April 8, 2024

Balada Injector: Darktrace’s Investigation into the Malware Exploiting WordPress Vulnerabilities

This blog explores Darktrace’s detection of Balada Injector, a malware known to exploit vulnerabilities in WordPress to gain unauthorized access to networks. Darktrace was able to define numerous use-cases within customer environments which followed previously identified patterns of activity spikes across multiple weeks.

Written by

Justin Torres

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

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Apr 2024

Introduction

With millions of users relying on digital platforms in their day-to-day lives, and organizations across the world depending on them for their business operations, they have inevitably also become a prime target for threat actors. The widespread exploitation of popular services, websites and platforms in cyber-attacks highlights the pervasive nature of malicious actors in today’s threat landscape.

A prime illustration can be seen within the content management system WordPress. Its widespread use and extensive plug-in ecosystem make it an attractive target for attackers aiming to breach networks and access sensitive data, thus leading to routine exploitation attempts. In the End of Year Threat Report for 2023, for example, Darktrace reported that a vulnerability in one WordPress plug-in, namely an authentication bypass vulnerability in miniOrange's Social Login and Register. Darktrace observed it as one of the most exploited vulnerabilities observed across its customer base in the latter half of 2023.

Between September and October 2023, Darktrace observed a string of campaign-like activity associated with Balada Injector, a malware strain known to exploit vulnerabilities in popular plug-ins and themes on the WordPress platform in order to inject a backdoor to provide further access to affected devices and networks. Thanks to its anomaly-based detection, Darktrace DETECT™ was able to promptly identify suspicious connections associated with the Balada Injector, ensuring that security teams had full visibility over potential post-compromise activity and allowing them to act against offending devices.

What is Balada Injector?

The earliest signs of the Balada Injector campaign date back to 2017; however, it was not designated the name Balada Injector until December 2022 [1]. The malware utilizes plug-ins and themes in WordPress to inject a backdoor that redirects end users to malicious and fake sites. It then exfiltrates sensitive information, such as database credentials, archive files, access logs and other valuable information which may not be properly secured [1]. Balada Injector compromise activity is also reported to arise in spikes of activity that emerge every couple of weeks [4].

In its most recent attack activity patterns, specifically in September 2023, Balada Injector exploited a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in CVE-2023-3169 associated with the tagDiv composer plug-in. Some of the injection methods observed included HTML injections, database injections, and arbitrary file injections. In late September 2023, a similar pattern of behavior was observed, with the ability to plant a backdoor that could execute PHP code and install a malicious WordPress plug-in, namely ‘wp-zexit’.

According to external security researchers [2], the most recent infection activity spikes for Balada Injector include the following:

Pattern 1: ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com’ injections

Pattern 2: Autogenerated malicious WordPress users

Pattern 3: Backdoors in the Newspaper theme’s 404.php file

Pattern 4: Malicious ‘wp-zexit’ plug-in installation

Pattern 5: Three new Balada Injector domains (statisticscripts[.]com, dataofpages[.]com, and listwithstats[.]com)

Pattern 6: Promsmotion[.]com domain

Darktrace’s Coverage of Balada Injector

Darktrace detected devices across multiple customer environments making external connections to the malicious Balada Injector domains, including those associated with aforementioned six infection activity patterns. Across the incidents investigated by Darktrace, much of the activity appeared to be associated with TLS/SSL connectivity, related to Balada Injector endpoints, which correlated with the reported infection patterns of this malware. The observed hostnames were all recently registered and, in most cases, had IP geolocations in either the Netherlands or Ukraine.

In the observed cases of Balada Injector across the Darktrace fleet, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not active on the affected customer environments. If RESPOND had been active and enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of these attacks, it would have been able to quickly block connections to malicious Balada Injector endpoints as soon as they were identified by DETECT, thereby containing the threat.

Looking within the aforementioned activity patterns, Darktrace identified a Balada Injector activity within a customer’s environment on October 16, 2023, when a device was observed making a total of 9 connection attempts to ‘sleep[.]stratosbody[.]com’, a domain that had previously been associated with the malware [2]. Darktrace recognized that the endpoint had never been seen on the network, with no other devices having connected to it previously, thus treated it as suspicious.

Figure 1: The connection details above demonstrate 100% rare external connections were made from the internal device to the ‘sleep[.]stratosbody[.]com’ endpoint.

