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

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Email

May 29, 2025

Why attack-centric approaches to email security can’t cope with modern threats

What’s the problem with an attack-centric mindset?

For decades, traditional email security strategies have been built around an attack-centric mindset. Secure Email Gateways (SEGs) and other legacy solutions operate on the principle of identifying and blocking known threats. These systems rely heavily on predefined threat intelligence – blacklists, malware signatures, and reputation-based analysis – to filter out malicious content before it reaches the inbox.

While this approach was sufficient when email threats were relatively static and signature-based, it’s increasingly ineffective against the sophistication of modern attacks. Techniques like spear phishing, business email compromise (BEC), and supply chain attacks often bypass traditional SEG defenses because they lack obvious malicious indicators. Instead, they leverage social engineering, look-alike domains, and finely tuned spoofing tactics that are designed to evade detection.

The challenge extends beyond just legacy SEGs. Many modern email security providers have inherited the same attack-centric principles, even if they've reimagined the technology stack. While some vendors have shifted to API-based deployments and incorporated AI to automate pattern recognition, the underlying approach remains the same: hunting for threats based on known indicators. This methodology, though it’s undergone modernization using AI, still leaves gaps when it comes to novel, hyper-targeted threats that manipulate user behavior rather than deploy predictable malicious signatures. Attack-centric security will always remain one step behind the attacker.

By the way, native email security already covers the basics

One of the most overlooked realities in email security is that native solutions like Microsoft 365’s built-in security already handle much of the foundational work of attack-centric protection. Through advanced threat intelligence, anti-phishing measures, and malware detection, Microsoft 365 actively scans incoming emails for known threats, using global telemetry to identify patterns and block suspicious content before it even reaches the user’s inbox.

This means that for many organizations, a baseline level of protection against more obvious, signature-based attacks is already in place – but many are still disabling these protections in favour of another attack-centric solution. By layering another attack-centric solution on top, they are effectively duplicating efforts without enhancing their security posture. This overlap can lead to unnecessary complexity, higher costs, and a false sense of enhanced protection when in reality, it’s more of the same.

Rather than duplicating attack-centric protections, the real opportunity lies in addressing the gaps that remain: the threats that are specifically crafted to evade traditional detection methods. This is where a business-centric approach becomes indispensable, complementing the foundational security that’s already built into your infrastructure.

Introducing… the business-centric approach

To effectively defend against advanced threats, organizations need to adopt a business-centric approach to email security. Unlike attack-centric models that hunt for known threats, business-centric security focuses on understanding the typical behaviors, relationships, and communication patterns within your organization. Rather than solely reacting to threats as they are identified, this model continuously learns what “normal” looks like for each user and each inbox.

By establishing a baseline of expected behaviors, business-centric solutions can rapidly detect anomalies that suggest compromise, such as sudden changes in sending patterns, unusual login locations, or subtle shifts in communication tone. This proactive detection method is especially powerful against spear phishing, business email compromise (BEC), and supply chain attacks that are engineered to bypass static defenses. This approach also scales with your organization, learning and adapting as new users are onboarded, communication patterns evolve, and external partners are added.

In an era where AI-driven threats are becoming the norm, having email security that knows your users and inboxes better than the attacker does is a critical advantage.

Why native + business-centric email security is the winning formula

By pairing native security with a business-centric model, organizations can cover the full spectrum of threats – from signature-based malware to sophisticated, socially engineered attacks. Microsoft 365’s in-built security manages the foundational risks, while business-centric defense identifies subtle anomalies and targeted threats that legacy approaches miss.

Layering Darktrace on top of your native Microsoft security eliminates duplicate capabilities, costs and workflows without reducing functionality

Rather than layering redundant attack-centric solutions on top of existing protections, the future of email security lies in leveraging what’s already in place and building on it with smarter, behavior-based detection. The Swiss Cheese Model is a useful one to refer to here: by acknowledging that no single defense can offer complete protection, layering defenses that plug each other’s gaps – like slices of Swiss cheese – becomes critical.

