Blog
/
AI
/
November 25, 2024

Why Artificial Intelligence is the Future of Cybersecurity

This blog explores the impact of AI on the threat landscape, the benefits of AI in cybersecurity, and the role it plays in enhancing security practices and tools.
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
Brittany Woodsmall
Senior Product Marketing Manager, AI
Default blog image
25
Nov 2024

Introduction: AI & Cybersecurity

In the wake of artificial intelligence (AI) becoming more commonplace, it’s no surprise to see that threat actors are also adopting the use of AI in their attacks at an accelerated pace. AI enables augmentation of complex tasks such as spear-phishing, deep fakes, polymorphic malware generation, and advanced persistent threat (APT) campaigns, which significantly enhances the sophistication and scale of their operations. This has put security professionals in a reactive state, struggling to keep pace with the proliferation of threats.

As AI reshapes the future of cyber threats, defenders are also looking to integrate AI technologies into their security stack. Adopting AI-powered solutions in cybersecurity enables security teams to detect and respond to these advanced threats more quickly and accurately as well as automate traditionally manual and routine tasks. According to research done by Darktrace in the 2024 State of AI Cybersecurity Report improving threat detection, identifying exploitable vulnerabilities, and automating low level security tasks were the top three ways practitioners saw AI enhancing their security team’s capabilities [1], underscoring the wide-ranging capabilities of AI in cyber.  

In this blog, we will discuss how AI has impacted the threat landscape, the rise of generative AI and AI adoption in security tools, and the importance of using multiple types of AI in cybersecurity solutions for a holistic and proactive approach to keeping your organization safe.  

The impact of AI on the threat landscape

The integration of AI and cybersecurity has brought about significant advancements across industries. However, it also introduces new security risks that challenge traditional defenses.  Three major concerns with the misuse of AI being leveraged by adversaries are: (1) the increase of novel social engineering attacks that are harder to detect and able to bypass traditional security tools,  (2) the ease of access for less experienced threat actors to now deliver advanced attacks at speed and scale and (3) the attacking of AI itself, to include machine learning models, data corpuses and APIs or interfaces.

In the context of social engineering, AI can be used to create more convincing phishing emails, conduct advanced reconnaissance, and simulate human-like interactions to deceive victims more effectively. Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are already being used by adversaries to craft these sophisticated phishing emails, which can more aptly mimic human semantics without spelling or grammatical error and include personal information pulled from internet sources such as social media profiles. And this can all be done at machine speed and scale. In fact, Darktrace researchers observed a 135% rise in ‘novel social engineering attacks’ across Darktrace / EMAIL customers in 2023, corresponding to the widespread adoption and use of ChatGPT [2].  

Furthermore, these sophisticated social engineering attacks are now able to circumvent traditional security tools. In between December 21, 2023, and July 5, 2024, Darktrace / EMAIL detected 17.8 million phishing emails across the fleet, with 62% of these phishing emails successfully bypassing Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) verification checks [2].  

And while the proliferation of novel attacks fueled by AI is persisting, AI also lowers the barrier to entry for threat actors. Publicly available AI tools make it easy for adversaries to automate complex tasks that previously required advanced technical skills. Additionally, AI-driven platforms and phishing kits available on the dark web provide ready-made solutions, enabling even novice attackers to execute effective cyber campaigns with minimal effort.

The impact of adversarial use of AI on the ever-evolving threat landscape is important for organizations to understand as it fundamentally changes the way we must approach cybersecurity. However, while the intersection of cybersecurity and AI can have potentially negative implications, it is important to recognize that AI can also be used to help protect us.

A generation of generative AI in cybersecurity

When the topic of AI in cybersecurity comes up, it’s typically in reference to generative AI, which became popularized in 2023. While it does not solely encapsulate what AI cybersecurity is or what AI can do in this space, it’s important to understand what generative AI is and how it can be implemented to help organizations get ahead of today’s threats.  

Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot) is a type of AI that creates new or original content. It has the capability to generate images, videos, or text based on information it learns from large datasets. These systems use advanced algorithms and deep learning techniques to understand patterns and structures within the data they are trained on, enabling them to generate outputs that are coherent, contextually relevant, and often indistinguishable from human-created content.