Similarly, on September 21, 2023, Darktrace observed a device on another customer network connecting to an external IP that had never previously been observed on the environment, 111.90.141[.]193. The associated server name was a known malicious endpoint, ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com’, known to be utilized by Balada Injector to host malicious scripts used to compromise WordPress sites. Although the ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com’ domain was only registered in September 2023, it was reportedly used in the redirect chain of the aforementioned stratosbody[.com] domain [2]. Such scripts can be used to upload backdoors, including malicious plug-ins, and create blog administrators who can perform administrative tasks without having to authenticate [2].

Figure 2: Advance Search results displaying the metadata logs surrounding the unusual connections to ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com’. A total of nine HTTP CONNECT requests were observed, with status messages “Proxy Authorization Required” and “Connection established”.

Darktrace observed additional connections within the same customer’s environment on October 10 and October 18, specifically SSL connections from two distinct source devices to the ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com’ endpoint. Within these connections, Darktrace observed the normalized JA3 fingerprints, “473f0e7c0b6a0f7b049072f4e683068b” and “aa56c057ad164ec4fdcb7a5a283be9fc”, the latter of which corresponds to GitHub results mentioning a Python client (curl_cffi) that is able to impersonate the TLS signatures of browsers or JA3 fingerprints [8].

Figure 3: Advanced Search query results showcasing Darktrace’s detection of SSL connections to ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com over port 443.

On September 29, 2023, a device on a separate customer’s network was observed connecting to the hostname ‘cdn[.]dataofpages[.]com’, one of the three new Balada Injector domains identified as part of the fifth pattern of activity outlined above, using a new SSL certificate via port 443. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors flagged this domain as malicious and associated with Balada Injector malware [9].

Figure 4: The Model Breach Event Log detailing the Balada Injector-related connections observed causing the ‘Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device’ DETECT model to breach.

On October 2, 2023, Darktrace observed the device of another customer connecting to the rare hostname, ‘js.statisticscripts[.]com’ with the IP address 185.39.206[.]161, both of which had only been registered in late September and are known to be associated with the Balada Injector.

Figure 5: Model Breach Event Log detailing connections to the hostname ‘js.statisticscripts[.]com’ over port 137.

On September 13, 2023, Darktrace identified a device on another customer’s network connecting to the Balada Injector endpoint ‘stay.decentralappps[.]com’ endpoint, with the destination IP 1.1.1[.]1, using the SSL protocol. This time, however, Darktrace also observed the device making subsequent connections to ‘get.promsmotion[.]com’ a subdomain of the ‘promsmotion[.]com’ domain. This domain is known to be used by Balada Injector actors to host malicious scripts that can be injected into the WordPress Newspaper theme as potential backdoors to be leveraged by attackers.

In a separate case observed on September 14, Darktrace identified a device on another environment connecting to the domain ‘collect[.]getmygateway[.]com’ with the IP 88.151.192[.]254. No other device on the customer’s network had visited this endpoint previously, and the device in question was observed repeatedly connecting to it via port 443 over the course of four days. While this specific hostname had not been linked with a specific activity pattern of Balada Injector, it was reported as previously associated with the malware in September 2023 [2].

Figure 6: Model Breach Event Log displaying a customer device making repeated connections to the endpoint ‘collect[.]getmygateway[.]com’, breaching the DETECT model ‘Repeating Connections Over 4 Days’.

In addition to DETECT’s identification of this suspicious activity, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ also launched its own autonomous investigation into the connections. AI Analyst was able to recognize that these separate connections that took place over several days were, in fact, connected and likely represented command-and-control (C2) beaconing activity that had been taking place on the customer networks.

By analyzing the large number of external connections taking place on a customer’s network at any one time, AI Analyst is able to view seemingly isolated events as components of a wider incident, ensuring that customers maintain full visibility over their environments and any emerging malicious activity.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the SSL connectivity observed, including endpoint details and overall summary of the beaconing activity.

Conclusion

While Balada Injector’s tendency to interchange C2 infrastructure and utilize newly registered domains may have been able to bypass signature-based security measures, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach enabled it to swiftly identify affected devices across multiple customer environments, without needing to update or retrain its models to keep pace with the evolving iterations of WordPress vulnerabilities.

Unlike traditional measures, Darktrace DETECT’s Self-Learning AI focusses on behavioral analysis, crucial for identifying emerging threats like those exploiting commonly used platforms such as WordPress. Rather than relying on historical threat intelligence or static indicators of compromise (IoC) lists, Darktrace identifies the subtle deviations in device behavior, such as unusual connections to newly registered domains, that are indicative of network compromise.

