April 4, 2022

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Read about 2021's top four incidents and how Darktrace's advanced threat detection technology identified and mitigated vulnerabilities. Learn more.

Written by

Sam Lister

SOC 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

Sam Lister

SOC Analyst

Apr 2022

By virtue of their exposure, Internet-facing systems (i.e., systems which have ports open/exposed to the wider Internet) are particularly susceptible to compromise. Attackers typically compromise Internet-facing systems by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in applications they run. During 2021, critical zero-day vulnerabilities in the following applications were publicly disclosed:

Microsoft Exchange
Confluence
GitLab
Log4j-using applications

Internet-facing systems running these applications were consequently heavily targeted by attackers. In this post, we will provide examples of compromises of these systems observed by Darktrace’s SOC team in 2021. As will become clear, successful exploitation of weaknesses in Internet-facing systems inevitably results in such systems doing things which they do not normally do. Rather than focusing on identifying attempts to exploit these weaknesses, Darktrace focuses on identifying the unusual behaviors which inevitably ensue. The purpose of this post is to highlight the effectiveness of this approach.

Exchange server compromise

In January, researchers from the cyber security company DEVCORE reported a series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyLogon’.^[1] ProxyLogon consists of a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26855) and a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-27065). Attackers were observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild from as early as January 6.^[2] In April, DEVCORE researchers reported another series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyShell’.^[3] ProxyShell consists of a pre-authentication path confusion vulnerability (CVE-2021-34473), a privilege elevation vulnerability (CVE-2021-34523), and a post-authentication RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-31207). Attackers were first observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild in August.^[4] In many cases, attackers exploited the ProxyShell and ProxyLogon vulnerabilities in order to create web shells on the targeted Exchange servers. The presence of these web shells provided attackers with the means to remotely execute commands on the compromised servers.

In early August 2021, by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerabilities, an attacker gained the rights to remotely execute PowerShell commands on an Internet-facing Exchange server within the network of a US-based transportation company. The attacker subsequently executed a number of PowerShell commands on the server. One of these commands caused the server to make a 28-minute-long SSL connection to a highly unusual external endpoint. Within a couple of hours, the attacker managed to strengthen their foothold within the network by installing AnyDesk and CobaltStrike on several internal devices. In mid-August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed Cobalt Strike to conduct network reconnaissance and to transfer terabytes of data to the cloud storage service, MEGA. At the end of August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed AnyDesk to execute Conti ransomware and to spread executable files and script files to further internal devices.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of ProxyShell immediately resulted in the Exchange Server making a long SSL connection to an unusual external endpoint. This connection caused the model Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint to breach. The subsequent reconnaissance, lateral movement, C2, external data transfer, and encryption behavior brought about by the attacker were also picked up by Darktrace’s models.

A non-exhaustive list of the models that breached as a result of the behavior brought about by the attacker:

Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint
Device / ICMP Address Scan
Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days
Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
Compliance / SMB Drive Write
Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB
Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Data Volume as Client or Server
Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares
Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
Anomalous File / Internal / Masqueraded Executable SMB Write
Device / SMB Lateral Movement
Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Confluence server compromise

Atlassian’s Confluence is an application which provides the means for building collaborative, virtual workspaces. In the era of remote working, the value of such an application is undeniable. The public disclosure of a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) in Confluence in August 2021 thus provided a prime opportunity for attackers to cause havoc. The vulnerability, which arises from the use of Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL) in Confluence’s tag system, provides attackers with the means to remotely execute code on vulnerable Confluence server by sending a crafted HTTP request containing a malicious parameter.^[5] Attackers were first observed exploiting this vulnerability towards the end of August, and in the majority of cases, attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable servers.^[6]

At the beginning of September 2021, an attacker was observed exploiting CVE-2021-26084 in order to install the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as a shell script, onto an Internet-facing Confluence server within the network of an EMEA-based television and broadcasting company. Within a couple of hours, the attacker installed files associated with the crypto-mining malware, Kinsing, onto the server. The Kinsing-infected server then immediately began to communicate over HTTP with the attacker’s C2 infrastructure. Around the time of this activity, the server was observed using the MinerGate crypto-mining protocol, indicating that the server had begun to mine cryptocurrency.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of CVE-2021-26084 immediately resulted in the Confluence server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with curl in this case) to a rare external IP. This behavior caused the models Device / New User Agent, Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname, and Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location to breach. The subsequent file downloads, C2 traffic and crypto-mining activity also resulted in several models breaching.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

Device / New User Agent
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

GitLab server compromise

GitLab is an application providing services ranging from project planning to source code management. Back in April 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-22205) in GitLab was publicly reported by a cyber security researcher via the bug bounty platform, HackerOne.^[7] The vulnerability, which arises from GitLab’s use of ExifTool for removing metadata from image files, ^[8] enables attackers to remotely execute code on vulnerable GitLab servers by uploading specially crafted image files.^[9] Attackers were first observed exploiting CVE-2021-22205 in the wild in June/July.^[10] A surge in exploitations of the vulnerability was observed at the end of October, with attackers exploiting the flaw in order to assemble botnets.^[11] Darktrace observed a significant number of cases in which attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable GitLab servers.

