .config file, (3) retrieval of the malicious

DLL, (4) repeated DLL downloads over time, and (5) command-and-control (C2) communication. The .config file retrieves a malicious binary, while the legitimate binary provides a legitimate process to run it in.

Darktrace assesses with moderate confidence that this activity aligns with publicly reported Twill Typhoon tradecraft. The observed use of FDMTP, DLL sideloading, and overlapping infrastructure is consistent with previously observed operations, though not unique to a single actor. While initial access was not directly observed, previous Twill Typhoon campaigns have typically involved spear-phishing.

What Darktrace Observed

Since late September 2025, Darktrace has observed multiple customer environments making HTTP GET requests to infrastructure presenting as “CDN” endpoints for well-known platforms (including Yahoo and Apple lookalikes). Across cases, the affected hosts retrieved legitimate executables, then matching .config files (same base filename), then DLLs intended for sideloading. The sequencing of a legitimate binary + configuration + DLL has been previously observed in campaigns linked to China-nexus threat actors.

In several cases, affected hosts also issued outbound requests to a /GetCluster endpoint, including the protocol=Dotnet-Tcpdmtp parameter. This activity was repeatedly followed by retrieval of DLL content that was subsequently used for search-order hijacking within legitimate processes.

In the September–October 2025 cases, Darktrace alerting commonly surfaced early-stage registration and C2 setup behaviors, followed by retrieval of a DLL (e.g., Client.dll) from the same external host, sometimes repeatedly over multiple days, consistent with establishing and maintaining the execution chain.

In April 2026, a finance-sector endpoint initiated a series of GET requests to yahoo-cdn[.]it[.]com, first fetching legitimate binaries (including vshost.exe and dfsvc.exe), then repeatedly retrieving associated configuration and DLL components (including dfsvc.exe.config and dnscfg.dll) over an 11-day window. The use of both Visual Studio hosting and OneClick (dfsvc.exe) paths are used to ensure the malware can run in the targeted environment.

Technical Analysis

Initial staging and execution

While the initial access method is unknown, Darktrace security researchers identified multiple archives containing the malware.

A representative example includes a ZIP archive (“test.zip”) containing:

A legitimate executable: biz_render.exe (Sogou Pinyin IME)
A malicious DLL: browser_host.dll

Contained within the zip archive named “test.zip” is the legitimate binary “biz_render.exe”, a popular Chinese Input Method Editor (IME) Sogou Pinyin.

Alongside the legitimate binary is a malicious DLL named “browser_host.dll”. As the legitimate binary loads a legitimate DLL named “browser_host.dll” via LoadLibraryExW, the malicious DLL has been named the same to sideload the malicious DLL into biz_render.exe. By supplying a malicious DLL with an identical name, the actor hijacks execution flow, enabling the payload to execute within a trusted process.

Figure 1: Biz_render.exe loading browser_host.dll.

The legitimate binary invokes the function GetBrowserManagerInstance from the sideloaded “browser_host.dll”, which then performs XOR-based decryption of embedded strings (key 0x90) to resolve and dynamically load mscoree.dll.

The DLL uses the Windows Common Language Runtime (CLR) to execute managed .NET code inside the process rather than relying solely on native binaries. During execution, the loader loads a payload directly into memory as .NET assemblies, enabling an in-memory execution.

C2 Registration

A GET request is made to:

GET /GetCluster?protocol=DotNet-TcpDmtp&tag={0}&uid={1}

with the custom header:

Verify_Token: Dmtp

This returns Base64-encoded and gzip-compressed IP addresses used for subsequent communication.

Staged payload retrieval

Subsequent activity includes retrieval of multiple components from yahoo-cdn.it[.]com. The following GET requests are made:

/dfsvc.exe

/dnscfg.dll

/dfsvc.exe.config

/vhost.exe

/Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll

/config.etl

ClickOnce and AppDomain hijacking

Dfsvc.exe is the legitimate Windows ClickOnce Engine, part of the .NET framework used for updating ClickOnce Applications. Accompanying dfsvc.exe is a legitimate dfsvc.exe.config file that is used to store configuration data for the application. However, in this instance the malware has replaced the legitimate dfsvc.exe.config with the one retrieved from the server in: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319.

Additionally, vhost.exe the legitimate Visual Studio hosting process is retrieved from the server, along with “Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll” and “config.etl”. The DLL is used to decrypt the AES encrypted payload in config.etl and load it. The encrypted payload is dnscfg.dll, which can be loaded into vshost instead of dfsvc, and may be used if the environment does not support .NET.