For security professionals, generative AI offers some valuable applications. Primarily, it’s used to transform complex security data into clear and concise summaries. By analyzing vast amounts of security logs, alerts, and technical data, it can contextualize critical information quickly and present findings in natural, comprehensible language. This makes it easier for security teams to understand critical information quickly and improves communication with non-technical stakeholders. Generative AI can also automate the creation of realistic simulations for training purposes, helping security teams prepare for various cyberattack scenarios and improve their response strategies.  

Despite its advantages, generative AI also has limitations that organizations must consider. One challenge is the potential for generating false positives, where benign activities are mistakenly flagged as threats, which can overwhelm security teams with unnecessary alerts. Moreover, implementing generative AI requires significant computational resources and expertise, which may be a barrier for some organizations. It can also be susceptible to prompt injection attacks and there are risks with intellectual property or sensitive data being leaked when using publicly available generative AI tools.  In fact, according to the MIT AI Risk Registry, there are potentially over 700 risks that need to be mitigated with the use of generative AI.

Generative AI impact on cyber attacks screenshot data sheet

For more information on generative AI's impact on the cyber threat landscape download the Darktrace Data Sheet

‍

Beyond the Generative AI Glass Ceiling

Generative AI has a place in cybersecurity, but security professionals are starting to recognize that it’s not the only AI organizations should be using in their security tool kit. In fact, according to Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity Report, “86% of survey participants believe generative AI alone is NOT enough to stop zero-day threats.” As we look toward the future of AI in cybersecurity, it’s critical to understand that different types of AI have different strengths and use cases and choosing the technologies based on your organization’s specific needs is paramount.

There are a few types of AI used in cybersecurity that serve different functions. These include:

Supervised Machine Learning: Widely used in cybersecurity due to its ability to learn from labeled datasets. These datasets include historical threat intelligence and known attack patterns, allowing the model to recognize and predict similar threats in the future. For example, supervised machine learning can be applied to email filtering systems to identify and block phishing attempts by learning from past phishing emails. This is human-led training facilitating automation based on known information.  

Large Language Models (LLMs): Deep learning models trained on extensive datasets to understand and generate human-like text. LLMs can analyze vast amounts of text data, such as security logs, incident reports, and threat intelligence feeds, to identify patterns and anomalies that may indicate a cyber threat. They can also generate detailed and coherent reports on security incidents, summarizing complex data into understandable formats.

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Involves the application of computational techniques to process and understand human language. In cybersecurity, NLP can be used to analyze and interpret text-based data, such as emails, chat logs, and social media posts, to identify potential threats. For instance, NLP can help detect phishing attempts by analyzing the language used in emails for signs of deception.

Unsupervised Machine Learning: Continuously learns from raw, unstructured data without predefined labels. It is particularly useful in identifying new and unknown threats by detecting anomalies that deviate from normal behavior. In cybersecurity, unsupervised learning can be applied to network traffic analysis to identify unusual patterns that may indicate a cyberattack. It can also be used in endpoint detection and response (EDR) systems to uncover previously unknown malware by recognizing deviations from typical system behavior.

Types of AI in cybersecurity
Figure 1: Types of AI in cybersecurity

Employing multiple types of AI in cybersecurity is essential for creating a layered and adaptive defense strategy. Each type of AI, from supervised and unsupervised machine learning to large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing (NLP), brings distinct capabilities that address different aspects of cyber threats. Supervised learning excels at recognizing known threats, while unsupervised learning uncovers new anomalies. LLMs and NLP enhance the analysis of textual data for threat detection and response and aid in understanding and mitigating social engineering attacks. By integrating these diverse AI technologies, organizations can achieve a more holistic and resilient cybersecurity framework, capable of adapting to the ever-evolving threat landscape.

A Multi-Layered AI Approach with Darktrace

AI-powered security solutions are emerging as a crucial line of defense against an AI-powered threat landscape. In fact, “Most security stakeholders (71%) are confident that AI-powered security solutions will be better able to block AI-powered threats than traditional tools.” And 96% agree that AI-powered solutions will level up their organization’s defenses.  As organizations look to adopt these tools for cybersecurity, it’s imperative to understand how to evaluate AI vendors to find the right products as well as build trust with these AI-powered solutions. Supporting resources, from internal training materials to AI posters, can also help teams better understand and communicate complex AI and cybersecurity concepts.