On October 29, an attacker successfully exploited CVE-2021-22205 on an Internet-facing GitLab server within the network of a UK-based education provider. The organization was trialing Darktrace when this incident occurred. The attacker installed several executable files and shell scripts onto the server by exploiting the vulnerability. The attacker communicated with the compromised server (using unusual ports) for several days, before making the server transfer large volumes of data externally and download the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as the botnet malware, Mirai. The server was consequently observed making connections to the crypto-mining pool, C3Pool.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the vulnerability in GitLab immediately resulted in the server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Wget in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname and Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location breached as a result of this behavior. The attacker’s subsequent activity on the server over the next few days resulted in frequent model breaches.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the attacker’s activity on the server:

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
Anomalous File / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New IPs
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device
Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
Compliance / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
Compromise / Monero Mining
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download

Log4j server compromise

On December 9 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (dubbed ‘Log4Shell’) in version 2 of Apache’s Log4j was publicly disclosed by researchers at LunaSec.^[12] As a logging library present in potentially millions of Java applications,^[13] Log4j constitutes an obscured, yet ubiquitous feature of the digital world. The vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228), which arises from Log4j’s Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) Lookup feature, enables an attacker to make a vulnerable server download and execute a malicious Java class file. To exploit the vulnerability, all the attacker must do is submit a specially crafted JNDI lookup request to the server. The fact that Log4j is present in so many applications and that the exploitation of this vulnerability is so simple, Log4Shell has been dubbed the ‘most critical vulnerability of the last decade’.^[14] Attackers have been exploiting Log4Shell in the wild since at least December 1.^[15] Since then, attackers have been observed exploiting the vulnerability to install crypto-mining tools, Cobalt Strike, and RATs onto vulnerable servers.^[16]

On December 10, one day after the public disclosure of Log4Shell, an attacker successfully exploited the vulnerability on a vulnerable Internet-facing server within the network of a US-based architecture company. By exploiting the vulnerability, the attacker managed to get the server to download and execute a Java class file named ‘Exploit69ogQNSQYz.class’. Executing the code in this file caused the server to download a shell script file and a file related to the Kinsing crypto-mining malware. The Kinsing-infected server then went on to communicate over HTTP with a C2 server. Since the customer was using the Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, they were immediately alerted to this activity, and the server was subsequently quarantined, preventing crypto-mining activity from taking place.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the zero-day vulnerability immediately resulted in the vulnerable server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Java in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device and Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname breached as a result of this behavior. The device’s subsequent file downloads and C2 activity caused several Darktrace models to breach.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Round-up

It is inevitable that attackers will attempt to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in applications running on Internet-facing devices. Whilst identifying these attempts is useful, the fact that attackers regularly exploit new zero-days makes the task of identifying attempts to exploit them akin to a game of whack-a-mole. Whilst it is uncertain which zero-day vulnerability attackers will exploit next, what is certain is that their exploitation of it will bring about unusual behavior. No matter the vulnerability, whether it be a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, Confluence, GitLab, or Log4j, Darktrace will identify the unusual behaviors which inevitably result from its exploitation. By identifying unusual behaviors displayed by Internet-facing devices, Darktrace thus makes it almost impossible for attackers to successfully exploit zero-day vulnerabilities without being detected.

For Darktrace customers who want to find out more about detecting potential compromises of internet-facing devices, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

Thanks to Andy Lawrence for his contributions.

Footnotes

1. https://devco.re/blog/2021/08/06/a-new-attack-surface-on-MS-exchange-part-1-ProxyLogon/

2. https://www.volexity.com/blog/2021/03/02/active-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-zero-day-vulnerabilities/

3. https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2021/8/17/from-pwn2own-2021-a-new-attack-surface-on-microsoft-exchange-proxyshell

4. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/12/proxyshell-more-widespread-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-servers/

5. https://www.kaspersky.co.uk/blog/confluence-server-cve-2021-26084/23376/

6. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/atlassian-confluence-flaw-actively-exploited-to-install-cryptominers/

7. https://hackerone.com/reports/1154542

8. https://security.humanativaspa.it/gitlab-ce-cve-2021-22205-in-the-wild/

9.https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2021/04/14/security-release-gitlab-13-10-3-released/

10. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/11/01/gitlab-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-cve-2021-22205-exploited-in-the-wild/

11. https://www.hackmageddon.com/2021/12/16/1-15-november-2021-cyber-attacks-timeline/

12. https://www.lunasec.io/docs/blog/log4j-zero-day/

13. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3644472/apache-log4j-vulnerability-actively-exploited-impacting-millions-of-java-based-apps.html

14. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/10/software-flaw-most-critical-vulnerability-log-4-shell

15. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/12/15/the-everypersons-guide-to-log4shell-cve-2021-44228/

16. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/12/11/guidance-for-preventing-detecting-and-hunting-for-cve-2021-44228-log4j-2-exploitation/

Written by

Sam Lister

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Sam Lister

SOC 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: Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Exchange server compromise

Confluence server compromise

GitLab server compromise

Log4j server compromise

Round-up

Footnotes

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