Darktrace’s suite of products, including DETECT+RESPOND, is uniquely positioned to proactively identify and contain network compromises from the onset, offering vital protection against disruptive cyber-attacks.

Credit to: Justin Torres, Cyber Analyst, Nahisha Nobregas, Senior Cyber Analyst

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Coverage

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed
Compliance / Possible DNS Over HTTPS/TLS
Compliance / External Windows Communications
Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days
Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / Suspicious TLS Beaconing To Rare External
Compromise / Large DNS Volume for Suspicious Domain
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Device / Suspicious Domain

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

collect[.]getmygateway[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

cdn[.]dataofpages[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

stay[.]decentralappps[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

get[.]promsmotion[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

js[.]statisticscripts[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

sleep[.]stratosbody[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

trend[.]stablelightway[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

cdn[.]specialtaskevents[.]com - Hostname - Balada C2 Endpoint

88.151.192[.]254 - IP Address - Balada C2 Endpoint

185.39.206[.]160 - IP Address - Balada C2 Endpoint

111.90.141[.]193 - IP Address - Balada C2 Endpoint

185.39.206[.]161 - IP Address - Balada C2 Endpoint

2.59.222[.]121 - IP Address - Balada C2 Endpoint

80.66.79[.]253 - IP Address - Balada C2 Endpoint

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

Chrome/117.0.0.0 - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

Safari/537.36 - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

Edge/117.0.2045.36 - User Agent - Observed User Agent in Balada C2 Connections

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Technique - Tactic - ID - Sub Technique

Exploit Public-Facing Application

INITIAL ACCESS

T1190

‍

Web Protocols

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1071.001

T1071

‍

Protocol Tunneling

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1572

‍

Default Accounts

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS

T1078.001

T1078

‍

Domain Accounts

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS

T1078.002

T1078

‍

External Remote Services

PERSISTENCE, INITIAL ACCESS

T1133

‍

Local Accounts

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS

T1078.003

T1078

‍

Application Layer Protocol

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1071

‍

Browser Extensions

PERSISTENCE

T1176

‍

Encrypted Channel

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1573

‍

Fallback Channels

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1008

‍

Multi-Stage Channels

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1104

‍

Non-Standard Port

COMMAND AND CONTROL

T1571

‍

Supply Chain Compromise

INITIAL ACCESS ICS

T0862

‍

Commonly Used Port

COMMAND AND CONTROL ICS

T0885

References

[1] https://blog.sucuri.net/2023/04/balada-injector-synopsis-of-a-massive-ongoing-wordpress-malware-campaign.html

[2] https://blog.sucuri.net/2023/10/balada-injector-targets-unpatched-tagdiv-plugin-newspaper-theme-wordpress-admins.html

[3] https://securityboulevard.com/2021/05/wordpress-websites-redirecting-to-outlook-phishing-pages-travelinskydream-ga-track-lowerskyactive/

[4] https://thehackernews.com/2023/10/over-17000-wordpress-sites-compromised.html

[5] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/over-17-000-wordpress-sites-hacked-in-balada-injector-attacks-last-month/

[6]https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3169

[7] https://www.geoedge.com/balda-injectors-2-0-evading-detection-gaining-persistence/

[8] https[:]//github[.]com/yifeikong/curl_cffi/blob/master/README.md

[9] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/cdn.dataofpages.com

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Malware Research Engineer

•

February 3, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

February 3, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

Introduction

The aim of this blog is to be an educational resource, documenting how an analyst can perform malware analysis techniques such as unpacking. This blog will demonstrate the malware analysis process against well-known malware, in this case SnappyBee.

SnappyBee (also known as Deed RAT) is a modular backdoor that has been previously attributed to China-linked cyber espionage group Salt Typhoon, also known as Earth Estries [1] [2]. The malware was first publicly documented by TrendMicro in November 2024 as part of their investigation into long running campaigns targeting various industries and governments by China-linked threat groups.

In these campaigns, SnappyBee is deployed post-compromise, after the attacker has already obtained access to a customer's system, and is used to establish long-term persistence as well as deploying further malware such as Cobalt Strike and the Demodex rootkit.