Darktrace, a leader in AI cybersecurity since 2013, emphasizes interpretability, explainability, and user control, ensuring that our AI is understandable, customizable and transparent. Darktrace’s approach to cyber defense is rooted in the belief that the right type of AI must be applied to the right use cases. Central to this approach is Self-Learning AI, which is crucial for identifying novel cyber threats that most other tools miss. This is complemented by various AI methods, including LLMs, generative AI, and supervised machine learning, to support the Self-Learning AI.  

Darktrace focuses on where AI can best augment the people in a security team and where it can be used responsibly to have the most positive impact on their work. With a combination of these AI techniques, applied to the right use cases, Darktrace enables organizations to tailor their AI defenses to unique risks, providing extended visibility across their entire digital estates with the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™.

Credit to: Ed Metcalf, Senior Director Product Marketing, AI & Innovations - Nicole Carignan VP of Strategic Cyber AI for their contribution to this blog.

‍

CISOs guide to buying AI white paper cover

To learn more about Darktrace and AI in cybersecurity download the CISO’s Guide to Cyber AI here.

Download the white paper to learn how buyers should approach purchasing AI-based solutions. It includes:

  • Key steps for selecting AI cybersecurity tools
  • Questions to ask and responses to expect from vendors
  • Understand tools available and find the right fit
  • Ensure AI investments align with security goals and needs
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
Brittany Woodsmall
Senior Product Marketing Manager, AI

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

October 14, 2026

CikaBika Bot: Inside a Discord RAT

Default blog imageDefault blog image

‍

Key Takeaways

·      Darktrace malware researchers have found an ongoing malware campaign using a document-themed lure containing a malicious LNK file and a PDF with an embedded payload.

·      The Nim based loader deploys a Rust-based remote access trojan (RAT), using a UAC bypass and DLL search-order hijacking technique targeting Microsoft Edge.

·      The RAT uses Discord for C2, creating dedicated channels to manage infected devices and execute commands.

·      CikaBika Bot supports system reconnaissance, remote command execution, screenshot capture, and file transfers.

‍

Introduction

In a threat landscape where attackers continue to rely on social engineering techniques to deliver malware, legitimate services are increasingly being abused to support malicious operations. Communications platforms like Discord can provide attackers with a ready-made channel for command-and-control (C2), allowing them to manage compromised devices without establishing dedicated infrastructure.

Malware researchers at Darktrace have identified a campaign distributing CikaBika, a Rust-based RAT that uses Discord for C2. The infection chain begins with a disk image and a malicious Windows shortcut. A Nim loader extracts the final payload and attempts to plant it in Microsoft Edge’s installation directory using a PowerShell UAC bypass. Once running, the RAT collects host information, registers the device with Discord, and accepts commands through a dedicated channel.

Technical Analysis

‍

Figure 1: Contents of Proposition_Projet.img.

‍

Initial access and PDF payload

The malware is packaged within a disk image named Proposition_Projet.img. Inside are a PDF titled “Presentation_Generale.pdf.pdf” and a Windows shortcut (LNK) disguised as a Word document, “Proposition_Projet_Personnalisable.docx”. The delivery method has not been confirmed; however, the filenames and document-themed lure are consistent with a phishing campaign.

‍

Figure 2: PowerShell command embedded in the malicious shortcut.


Opening the shortcut launches a hidden PowerShell process while displaying the PDF as a decoy. The French-language document explains how to produce a written summary or contraction of a text. In the background, PowerShell reads the PDF as bytes and uses the value at offset 239 (0x20) as an XOR key to decode an embedded executable. The resulting payload is written to %TEMP%\IfyuUapz.txt and executed using cmd /c.

Nim loader and UAC bypass

“IfyuUapz.txt” is a Nim-based loader that contains two Base64-encoded blobs: a Rust dynamic-link library (DLL)  and a PowerShell deployment script. Both are decoded and written to temporary files, referenced to within the loader as “dllFile” and “copyPs1”. The loader runs the script through a hidden PowerShell process using an encoded command, then attempts to load the DLL using Nim’s loadLib function. If loading fails, it invokes regsvr32.exe and retries.