The malicious configuration disables logging, forces the application to load dnscfg.dll from the remote server, and uses a custom AppDomainManager to ensure the DLL is executed during initialization of dfsvc.exe. To ensure persistence, a scheduled task is added for %APPDATA%\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\dfsvc.exe.

Core payload

The DLL dnscfg.dll is a .NET binary named Client.TcpDmtp.dll. The payload is a heavily obfuscated backdoor that generates its logic at runtime and communicates with the command and control (C2) over custom TCP, DMTP (Duplex Message Transport Protocol) and appears to be an updated version of FDMTP to version 3.2.5.1

The payload:

Uses cluster-based resolution (GetHostFromCluster)
Implements token validation
Enters a persistent execution loop (LoopMessage)
Supports structured remote tasking over DMTP

Once connected, the malware enters a persistent loop (LoopMessage), enabling it to receive commands from the remote server.

Rather than referencing values directly, they are retrieved through containers that are resolved at runtime. String values are stored in an encrypted byte array (_0) and decrypted by a custom XOR-based string decryption routine (dcsoft). The lower 16 bits of the provided key are XORed with 0xA61D (42525) to derive the initial XOR key, while subsequent bits define the string length and offset into the encrypted byte array. Each character is reconstructed from two encrypted bytes and XORed with the incrementing key value, producing the plaintext string used by the payload.

Embedded in the resources section are multiple compressed binaries, the majority of which are library files. The only exceptions are client.core.dll and client.dmtpframe.dll.

Modular framework and plugins

The payload embeds multiple compressed libraries, notably:

client.core.dll
client.dmtpframe.dll

Client.core.dll is a core library used for system profiling, C2 communication and plugin execution. The implant has the functionality to retrieve information including antivirus products, domain name, HWID, CLR version, administrator status, hardware details, network details, operating system, and user.

Additionally, the component is responsible for loading plugins, with support for both binary and JSON-based plugin execution. This allows plugins to receive commands and parameters in different formats depending on the task being performed.

The framework handles details such as plugin hashes, method names, task identifiers, caller tracking, and argument processing, allowing plugins to be executed consistently within the environment. In addition to execution management, the library also provides plugins with access to common runtime functionality such as logging, communication, and process handling.

client.dmtpframe.dll handles:

DMTP communication
Heartbeats and reconnection
Plugin persistence via registry:

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\IME\{id}

Client.dmtpframe.dll is built on the TouchSocket DMTP networking library and continues to manage the remote plugins. The DLL implements remote communication features including heartbeat maintenance, reconnection handling, RPC-style messaging, SSL support, and token-based verification. The DLL also has the ability to add plugins to the registry under HKCU/Software/Microsoft/IME/{id} for persistence.

Plugins observed

While the full set of plugins remains unknown, researchers were able to identify four plugins, including:

Persist.WpTask.dll - used to create, remove and trigger scheduled Windows tasks remotely.
Persist.registry.dll - used to manage registry persistence with the ability to create, and delete registry values, along with hidden persistence keys.
Persist.extra.dll - used to load and persist the main framework.‍
Assist.dll - used to remotely retrieve files or commands, as well as manipulate system processes.

Figure 10: Plugins stored in IME registry.

Figure 11: Obfuscated script in plugin resources.

Persist.extra.dll is a module that is used to load a script “setup.log” to load and persist the main framework. Stored within the resources section of the binary is an obfuscated script that creates a .NET COM object that is added to the registry key HKCU\Software\Classes\TypeLib\ {9E175B61-F52A-11D8-B9A5-505054503030} \1.0\1\Win64 for persistence. After deobfuscating this script, another DLL is revealed named “WindowsBase.dll”.

The binary checks in with icloud-cdn[.]net every five minutes, retrieves a version string, downloads an encrypted payload named checksum.bin, saves it locally as C:\ProgramData\USOShared\Logs\checksum.etl, decrypts it with AES using the hardcoded key POt_L[Bsh0=+@0a., and loads the decrypted assembly directly from memory via Assembly.Load(byte[]). The version.txt file acts as an update marker so it only re-downloads when the remote version changes, while the mutex prevents duplicate instances.

Checksum.etl is decrypted with AES and loaded into memory, loading another .NET DLL named “Client.dll”. This binary is the same as “dnscfg.dll” mentioned at the start and allows the threat actors to update the main framework based on the version.