To decrease the chance of detection, SnappyBee uses a custom packing routine. Packing is a common technique used by malware to obscure its true payload by hiding it and then stealthily loading and executing it at runtime. This hinders analysis and helps the malware evade detection, especially during static analysis by both human analysts and anti-malware services.

This blog is a practical guide on how an analyst can unpack and analyze SnappyBee, while also learning the necessary skills to triage other malware samples from advanced threat groups.

First principles

Packing is not a new technique, and threat actors have generally converged on a standard approach. Packed binaries typically feature two main components: the packed data and an unpacking stub, also called a loader, to unpack and run the data.

Typically, malware developers insert a large blob of unreadable data inside an executable, such as in the .rodata section. This data blob is the true payload of the malware, but it has been put through a process such as encryption, compression, or another form of manipulation to render it unreadable. Sometimes, this data blob is instead shipped in a different file, such as a .dat file, or a fake image. When this happens, the main loader has to read this using a syscall, which can be useful for analysis as syscalls can be easily identified, even in heavily obfuscated binaries.

In the main executable, malware developers will typically include an unpacking stub that takes the data blob, performs one or more operations on it, and then triggers its execution. In most samples, the decoded payload data is loaded into a newly allocated memory region, which will then be marked as executable and executed. In other cases, the decoded data is instead dropped into a new executable on disk and run, but this is less common as it increases the likelihood of detection.

Finding the unpacking routine

The first stage of analysis is uncovering the unpacking routine so it can be reverse engineered. There are several ways to approach this, but it is traditionally first triaged via static analysis on the initial stages available to the analyst.

SnappyBee consists of two components that can be analyzed:

A Dynamic-link Library (DLL) that acts as a loader, responsible for unpacking the malicious code
A data file shipped alongside the DLL, which contains the encrypted malicious code

Additionally, SnappyBee includes a legitimate signed executable that is vulnerable to DLL side-loading. This means that when the executable is run, it will inadvertently load SnappyBee’s DLL instead of the legitimate one it expects. This allows SnappyBee to appear more legitimate to antivirus solutions.

The first stage of analysis is performing static analysis of the DLL. This can be done by opening the DLL within a disassembler such as IDA Pro. Upon opening the DLL, IDA will display the DllMain function, which is the malware’s initial entry point and the first code executed when the DLL is loaded.

First, the function checks if the variable fdwReason is set to 1, and exits if it is not. This variable is set by Windows to indicate why the DLL was loaded. According to Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN), a value of 1 corresponds to DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH, meaning “The DLL is being loaded into the virtual address space of the current process as a result of the process starting up or as a result of a call to LoadLibrary” [3]. Since SnappyBee is known to use DLL sideloading for execution, DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH is the expected value when the legitimate executable loads the malicious DLL.

SnappyBee then uses the GetModule and GetProcAddress to dynamically resolve the address of the VirtualProtect in kernel32 and StartServiceCtrlDispatcherW in advapi32. Resolving these dynamically at runtime prevents them from showing up as a static import for the module, which can help evade detection by anti-malware solutions. Different regions of memory have different permissions to control what they can be used for, with the main ones being read, write, and execute. VirtualProtect is a function that changes the permissions of a given memory region.

SnappyBee then uses VirtualProtect to set the memory region containing the code for the StartServiceCtrlDispatcherW function as writable. It then inserts a jump instruction at the start of this function, redirecting the control flow to one of the SnappyBee DLL’s other functions, and then restores the old permissions.

In practice, this means when the legitimate executable calls StartServiceCtrlDispatcherW, it will immediately hand execution back to SnappyBee. Meanwhile, the call stack now appears more legitimate to outside observers such as antimalware solutions.

The hooked-in function then reads the data file that is shipped with SnappyBee and loads it into a new memory allocation. This pattern of loading the file into memory likely means it is responsible for unpacking the next stage.

Figure 2: The start of the unpacking routine that reads in dbindex.dat.

SnappyBee then proceeds to decrypt the memory allocation and execute the code.

Figure 3: The memory decryption routine.

This section may look complex, however it is fairly straight forward. Firstly, it uses memset to zero out a stack variable, which will be used to store the decryption key. It then uses the first 16 bytes of the data file as a decryption key to initialize the context from.

SnappyBee then calls the mbed_tls_arc4_crypt function, which is a function from the mbedtls library. Documentation for this function can be found online and can be referenced to better understand what each of the arguments mean [4].

The documentation for mbedtls_arc4_crypt. — Figure 4: The documentation for mbedtls_arc4_ crypt.