Figure 3: Silent DLL deployer.

The PowerShell component is responsible for moving the DLL to C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\dbghelp.dll. It first copies the DLL to C:\Windows\Temp\dbghelp.tmp, then modifies HKCU\Software\Classes\ms-settings\shell\open\command so that launching computerdefaults.exe can trigger a command to move the staged DLL into the protected Edge directory. This is an attempt to bypass User Account Control (UAC), which depends on the target’s Windows configuration.

The script also compiles a small C# helper that calls ShowWindow to hide windows associated with Windows Settings and ApplicationFrameHost. It launches the bypass helper three times, checks for the presence of the destination DLL, and attempts to delete the temporary scripts, intermediate DLL, and associated registry changes.

‍

Figure 4: Legitimate msedge.exe function to load the legitimate dbghelp.dll.

‍

The legitimate msedge.exe has a delay-loaded dependency on dbghelp.dll, and the malicious DLL exports a subset of the functions associated with Microsoft’s debugging library. The attacker appears to be exploiting this dependency through DLL search-order hijacking. However, it does not export every function in Edge’s delay-import table, meaning its compatibility with the host is incomplete. The observed code establishes the intended sideloading route, rather than proving that Edge successfully loaded the planted DLL.

‍

Rust RAT payload

Figure 5: Discord configuration within the RAT.

The malicious dbghelp.dll (IfyuUapz.txt) is a Rust-based RAT. At startup, the RAT registers the compromised device with Discord and begins collecting information about the host. Its reconnaissance routine gathers system details, runs tasklist to enumerate processes, executes ipconfig to obtain network configuration, and attempts to take a screenshot. The resulting artifacts include tasklist_startup.txt, network_info.txt, and screenshot.png.

Figure 6: Network configuration notification in Discord channel.

‍

Figure 7: Network configuration output from network_info.txt.

‍

Discord C2

The RAT uses Discord channels to send commands and report results. The operator can send commands to the device’s channel and receive the resulting output in the same conversation. This gives the attacker an interactive command interface without having to operate and maintain a dedicated C2 server.

Figure 8: Commands available in Discord.

The command set includes !shell for remote command execution; !sysinfo and !info for host details; !isOn for status checks; !tasklist and !ps for process enumeration; and !kill for process termination. File-transfer commands include !upload and !download. Additional strings and command handlers reference screenshots (!src), camera access (!camera), streaming (!stream), and broadcasting (!broadcast).

‍

Figure 9: Device registration in Discord.

During device registration, the malware retrieves the victim’s public IP address using ipify.com. The registration message records the device ID, hostname, registration time, private and public IP addresses, status, uptime, and the Discord channel assigned to that device.

Operator activity and exfiltration

Figure 10: Powershell commands sent through Discord to exfiltrate data.

Once a device is registered, the attacker can issue commands through its dedicated Discord channel. In the observed activity, the attacker compressed a directory into a ZIP and exfiltrated it using ngrok.

Figure 11: Download command to retrieve a document from the target.

‍

The operator can also use !download to retrieve files from target. The example above displays a request for a specific document on the victim’s desktop. The requested file is then returned through the device’s Discord channel, giving the attacker a direct way to store and access selected data.

Conclusion

CikaBika Bot demonstrates how attackers continue to rely on social engineering techniques to deliver malware. Although the initial distribution method has not been confirmed, the use of a disk image containing a shortcut disguised as a Word document, alongside a legitimate-looking PDF, suggests the campaign was designed for phishing.

While Nim is less commonly encountered than C in Windows malware, it has increasingly appeared in malicious tooling. In this case, Nim is used to unpack and deploy a Rust-based RAT, adding another layer to the infection chain.