Conclusion

Across cases, Darktrace consistently observed the following sequence:

Retrieval of legitimate executables
Retrieval of DLLs for sideloading
C2 registration via /GetCluster

This approach is consistent with broader China-nexus tradecraft. As outlined in Darktrace’s Crimson Echo report, the stable feature of this activity is behavioral. Infrastructure rotates and payloads can change, but the execution model persists. For defenders, the implication is straightforward: detection anchored to individual indicators will degrade quickly. Detection anchored to a behavioral sequence offer a far more durable approach.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead), Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

‍

Appendices

A detailed list of detection models and triggered indicators is provided alongside IoCs.

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Test.zip - fc3959ebd35286a82c662dc81ca658cb

Dnscfg.dll - b2c8f1402d336963478f4c5bc36c961a

Client.TcpDmtp.dll - c52b4a16d93a44376f0407f1c06e0b

Browser_host.dll - c17f39d25def01d5c87615388925f45a

Client.DmtpFrame.dll - 482cc72e01dfa54f30efe4fefde5422d

Persist.Extra - 162F69FE29EB7DE12B684E979A446131

Persist.Registry - 067FBAD4D6905D6E13FDC19964C1EA52

Assist - 2CD781AB63A00CE5302ED844CFBECC27

Persist.WpTask - DF3437C88866C060B00468055E6FA146

Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll - c650a624455c5222906b60aac7e57d48

www.icloud-cdn[.]net

www.yahoo-cdn.it[.]com

154.223.58[.]142[AP8] [EF9]

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1106 – Native API

T1053.005 - Scheduled Task

T1546.16 - Component Object Model Hijacking

T1547.001 - Registry Run Keys

T1511.001 - Dynamic Link Library Injection

T1622 – Debugger Evasion

T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

T1574.001 - Hijack Execution Flow: DLL

T1620 – Reflective Code Loading

T1082 – System Information Discovery

T1007 – System Service Discovery

T1030 – System Owner/User Discovery

T1071.001 - Web Protocols

T1027.007 - Dynamic API Resolution

T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol

Darktrace Model Alerts

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

· Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

· Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

· Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

· Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)

· Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days

· Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Device / Increased External Connectivity

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Blog

AI

May 12, 2026

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

Why higher education is a different cybersecurity battlefield

After four decades in IT, now serving as both CIO and CISO, I’ve learned one simple truth: cybersecurity is never “done.” It’s a constant game of cat and mouse. Criminals evolve. Technologies advance. Regulations expand. But in higher education, the challenge is uniquely complex.

Unlike a bank or a military installation, we can’t lock down networks to a narrow set of approved applications. Higher education environments are open by design. Students collaborate globally, faculty conduct cutting-edge research, and administrators manage critical operations, all of which require seamless access to the internet, global networks, cloud platforms, and connected systems.

Combine that openness with expanding regulatory mandates and tight budgets, and the balancing act becomes clear.

Threat actors don’t operate under the same constraints. Often well-funded and sponsored by nation-states with significant resources, they’re increasingly organized, strategic, and innovative.

That sophistication shows up in the tactics we face every day, from social engineering and ransomware to AI-driven impersonation attacks. We’re dealing with massive volumes of data, countless signals, and a very small window between detection and damage.

No human team, no matter how talented or how numerous, can manually sift through that noise at the speed required.

Discovering a force multiplier

Nothing in cybersecurity is 100% foolproof. I never “set it and forget it.” But for institutions balancing rising threats and finite resources, the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™ offers something incredibly valuable: peace of mind through speed and scale.

It closes the gap between detection and response in a way humans can’t possibly match. At the speed of light, it can quarantine, investigate, and contain anomalous activity.

I’ve purchased and deployed Darktrace three separate times at three different institutions because I’ve seen firsthand what it can do and what it enables teams like mine to achieve.

I first encountered Darktrace while serving as CIO for a large multi-campus college system. What caught my attention was Darktrace's Self-Learning AI, and its ability to learn what "normal" looked like across our network. Instead of relying solely on static signatures or rigid rules, Darktrace built a behavioral baseline unique to our environment and alerted us in real time when something simply didn’t look right.

In higher education, where strict lockdowns aren’t realistic, that behavioral model made all the difference. We deployed it across five campuses, and the impact was immediate. Operating 24/7, Darktrace surfaced threats in ways our team couldn’t replicate manually.

Over time, the Darktrace platform evolved alongside the changing threat landscape, expanding into intrusion prevention, cloud visibility, and email security. At subsequent institutions, including Washington College, Darktrace was one of my first strategic investments.

Revealing the hidden threat other tools missed

One of the most surprising investigations of my career involved a data leak. Leadership suspected sensitive information from high-level meetings was being exposed, but our traditional tools couldn’t provide any answers.