Comparing the decompilation with the documentation, the arguments SnappyBee passes to the function can be decoded as:

The context derived from 16-byte key at the start of the data is passed in as the context in the first parameter
The file size minus 16 bytes (to account for the key at the start of the file) is the length of the data to be decrypted
A pointer to the file contents in memory, plus 16 bytes to skip the key, is used as the input
A pointer to a new memory allocation obtained from VirtualAlloc is used as the output

So, putting it all together, it can be concluded that SnappyBee uses the first 16 bytes as the key to decrypt the data that follows , writing the output into the allocated memory region.

SnappyBee then calls VirtualProtect to set the decrypted memory region as Read + Execute, and subsequently executes the code at the memory pointer. This is clearly where the unpacked code containing the next stage will be placed.

Unpacking the malware

Understanding how the unpacking routine works is the first step. The next step is obtaining the actual code, which cannot be achieved through static analysis alone.

There are two viable methods to retrieve the next stage. The first method is implementing the unpacking routine from scratch in a language like Python and running it against the data file.

This is straightforward in this case, as the unpacking routine in relatively simple and would not require much effort to re-implement. However, many unpacking routines are far more complex, which leads to the second method: allowing the malware to unpack itself by debugging it and then capturing the result. This is the approach many analysts take to unpacking, and the following will document this method to unpack SnappyBee.

As SnappyBee is 32-bit Windows malware, debugging can be performed using x86dbg in a Windows sandbox environment to debug SnappyBee. It is essential this sandbox is configured correctly, because any mistake during debugging could result in executing malicious code, which could have serious consequences.

Before debugging, it is necessary to disable the DYNAMIC_BASE flag on the DLL using a tool such as setdllcharacteristics. This will stop ASLR from randomizing the memory addresses each time the malware runs and ensures that it matches the addresses observed during static analysis.

The first place to set a breakpoint is DllMain, as this is the start of the malicious code and the logical place to pause before proceeding. Using IDA, the functions address can be determined; in this case, it is at offset 10002DB0. This can be used in the Goto (CTRL+G) dialog to jump to the offset and place a breakpoint. Note that the “Run to user code” button may need to be pressed if the DLL has not yet been loaded by x32dbg, as it spawns a small process to load the DLL as DLLs cannot be executed directly.

The program can then run until the breakpoint, at which point the program will pause and code recognizable from static analysis can be observed.

Figure 5: The x32dbg dissassembly listing forDllMain.

In the previous section, this function was noted as responsible for setting up a hook, and in the disassembly listing the hook address can be seen being loaded at offset 10002E1C. It is not necessary to go through the whole hooking process, because only the function that gets hooked in needs to be run. This function will not be naturally invoked as the DLL is being loaded directly rather than via sideloading as it expects. To work around this, the Extended Instruction Pointer (EIP) register can be manipulated to point to the start of the hook function instead, which will cause it to run instead of the DllMain function.

To update EIP, the CRTL+G dialog can again be used to jump to the hook function address (10002B50), and then the EIP register can be set to this address by right clicking the first instruction and selecting “Set EIP here”. This will make the hook function code run next.

Figure 6: The start of the hookedin-in function

Once in this function, there are a few addresses where breakpoints should be set in order to inspect the state of the program at critical points in the unpacking process. These are:

- 10002C93, which allocates the memory for the data file and final code

- 10002D2D, which decrypts the memory

- 10002D81, which runs the unpacked code

Setting these can be done by pressing the dot next to the instruction listing, or via the CTRL+G Goto menu.

At the first breakpoint, the call to VirtualAlloc will be executed. The function returns the memory address of the created memory region, which is stored in the EAX register. In this case, the region was allocated at address 00700000.

Figure 7: The result of the VirtualAlloc call.

It is possible to right click the address and press “Follow in dump” to pin the contents of the memory to the lower pane, which makes it easy to monitor the region as the unpacking process continues.

*Figure 8: The allocated memory region shown in x32dbg’s dump.*

Single-stepping through the application from this point eventually reaches the call to ReadFile, which loads the file into the memory region.

*Figure 9: The allocated memory region after the file is read into it, showing high entropy data.*

The program can then be allowed to run until the next breakpoint, which after single-stepping will execute the call to mbedtls_arc4_crypt to decrypt the memory. At this point, the data in the dump will have changed.

*Figure 10: The same memory region after the decryption is run, showing lower entropy data.*

Right-clicking in the dump and selecting "Disassembly” will disassemble the data. This yields valid shell code, indicating that the unpacking succeeded, whereas corrupt or random data would be expected if the unpacking had failed.

*Figure 11: The disassembly view of the allocated memory.*

Right-clicking and selecting “Follow in memory map” will show the memory allocation under the memory map view. Right-clicking this then provides an option to dump the entire memory block to file.

*Figure 12: Saving the allocated memory region.*

This dump can then be opened in IDA, enabling further static analysis of the shellcode. Reviewing the shellcode, it becomes clear that it performs another layer of unpacking.

As the debugger is already running, the sample can be allowed to execute up to the final breakpoint that was set on the call to the unpacked shellcode. Stepping into this call will then allow debugging of the new shellcode.

The simplest way to proceed is to single-step through the code, pausing on each call instruction to consider its purpose. Eventually, a call instruction that points to one of the memory regions that were assigned will be reached, which will contain the next layer of unpacked code. Using the same disassembly technique as before, it can be confirmed that this is more unpacked shellcode.

Figure 13: The unpacked shellcode’s call to RDI, which points to more unpacked shellcode. Note this screenshot depicts the 64-bit variant of SnappyBee instead of 32-bit, however the theory is the same.

Once again, this can be dumped out and analyzed further in IDA. In this case, it is the final payload used by the SnappyBee malware.

Conclusion

Unpacking remains one of the most common anti-analysis techniques and is a feature of most sophisticated malware from threat groups. This technique of in-memory decryption reduces the forensic “surface area” of the malware, helping it to evade detection from anti-malware solutions. This blog walks through one such example and provides practical knowledge on how to unpack malware for deeper analysis.

In addition, this blog has detailed several other techniques used by threat actors to evade analysis, such as DLL sideloading to execute code without arising suspicion, dynamic API resolving to bypass static heuristics, and multiple nested stages to make analysis challenging.

Malware such as SnappyBee demonstrates a continued shift towards highly modular and low-friction malware toolkits that can be reused across many intrusions and campaigns. It remains vital for security teams to maintain the ability to combat the techniques seen in these toolkits when responding to infections.

While the technical details of these techniques are primarily important to analysts, the outcomes of this work directly affect how a Security Operations Centre (SOC) operates at scale. Without the technical capability to reliably unpack and observe these samples, organizations are forced to respond without the full picture.

The techniques demonstrated here help close that gap. This enables security teams to reduce dwell time by understanding the exact mechanisms of a sample earlier, improve detection quality with behavior-based indicators rather than relying on hash-based detections, and increase confidence in response decisions when determining impact.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

SnappyBee Loader 1 - 25b9fdef3061c7dfea744830774ca0e289dba7c14be85f0d4695d382763b409b

SnappyBee Loader 2 - b2b617e62353a672626c13cc7ad81b27f23f91282aad7a3a0db471d84852a9ac

SnappyBee Payload - 1a38303fb392ccc5a88d236b4f97ed404a89c1617f34b96ed826e7bb7257e296

References

[1] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_gb/research/24/k/earth-estries.html

[2] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/salty-much-darktraces-view-on-a-recent-salt-typhoon-intrusion

[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/dlls/dllmain#parameters

[4] https://mbed-tls.readthedocs.io/projects/api/en/v2.28.4/api/file/arc4_8h/#_CPPv418mbedtls_arc4_cryptP20mbedtls_arc4_context6size_tPKhPh

About the author

Nathaniel Bill

Malware Research Engineer

Blog

February 4, 2026

The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders

2025 was the year enterprise AI went mainstream. In 2026, it’s made its way into every facet of the organizational structure – transforming workflows, revolutionizing productivity, and creating new value streams. In short, it’s opened up a whole new attack surface.

At the same time, AI has accelerated the pace of cybersecurity arms race on both sides: adversaries are innovating using the latest AI technologies at their disposal while defenders scramble to outmaneuver them and stay ahead of AI-powered threats.

That’s why Darktrace publishes this research every year. The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 provides an annual snapshot of how the AI threat landscape is shifting, where organizations are adopting AI to maximum advantage, and how they are securing AI in the enterprise.

What is the State of AI Cybersecurity 2026?

We surveyed over 1,500 CISOs, IT leaders, administrators, and practitioners from a range of industries and different countries to uncover their attitudes, understanding, and priorities when it comes to AI threats, agents, tools, and operations in 2026. 