Once installed, CikaBika Bot uses Discord as its C2 platform, allowing the attacker to manage compromised devices, execute commands, and retrieve files without maintaining dedicated C2 infrastructure. The observed use of Discord channels for individual victims, alongside additional data exfiltration through ngrok, shows how legitimate services can be repurposed to support malicious operations.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Presentation_Generale.pdf.pdf - eeb52cb95113a131c2c7713c17872da6

Proposition_Projet_Personnalisable.docx.lnk - 62e3e85eca78a0cd7e6669e9f33d936d

dbghelp.dll - c66858718d883bcfb9ce2c19b59f96c9

IfyuUapz.txt - 2deb724a709b0b892248405323350e9b

MITRE ATTACK

T1204.002 – User Execution: Malicious File
T1036.007 – Masquerading: Double File Extension
T1059.001 – PowerShell
T1027 – Obfuscated Files or Information
T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information
T1548.002 – Bypass User Account Control
T1112 – Modify Registry
T1574.001 – DLL Search Order Hijacking
T1036.005 – Masquerading: Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location
T1082 – System Information Discovery
T1016 – System Network Configuration Discovery
T1057 – Process Discovery
T1113 – Screen Capture
T1059.003 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Windows Command Shell
T1102.002 – Web Service: Bidirectional Communication
T1560.001 – Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility
T1567 – Exfiltration Over Web Service
T1070.004 – Indicator Removal: File Deletion
T1218.010 – Regsvr32
T1005 – Data from Local System
T1074.001 – Data Staged: Local Data Staging
T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1564.003 – Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window
T1027.013 – Encrypted/Encoded File

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead

Blog

/

AI

/

October 5, 2026

AI-Assisted Attacks Still Leave a Behavioral Trace  

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key Insights

  • Darktrace identified behavioral indicators associated with two campaigns linked to AI-assisted threat activity, highlighting the growing role of AI in modern cyber-attacks.
  • Observed activity involved suspicious WebDAV file transfers, disguised executable downloads, beaconing to rare infrastructure, unusual process execution, and communications with C2 infrastructure linked to active intrusion campaigns.

Introduction

Just as organizations are incorporating AI into their operations to take advantage of its benefits, threat actors are doing the same, creating new challenges for defenders.

Much of the discussion around AI risk has focused on the expanding attack surface created by AI systems within organizations. These systems are often granted privileged access and heightened permissions to carry out their duties, introducing new security risks and unintended consequences.

At the same time, threat actors are learning to leverage AI to enable malicious activities such as vulnerability discovery, exploit creation, and progressing through the Cyber Kill Chain more quickly. By accelerating development, adaptation, and scaling, AI enables attackers to operate more efficiently while making some capabilities more accessible to less skilled operators.

Whether AI is the target or the enabler, the resulting activity still manifests through networks, identities, endpoints and cloud services. Those interactions create observable signals that defenders can investigate, regardless of how the attack was developed.

AI as part of the attacker’s workflow

Darktrace has previously documented how threat actors are increasingly incorporating AI into offensive operations [1]. Two recent investigations from open-source intelligence (OSINT) illustrate this. In both cases, researchers identified the role of AI within malicious operations. Separately, Darktrace detected activity in customer environments that aligned with the infrastructure and techniques reported in those campaigns. These perspectives provide a view of both attacker workflow and operational consequences.

Although AI played different roles in each campaign, it did not remove the need for the attackers to interact with their targets. Payloads still had to be delivered, processes executed, and command-and-control (C2) connections established, creating behavioral anomalies that Darktrace was able to identify.

‍

Case 1: A Mexican government impersonation campaign with LLM-assisted malware development

Rapid7 reported on a malware delivery operation that used generative AI to assist development, testing, documentation and refinement of attacker infrastructure. Between May and June 2026, Darktrace similarly observed two chains of suspicious activity across customer environments in the Americas that exhibited clear similarities in behavior.

In both cases Darktrace observed:

  • WebDAV communication with onedrive[.]cv·138.124.123[.]87, retrieving a file from the path /Downloads/CURP/
  • Transfer of a masqueraded .scr executable
  • Subsequent communication with google.services[.]ug·77.110.127[.]205 over unusual high ports
  • Additional Darktrace detections correlating the unusual behavior seen spanning payload delivery and C2 communication
  • Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability alerted across multiple stages of the attack

The infrastructure and behavior observed by Darktrace closely aligned with a campaign reported by Rapid7, in which a WebDAV malware delivery environment was exposed. Rapid7 assessed that threat actors had used generative AI to support the development, testing, documentation and refinement of the operation. The observed activity also aligned with reporting on a campaign in which impersonation of Mexico’s government Unique Population Registry Code (CURP) identity-record service led to delivery of PureRAT, a .NET-based information stealer and remote access trojan (RAT) [2]. The infrastructure overlap and consistent behavioural sequence provides strong alignment and offers a view of how an AI-assisted development pipeline ultimately manifested inside target environments.