Using Darktrace’s deep network visibility, down to packet-level data, we traced unusual connections to our CCTV camera system, which had been configured with a manufacturer’s default password. A small group of employees had hacked into the CCTV cameras, accessed audio-enabled recordings from boardroom meetings, and stored copies locally.

No other tool in our environment could have surfaced those connections the way Darktrace did. It was a clear example of why using AI to deeply understand how your organization, systems, and tools normally behave, matters: threats and risks don’t always look the way we expect.

Elevating a D-rating into a A-level security program

When I arrived at my last CISO role, the institution had recently experienced a significant ransomware attack. Attackers located data which informed their setting ransom demands to an amount they knew would likely result in payment. It was a sobering example of how calculated and strategic modern cybercriminals have become.

Third-party cyber ratings reflected that reality, with a D rating.

To raise the bar, we implemented a comprehensive security program and integrated layered defenses; -deploying state of the art tools and methods- across the environment, with Darktrace at its core.

After a 90-day learning period to establish our behavioral baseline, we transitioned the platform into fully autonomous mode. In a single 30-day span, Darktrace conducted more than 2,500 investigations and autonomously resolved 92% of all false positives.

For a small team, that’s transformative. Instead of drowning in alerts, my staff focused on less than 200 meaningful cases that warranted human review.

Today, we maintain a perfect A rating from third-party assessors and have remained cybersafe.

Peace of mind isn’t about complacency

The effect of Darktrace as a force multiplier has a real human impact.

With the time reclaimed through automation, we expanded community education programs and implemented simulated phishing exercises. Through sustained training and awareness efforts, we reduced social engineering susceptibility from nearly 45% to under 5%.

On a personal level, Darktrace allows me to sleep better at night and take time off knowing we have intelligent systems monitoring and responding around the clock. For any CIO or CISO carrying institutional risk on their shoulders, that matters.

The next era: AI vs. AI

A new chapter in cybersecurity is unfolding as adversaries leverage AI to enhance scale, speed, and believability. Phishing campaigns are more personalized, impersonation attempts are more precise, and deepfake video technology, including live video, is disturbingly authentic. At the same time, organizations are rapidly adopting AI across their own environments —from GenAI assistants to embedded tools to autonomous agents. These systems don’t operate within fixed rules. They act across email, cloud, SaaS, and identity systems, often with broad permissions, and their behavior can evolve over time in ways that are difficult to predict or control.

That creates a new kind of security challenge. It’s not just about defending against AI-powered threats but understanding and governing how AI behaves within your environment, including what it can access, how it acts, and where risk begins to emerge.

From my perspective, this is a natural next step for Darktrace.

Darktrace brings a level of maturity and behavioral understanding uniquely suited to the complexity of AI environments. Self-Learning AI learns the normal patterns of each business to interpret context, uncover subtle intent, and detect meaningful deviations without relying on predefined rules or signatures. Extending into securing AI by bringing real-time visibility and control to GenAI assistants, AI agents, development environments and Shadow AI, feels like the logical evolution of what Darktrace already does so well.

Just as importantly, Darktrace is already built for dynamic, cross-domain environments where risk doesn’t sit in a single tool or control plane. In higher education, activity already spans multiple systems and, with AI, that interconnection only accelerates.

Having deployed Darktrace multiple times, I have confidence it’s uniquely positioned to lead in this space and help organizations adopt AI with greater visibility and control.

‍

---

Since authoring this blog, Irving Bruckstein has transitioned to the role of Chief Executive Officer of the Cyberaigroup.

About the author

Irving Bruckstein

CEO CyberAIgroup

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Revisiting zero-day attacks

The N-day underdog

SonicWall in the wild – 1. Zero-day attack

Confluence in the wild – 2. N-day attack

Darktrace Coverage: N- vs Zero-days

Concluding thoughts and dangers of third-party integrations

Appendices: SonicWall (Zero-day)

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IoCs

Appendices: Confluence (N-day)

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IOCs

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

The Next Step After Mythos: Defending in a World Where Compromise is Expected

Mythos vs Ethos: Defending in an Era of AI‑Accelerated Vulnerability Discovery

Blog

Network

May 14, 2026

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Observed Campaign

What Darktrace Observed

Technical Analysis

Initial staging and execution

C2 Registration

Staged payload retrieval

ClickOnce and AppDomain hijacking

Core payload

Modular framework and plugins

Plugins observed

Conclusion

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

Darktrace Model Alerts

Blog

AI

May 12, 2026

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

Why higher education is a different cybersecurity battlefield

Discovering a force multiplier

Revealing the hidden threat other tools missed

Elevating a D-rating into a A-level security program

Peace of mind isn’t about complacency

The next era: AI vs. AI

‍