The results show a fast-changing picture, as security leaders race to navigate the challenges and opportunities at play. Since last year, there has been enormous progress towards maturity in areas like AI literacy and confidence in AI-powered defense, while issues around AI governance remain inconclusive.

Let’s look at some of the key findings for 2026.

What’s the impact of AI on the attack surface?

Security leaders are seeing the adoption of AI agents across the workforce, and are increasingly concerned about the security implications.

44% are extremely or very concerned with the security implications of third-party LLMs (like Copilot or ChatGPT)
92% are concerned about the use of AI agents across the workforce and their impact on security

The rapid expansion of generative AI across the enterprise is outpacing the security frameworks designed to govern it. AI systems behave in ways that traditional defenses are not designed to monitor, introducing new risks around data exposure, unauthorized actions, and opaque decision-making as employees embed generative AI and autonomous agents into everyday workflows.

Their top concerns? Sensitive data exposure ranks top (61%), while regulatory compliance violations are a close second (56%). These risks tend to have the fastest and most material fallout – ranging from fines to reputational harm – and are more likely to materialize in environments where AI governance is still evolving.

What’s the impact of AI on the cyber threat landscape?

AI is now being used to expedite every stage of the attack kill chain – from initial intrusion to privilege escalation and data exfiltration. 

“73% say that AI-powered threats are already having a significant impact on their organization.”

With AI, attackers can launch novel attacks at scale, and this is significantly increasing the number of threats requiring attention by the security team – often to the point of overwhelm.

Traditional security solutions relying on historical attack data were never designed to handle an environment where attacks continuously evolve, multiply, and optimize at machine speed, so it’s no surprise that 92% agree that AI-powered cyber-threats are forcing them to significantly upgrade their defenses.

How is AI reshaping cybersecurity operations?

Cybersecurity workflows are still in flux as security leaders get used to the integration of AI agents into everyday operations.

“Generative AI is now playing a role in 77% of security stacks.” But only 35% are using unsupervised machine learning.

AI technologies are diverse, ranging from LLMs to NLP systems, GANs, and unsupervised machine learning, with each type offering specific capabilities and facing particular limitations. The lack of familiarity with the different types of AI used within the security stack may be holding some practitioners back from using these new technologies to their best advantage.

It also creates a lack of trust between humans and AI systems: only 14% of security professionals allow AI to take independent remediation actions in the SOC with no human in the loop.

Another new trend for this year is a strong preference (85%) for relying on Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) for SOC services instead of in-house teams, as organizations aim to secure expert, always-on support without the cost and operational burden of running an internal operation.

What impact is AI having on cybersecurity tools?

“96% of cybersecurity professionals agree that AI can significantly improve the speed and efficiency with which they work.”

The capacity of AI for augmenting security efforts is undisputed. But as vendor AI claims become far-reaching, it falls to security leaders to clarify which AI tools offer true value and can help solve their specific security challenges.

Security professionals are aligned on the biggest area of impact: 72% agree that AI excels at detecting anomalies thanks to its advanced pattern recognition. This enables it to identify unusual behavior that may signal a threat, even when the specific attack has never been encountered or recorded in existing datasets.

“When purchasing new security capabilities, 93% prefer ones that are part of a broader platform over individual point products.”

Like last year, the drive towards platform consolidation remains strong. Fewer vendors can mean tighter integrations, less console switching, streamlined management, and stronger cross-domain threat insights. The challenge is finding vendors that perform well across the board.

See the full report for more statistics and insights into how security leaders are responding to the AI landscape in 2026.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Balada Injector: Darktrace’s Investigation into the Malware Exploiting WordPress Vulnerabilities

Balada Injector: Darktrace’s Investigation into the Malware Exploiting WordPress Vulnerabilities

Introduction

What is Balada Injector?

Darktrace’s Coverage of Balada Injector

Conclusion

Appendices

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

The State of Cybersecurity in the Finance Sector: Six Trends to Watch

Darktrace Identifies Campaign Targeting South Korea Leveraging VS Code for Remote Access

Blog

Network

February 3, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

Introduction

First principles

Finding the unpacking routine

Conclusion

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

February 4, 2026

The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders

What is the State of AI Cybersecurity 2026?

What’s the impact of AI on the attack surface?

What’s the impact of AI on the cyber threat landscape?

How is AI reshaping cybersecurity operations?

What impact is AI having on cybersecurity tools?