Case 2: A suspected China-linked intrusion campaign with AI-assisted automation

In July 2026, Hunt.io published research into a suspected China-based intrusion operation targeting government and financial services organizations [3]. Material recovered from exposed attacker infrastructure by Hunt.io indicated that Claude Code and DeepSeek-v4-pro were being used as active components of the attacker’s workflow. According to the research, the models supported activities including attack reasoning, script generation, execution, exploit adaptation, and phishing-page development.

The investigation identified 192.229.115[.]229 and 192.229.115[.]230 as infrastructure associated with suspected TencShell operations and a possible second C2 framework known as Gshell [3].

Darktrace identified likely related activity within a financial services customer environment involving a newly observed laptop running the Windows 11 Pro operating system. Over a six-day period in July, the device made repeated outbound connections to 192.229.115[.]229 over port 8083.

Darktrace recognized the destination was highly rare for the environment, and the connectivity exhibited beaconing characteristics. During the same timeframe, Darktrace also identified suspicious process behavior associated with process chains involving svchost.exe and cmd.exe. The device repeatedly communicated with infrastructure identified in the Hunt.io research while exhibiting beaconing characteristics and suspicious process activity, strengthening the assessment that the activity likely was associated with the same operation.

Unlike many previous examples of AI-assisted cybercrime, the Hunt.io investigation provided rare visibility into how large language models were being incorporated directly into operational workflows rather than being used solely for content generation. Darktrace, meanwhile, observed how activity associated with that operation ultimately manifested inside a target environment, providing a complementary view of its operational impact.

Operational consequences of AI-assisted attacks

These investigations provide two complementary perspectives on AI-assisted cyber operations. OSINT research revealed how AI was incorporated into attacker workflows, while Darktrace observed the resulting activity within customer environments.

Although AI played different roles in each campaign, it did not remove the need for attackers to interact with their targets, deliver payloads, execute processes, and communicate with C2, all of which generated observable signals.

In these cases, Darktrace identified suspicious file delivery, unusual process behavior, beaconing activity, and communication with rare external infrastructure that aligned with campaigns later linked to AI-assisted operations. While AI may influence how attacks are developed, adapted, and scaled, it does not make them operationally invisible.

For defenders, the broader lesson extends beyond these specific campaigns. As AI becomes increasingly embedded within both enterprise operations and attacker workflows, understanding what a model was asked to do is often less important than understanding the actions it ultimately took and the consequences those actions produced. Whether the actor is human, AI-assisted, or increasingly autonomous, activity still manifests through identities, endpoints, applications, cloud services and network infrastructure.

Credit to Angel Arribas Lopez (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones, SVP Global Threat Intelligence
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

‍

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Case 1

Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer from New External Endpoint

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Compromise / New or Repeated to Unusual SSL Port

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

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

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

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

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

Case 2

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

‍

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

‍

Case 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
IoCTypeDescription + Confidence
onedrive[.]cvHostnameLikely C2 server
138.124.123[.]87IP AddressPossible C2 server
hXXp://onedrive[.]cv/Downloads/CURP/ReportFinal.%E2%80%AE%E1%BA%9D%D4%81%EF%BD%90.scrURIPossible payload
google.services[.]ugHostnameLikely C2 server
77.110.127[.]205IP AddressLikely C2 server
google.services[.]ug:57666Hostname + PortLikely C2 communication
google.services[.]ug:57888Hostname + PortLikely C2 communication
google.services[.]ug:56001Hostname + PortLikely C2 communication

‍

Case 2

IoC Type Description + Confidence
192.229.115[.]229 IP Address Likely C2 communication
Continue reading
About the author
Angel Arribas Lopez
Associate Principal Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI