Bytesize Security: A Guide to HTML Phishing Attachments
Darktrace guides you through the common signs of HTML phishing attachments, including common phishing emails, clever impersonations, fake webpages, and more.
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.
One of the most common types of phishing email seen by the Darktrace SOC, involves the use of HTML attachments (Figure 1). These emails make use of an attachment to hide redirects to overtly malicious or suspicious domains. Some even impersonate legitimate web pages and send any entered or captured information back to the attacker's infrastructure once opened or filled out by the recipient. Indicators of these attempts can be identified from a few key patterns found across multiple emails.
Figure 1: An example of a suspicious HTML attachment containing dynamic content
A typical feature of these HTML attachments is the use of a generic-sounding filename that relates to the message's subject line, but with no specific information pertaining to the recipient or their line of business. These files almost always contain some form of Javascript code, as they often make use of external Javascript libraries to accomplish whatever goal is being pursued. For example, an attacker might use Javascript to convincingly impersonate a trustworthy website and trick the recipient into providing credentials or sensitive information, or they might use it to deploy malware and get a foothold on the device for further compromise once opened. This can be further identified by the presence of certain links in the HTML file itself (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The HTML file previously referenced contained multiple rare and suspicious links
Figure 2 above is an example of an HTML file containing multiple links with calls for .js files. This shows that the attachment contains Javascript and is making calls for external libraries for an undetermined purpose.
Another common red flag is when the file contains links to common Product or Service images from domains wholly unrelated to those services, as seen below (Figure 3).
Figure 3: An example of an unusual .png call from a rare domain. The subsequent image called is for a company with no apparent relation to the hosting domain
The examples above imply an obvious (and poor) attempt by the HTML file to impersonate a Microsoft webpage, likely a fake login page set up for credential harvesting, as the ‘Microsoft’ logo is being pulled from a domain entirely unrelated to Microsoft or any common image-hosting service.
Rather than impersonating a website directly in the file and loading resources from external sources, these HTML files will instead directly point toward a webpage that already contains these elements. This comes with its own set of pros and cons: by hosting their phishing page in a public setting, they are far more likely to be taken down, however it may be easier to appear legitimate than if they were to build it all out in the HTML file itself.
The final routine element in these types of HTML phishing emails is the mechanism by which the attacker intends to receive any successfully scammed credentials or information. If the fake webpage is entirely contained in the HTML file, this often presents as a suspicious PHP link present in the file itself (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Phishing HTMLs often include links to rare domains with PHP destinations as an indication that it will engage in some form of HTTP POST communication
PHP calls suggest that some part of the webpage is intended to submit an HTTP POST or equivalent ‘submission’ call, often present in the ‘Login’ button in these scenarios. After the victim clicks this button, the webpage sends all the form-submission items to the endpoint hosting the PHP page, which is commonly an indicator of the webserver hosting the attacker infrastructure running the phishing attack.
If the HTML file redirects to an externally hosted phishing page, identical PHP links are often found in the source code of those pages (Figure 5). This serves the same function as sending any entered credentials back to the attacker.
Figure 5: The source-code of an external-hosted phishing page, showing calls for PHP pages hosted on alternate attacker infrastructure
The process of HTML attacks is so standardized that they are commonly released in the form of easily deployable phishing kits. These can be deployed on unsuspecting compromised webservers with little to no modification, resulting in virtually identical attacks being seen year-round. WordPress seems to be a prime target for hosting such attacks, with the site owners often becoming unsuspecting victims in propagating these phishing campaigns. An unfortunate side effect of these kits being readily available is that the attackers often don't bother to set any sort of access restrictions on their phishing servers once established, which can result in their entire setup being publicly viewable with a simple link modification. One example is seen below (Figure 6).
Figure 6: The parent directory of the website hosting a suspicious PHP page was fully accessible without restriction
In this incident, the website hosting the PHP link seen earlier had a publicly accessible parent directory structure, where both the PHP file above and an additional suspicious .txt file could be seen. This .txt file appears to be where any information submitted by victims ultimately ended up written to (Figure 7).
Figure 7: The TXT file in the parent directory above appeared to contain the login information that was likely submitted to the PHP page referred to in the initial HTML attachment
Figure 7 above presents the unusual risk of not only having the victims’ credentials at the disposal of the original attacker, but also potentially exposed to any malicious actor that can get creative with a web-crawler to identify key elements of the files used by these particular phishing kits.
Fortunately, due to the standardized nature of these ready-made phishing kits, these types of attacks often conform to a series of common behaviors that Darktrace / EMAIL excels in identifying. Despite being a popular technique, it is extremely rare for attempts using this HTML attachment method to successfully get through a correct Darktrace / EMAIL deployment. Overall, this means one less risk for the end user to worry about.
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.
Por qué los enfoques de seguridad del e-mail centrados en ataques no pueden hacer frente a las amenazas modernas.
Despite evolving email threats, many organizations still rely on SEGs or outdated, attack-focused methods. These approaches can’t counter advanced, AI-driven attacks. The solution? Business-centric email security that understands users and inbox behavior, not just threats.
Evaluating Email Security: How to Select the Best Solution for Your Organization
In today’s saturated market for email security, it can be difficult to cut through the noise of AI hype and vendor claims. CISOs should be using a structured evaluation framework to support informed, objective comparisons of different vendors – to allow them to make the best decision for their organization.
Why Data Classification Isn’t Enough to Prevent Data Loss
In a world of growing data volume and diversity, protecting and keeping track of your organization’s sensitive information is increasingly complex – particularly when 63% of breaches stem from malicious insiders or human error. This blog explores how security teams can achieve visibility beyond the limits of data classification, without adding to the burden of data management.
Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 8 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability
Can you detect cyber threats before the world knows about them?
Every year, tens of thousands of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are disclosed, over 40,000 in 2024 alone [1], and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST).
However, cybercriminals don't wait for disclosure. They exploit zero-days while defenders remain in the dark.
Traditional, signature-based tools struggle to detect these early-stage threats. That’s why anomaly detection is becoming essential for organizations seeking pre-CVE detection.
Understanding the gap between zero-day attacks and public CVE disclosure
When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.
The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and the disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.
However, abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems.
Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure
Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.
For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.
Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.
Below are eight examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.
Trends in pre-cve exploitation
The attack vs. patch race
In many cases, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender.
Skilled nation-state actors
Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security.
After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.
Examples of exploitation
Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].
The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].
You spotted the anomaly but did you stop the breach?
Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.
For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.
This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.
In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.
For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.
Conclusion
By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.
Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.
Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)
Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)
What is Blind Eagle?
Since 2018, APT-C-36, also known as Blind Eagle, has been observed performing cyber-attacks targeting various sectors across multiple countries in Latin America, with a particular focus on Colombian organizations.
Blind Eagle characteristically targets government institutions, financial organizations, and critical infrastructure [1][2].
Attacks carried out by Blind Eagle actors typically start with a phishing email and the group have been observed utilizing various Remote Access Trojans (RAT) variants, which often have in-built methods for hiding command-and-control (C2) traffic from detection [3].
What we know about Blind Eagle from a recent campaign
Since November 2024, Blind Eagle actors have been conducting an ongoing campaign targeting Colombian organizations [1].
In this campaign, threat actors have been observed using phishing emails to deliver malicious URL links to targeted recipients, similar to the way threat actors have previously been observed exploiting CVE-2024-43451, a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that allows the disclosure of a user’s NTLMv2 password hash upon minimal interaction with a malicious file [4].
Despite Microsoft patching this vulnerability in November 2024 [1][4], Blind Eagle actors have continued to exploit the minimal interaction mechanism, though no longer with the intent of harvesting NTLMv2 password hashes. Instead, phishing emails are sent to targets containing a malicious URL which, when clicked, initiates the download of a malicious file. This file is then triggered by minimal user interaction.
Clicking on the file triggers a WebDAV request, with a connection being made over HTTP port 80 using the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19044’. WebDAV is a transmission protocol which allows files or complete directories to be made available through the internet, and to be transmitted to devices [5]. The next stage payload is then downloaded via another WebDAV request and malware is executed on the target device.
Attackers are notified when a recipient downloads the malicious files they send, providing an insight into potential targets [1].
Darktrace’s coverage of Blind Eagle
In late February 2025, Darktrace observed activity assessed with medium confidence to be associated with Blind Eagle on the network of a customer in Colombia.
Within a period of just five hours, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device being redirected through a rare external location, downloading multiple executable files, and ultimately exfiltrating data from the customer’s environment.
Since the customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network, no actions were taken to contain the compromise, allowing it to escalate until the customer’s security team responded to the alerts provided by Darktrace.
Darktrace observed a device on the customer’s network being directed over HTTP to a rare external IP, namely 62[.]60[.]226[.]112, which had never previously been seen in this customer’s environment and was geolocated in Germany. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) providers have since linked this endpoint with phishing and malware campaigns [9].
The device then proceeded to download the executable file hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe.
Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to an unusual location based in Germany.
Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device downloading an executable file from the suspicious endpoint.
The device was then observed making unusual connections to the rare endpoint 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and performing unusual external data activity.
This dynamic DNS endpoint allows a device to access an endpoint using a domain name in place of a changing IP address. Dynamic DNS services ensure the DNS record of a domain name is automatically updated when the IP address changes. As such, malicious actors can use these services and endpoints to dynamically establish connections to C2 infrastructure [6].
Further investigation into this dynamic endpoint using OSINT revealed multiple associations with previous likely Blind Eagle compromises, as well as Remcos malware, a RAT commonly deployed via phishing campaigns [7][8][10].
Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to the suspicious dynamic DNS endpoint, 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com.
Shortly after this, Darktrace observed the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045’, indicating usage of the aforementioned transmission protocol WebDAV. The device was subsequently observed connected to an endpoint associated with Github and downloading data, suggesting that the device was retrieving a malicious tool or payload. The device then began to communicate to the malicious endpoint diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com over the new TCP port 1512 [11].
Around this time, the device was also observed uploading data to the endpoints 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com, with transfers of 60 MiB and 5.6 MiB observed respectively.
Figure 4: UI graph showing external data transfer activity.
This chain of activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK. These high-priority model alerts are designed to trigger in response to higher fidelity indicators of compromise (IoCs), suggesting that a device is performing activity consistent with a compromise.
Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of initial attack chain activity.
A second Enhanced Monitoring model was also triggered by this device following the download of the aforementioned executable file (hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe) and the observed increase in C2 activity.
Following this activity, Darktrace continued to observe the device beaconing to the 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com endpoint.
Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to correlate each of the individual detections involved in this compromise, identifying them as part of a broader incident that encompassed C2 connectivity, suspicious downloads, and external data transfers.
Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into the activity observed on the affected device.
Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of the affected device’s broader connectivity throughout the course of the attack.
As the affected customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response configured at the time, the attack was able to progress unabated. Had Darktrace been properly enabled, it would have been able to take a number of actions to halt the escalation of the attack.
For example, the unusual beaconing connections and the download of an unexpected file from an uncommon location would have been shut down by blocking the device from making external connections to the relevant destinations.
Conclusion
The persistence of Blind Eagle and ability to adapt its tactics, even after patches were released, and the speed at which the group were able to continue using pre-established TTPs highlights that timely vulnerability management and patch application, while essential, is not a standalone defense.
Organizations must adopt security solutions that use anomaly-based detection to identify emerging and adapting threats by recognizing deviations in user or device behavior that may indicate malicious activity. Complementing this with an autonomous decision maker that can identify, connect, and contain compromise-like activity is crucial for safeguarding organizational networks against constantly evolving and sophisticated threat actors.
Credit to Charlotte Thompson (Senior Cyber Analyst), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)
Appendices
IoCs
IoC – Type - Confidence Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045 – User Agent
62[.]60[.]226[.]112 – IP – Medium Confidence
hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe – Payload Download – Medium Confidence
21ene.ip-ddns[.]com – Dynamic DNS Endpoint – Medium Confidence
diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com - Hostname – Medium Confidence
Darktrace’s model alert coverage
Anomalous File / Suspicious HTTP Redirect Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Location Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint Device / Anomalous Github Download Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server Compromise / Suspicious File and C2 Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections Device / Large Number of Model Alert
Mitre Attack Mapping:
Tactic – Technique – Technique Name
Initial Access - T1189 – Drive-by Compromise Initial Access - T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access ICS - T0862 – Supply Chain Compromise Initial Access ICS - T0865 – Spearphishing Attachment Initial Access ICS - T0817 - Drive-by Compromise Resource Development - T1588.001 – Malware Lateral Movement ICS - T0843 – Program Download Command and Control - T1105 - Ingress Tool Transfer Command and Control - T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol Command and Control - T1571 – Non-Standard Port Command and Control - T1568.002 – Domain Generation Algorithms Command and Control ICS - T0869 – Standard Application Layer Protocol Evasion ICS - T0849 – Masquerading Exfiltration - T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel Exfiltration - T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage
.jpg)
![Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to the suspicious dynamic DNS endpoint, 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/685c5e35886ec88c0cfe90d1_Screenshot%202025-06-25%20at%201.34.48%E2%80%AFPM.png)