This combination also allows security teams to focus their efforts more effectively. With native solutions catching broad-based, known threats, the business-centric layer can prioritize real anomalies, minimizing false positives and accelerating response times. Organizations benefit from reduced overlap, streamlined costs, and a stronger overall security posture.

Download the full guide to take the first step towards achieving your next-generation security stack.

[related-resource]

About the author

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Blog

Network

May 30, 2025

PumaBot: Novel Botnet Targeting IoT Surveillance Devices

Introduction: PumaBot attacking IoT devices

Darktrace researchers have identified a custom Go-based Linux botnet named “PumaBot” targeting embedded Linux Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Rather than scanning the Internet, the malware retrieves a list of targets from a command-and-control (C2) server and attempts to brute-force SSH credentials. Upon gaining access, it receives remote commands and establishes persistence using system service files. This blog post provides a breakdown of its key functionalities, and explores binaries related to the campaign.

Technical Analysis

Filename: jierui

md5: cab6f908f4dedcdaedcdd07fdc0a8e38

The Go-based botnet gains initial access through brute-forcing SSH credentials across a list of harvested IP addresses. Once it identifies a valid credential pair, it logs in, deploys itself, and begins its replication process.

The domain associated with the C2 server did not resolve to an IP address at the time of analysis. The following details are a result of static analysis of the malware.

The malware begins by retrieving a list of IP addresses of likely devices with open SSH ports from the C2 server (ssh.ddos-cc[.]org) via the getIPs() function. It then performs brute-force login attempts on port 22 using credential pairs also obtained from the C2 through the readLinesFromURL(), brute(), and trySSHLogin() functions.

Within trySSHLogin(), the malware performs several environment fingerprinting checks. These are used to avoid honeypots and unsuitable execution environments, such as restricted shells. Notably, the malware checks for the presence of the string “Pumatronix”, a manufacturer of surveillance and traffic camera systems, suggesting potential IoT targeting or an effort to evade specific devices [1].

Figure 2: Fingerprinting of “Pumatronix”.

If the environment passes these checks, the malware executes uname -a to collect basic system information, including the OS name, kernel version, and architecture. This data, along with the victim's IP address, port, username, and password, is then reported back to the C2 in a JSON payload.

Of note, the bot uses X-API-KEY: jieruidashabi, within a custom header when it communicates with the C2 server over HTTP.

The malware writes itself to /lib/redis, attempting to disguise itself as a legitimate Redis system file. It then creates a persistent systemd service in /etc/systemd/system, named either redis.service or mysqI.service (note the spelling of mysql with a capital I) depending on what has been hardcoded into the malware. This allows the malware to persist across reboots while appearing benign.

[Unit] Description=redis Server Service [Service] Type=simple Restart=always RestartSec=1 User=root ExecStart=/lib/redis e [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target

In addition to gaining persistence with a systemd service, the malware also adds its own SSH keys into the users’ authorized_keys file. This ensures that access can be maintained, even if the service is removed.

A function named cleankill() contains an infinite loop that repeatedly attempts to execute the commands “xmrig” and “networkxm”. These are launched without full paths, relying on the system's PATH variable suggesting that the binaries may be downloaded or unpacked elsewhere on the system. The use of “time.Sleep” between attempts indicates this loop is designed to ensure persistence and possibly restart mining components if they are killed or missing.

During analysis of the botnet, Darktrace discovered related binaries that appear to be part of a wider campaign targeting Linux systems.

Filename: ddaemon
Md5: 48ee40c40fa320d5d5f8fc0359aa96f3

Ddaemon is a Go-based backdoor. The malware begins by parsing command line arguments and if conditions are met, enters a loop where it periodically verifies the MD5 hash of the binary. If the check fails or an update is available, it downloads a new version from a C2 server (db.17kp[.]xyz/getDdaemonMd5), verifies it and replaces the existing binary with a file of the same name and similar functionality (8b37d3a479d1921580981f325f13780c).

The malware uses main_downloadNetwork() to retrieve the binary “networkxm” into /usr/src/bao/networkxm. Additionally, the bash script “installx.sh” is also retrieved from the C2 and executed. The binary ensures persistence by writing a custom systemd service unit that auto starts on boot and executes ddaemon.

Filename: networkxm
Md5: be83729e943d8d0a35665f55358bdf88

The networkxm binary functions as an SSH brute-force tool, similar to the botnet. First it checks its own integrity using MD5 hashes and contacts the C2 server (db.17kp[.]xyz) to compare its hash with the latest version. If an update is found, it downloads and replaces itself.

Figure 3: Part of networkxm checking MD5 hash.

After verifying its validity, it enters an infinite loop where it fetches a password list from the C2 (/getPassword), then attempts SSH connections across a list of target IPs from the /getIP endpoint. As with the other observed binaries, a systemd service is created if it doesn’t already exist for persistence in /etc/systemd/system/networkxm.service.

Installx.sh is a simple bash script used to retrieve the script “jc.sh” from 1.lusyn[.]xyz, set permissions, execute and clear bash history.

The script jc.sh starts by detecting the operating system type Debian-based or Red Hat-based and determines the location of the pam_unix.so file. Linux Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM) is a framework that allows for flexible and centralized user authentication on Linux systems. PAM allows system administrators to configure how users are authenticated for services like login, SSH, or sudo by plugging in various authentication modules.

Jc.sh then attempts to fetch the current version of PAM installed on the system and formats that version to construct a URL. Using either curl or wget, the script downloads a replacement pam_unix.so file from a remote server and replaces the existing one, after disabling file immutability and backing up the original.

The script also downloads and executes an additional binary named “1” from the same remote server. Security settings are modified including enabling PAM in the SSH configuration and disabling SELinux enforcement, before restarting the SSH service. Finally, the script removes itself from the system.

Filename: Pam_unix.so_v131
md5: 1bd6bcd480463b6137179bc703f49545

Based on the PAM version that is retrieved from the bash query, the new malicious PAM replaces the existing PAM file. In this instance, pam_unix.so_v131 was retrieved from the server based on version 1.3.1. The purpose of this binary is to act as a rootkit that steals credentials by intercepting successful logins. Login data can include all accounts authenticated by PAM, local and remote (SSH). The malware retrieves the logged in user, the password and verifies that the password is valid. The details are stored in a file “con.txt” in /usr/bin/.

Figure 7: Function storing logins to con.txt

Filename: 1

md5: cb4011921894195bcffcdf4edce97135

In addition to the malicious PAM file, a binary named “1” is also retrieved from the server http://dasfsdfsdfsdfasfgbczxxc[.]lusyn[.]xyz/jc/1. The binary “1” is used as a watcher for the malicious PAM file using inotify to monitor for “con.txt” being written or moved to /usr/bin/.

Following the daemonize() function, the binary is run daemonized ensuring it runs silently in the background. The function read_and_send_files() is called which reads the contents of “/usr/bin/con.txt”, queries the system IP with ifconfig.me, queries SSH ports and sends the data to the remote C2 (http://dasfsdfsdfsdfasfgbczxxc[.]lusyn[.]xyz/api/).

For persistence, a systemd service (my_daemon.service) is created to autostart the binary and ensure it restarts if the service has been terminated. Finally, con.txt is deleted, presumably to remove traces of the malware.

Conclusion

The botnet represents a persistent Go-based SSH threat that leverages automation, credential brute-forcing, and native Linux tools to gain and maintain control over compromised systems. By mimicking legitimate binaries (e.g., Redis), abusing systemd for persistence, and embedding fingerprinting logic to avoid detection in honeypots or restricted environments, it demonstrates an intent to evade defenses.

While it does not appear to propagate automatically like a traditional worm, it does maintain worm-like behavior by brute-forcing targets, suggesting a semi-automated botnet campaign focused on device compromise and long-term access.

[related-resource]

Recommendations

Monitor for anomalous SSH login activity, especially failed login attempts across a wide IP range, which may indicate brute-force attempts.
Audit systemd services regularly. Look for suspicious entries in /etc/systemd/system/ (e.g., misspelled or duplicate services like mysqI.service) and binaries placed in non-standard locations such as /lib/redis.
Inspect authorized_keys files across user accounts for unknown SSH keys that may enable unauthorized access.
Filter or alert on outbound HTTP requests with non-standard headers, such as X-API-KEY: jieruidashabi, which may indicate botnet C2 communication.
Apply strict firewall rules to limit SSH exposure rather than exposing port 22 to the internet.

Appendices

References

1. https://pumatronix.com/

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

cab6f908f4dedcdaedcdd07fdc0a8e38 - jierui

a9412371dc9247aa50ab3a9425b3e8ba - bao

0e455e06315b9184d2e64dd220491f7e - networkxm

cb4011921894195bcffcdf4edce97135 - 1 48ee40c40fa320d5d5f8fc0359aa96f3 - ddaemon 1bd6bcd480463b6137179bc703f49545 - pam_unix.so_v131

RSA Key

ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQC0tH30Li6Gduh0Jq5A5dO5rkWTsQlFttoWzPFnGnuGmuF+fwIfYvQN1z+WymKQmX0ogZdy/CEkki3swrkq29K/xsyQQclNm8+xgI8BJdEgTVDHqcvDyJv5D97cU7Bg1OL5ZsGLBwPjTo9huPE8TAkxCwOGBvWIKUE3SLZW3ap4ciR9m4ueQc7EmijPHy5qds/Fls+XN8uZWuz1e7mzTs0Pv1x2CtjWMR/NF7lQhdi4ek4ZAzj9t/2aRvLuNFlH+BQx+1kw+xzf2q74oBlGEoWVZP55bBicQ8tbBKSN03CZ/QF+JU81Ifb9hy2irBxZOkyLN20oSmWaMJIpBIsh4Pe9 @root

Network

http://ssh[.]ddos-cc.org:55554

http://ssh[.]ddos-cc.org:55554/log_success

http://ssh[.]ddos-cc.org:55554/get_cmd

http://ssh[.]ddos-cc.org:55554/pwd.txt

https://dow[.]17kp.xyz/

https://input[.]17kp.xyz/

https://db[.]17kp[.]xyz/

http://1[.]lusyn[.]xyz

http://1[.]lusyn[.]xyz/jc/1

http://1[.]lusyn[.]xyz/jc/jc.sh

http://1[.]lusyn[.]xyz/jc/aa

http://1[.]lusyn[.]xyz/jc/cs

http://dasfsdfsdfsdfasfgbczxxc[.]lusyn[.]xyz/api

http://dasfsdfsdfsdfasfgbczxxc[.]lusyn[.]xyz/jc

Detection Rule

rule Linux_PumaBot

{

meta:

description = "Rule to match on PumaBot samples"

author = "tgould@cadosecurity.com"

strings:

$xapikey = "X-API-KEY" ascii

$get_ips = "?count=5000" ascii

‍

$exec_start = "ExecStart=/lib/redis" ascii

$svc_name1 = "redis.service" ascii

$svc_name2 = "mysqI.service" ascii

$uname = "uname -a" ascii

$pumatronix = "Pumatronix" ascii

condition:

uint32(0) == 0x464c457f and

all of (

$xapikey,

$uname,

$get_ips,

$exec_start

) and any of (

$svc_name1,

$svc_name2

) and $pumatronix

}

About the author

Tara Gould

Threat Researcher

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

PumaBot: Novel Botnet Targeting IoT Surveillance Devices

Why attack-centric approaches to email security can’t cope with modern threats

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Introducing Version 2 of Darktrace’s Embedding Model for Investigation of Security Threats (DEMIST-2)

AI Uncovered: Introducing Darktrace Incident Graph Evaluation for Security Threats (DIGEST)

Force Multiply Your Security Team with Agentic AI: How the Industry’s Only True Cyber AI Analyst™ Saves Time and Stop Threats

Blog

Email

May 29, 2025

Why attack-centric approaches to email security can’t cope with modern threats

What’s the problem with an attack-centric mindset?

By the way, native email security already covers the basics

Introducing… the business-centric approach

Why native + business-centric email security is the winning formula

Blog

Network

May 30, 2025

PumaBot: Novel Botnet Targeting IoT Surveillance Devices

Introduction: PumaBot attacking IoT devices

Technical Analysis

Conclusion

Recommendations

Appendices

References

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

RSA Key

Network

Detection Rule