August 9, 2023

Improve Security with Attack Path Modeling

Learn how to prioritize vulnerabilities effectively with attack path modeling. Learn from Darktrace experts and stay ahead of cyber threats.

Written by

Senior Director of Product, Cloud | Darktrace

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

Max Heinemeyer

Global Field CISO

Written by

Adam Stevens

Senior Director of Product, Cloud | Darktrace

Aug 2023

TLDR: There are too many technical vulnerabilities and there is too little organizational context for IT teams to patch effectively. Attack path modelling provides the organizational context, allowing security teams to prioritize vulnerabilities. The result is a system where CVEs can be parsed in, organizational context added, and attack paths considered, ultimately providing a prioritized list of vulnerabilities that need to be patched.

Figure 1: The Darktrace user interface presents risk-prioritized vulnerabilities

This blog post explains how Darktrace addresses the challenge of vulnerability prioritization. Most of the industry focusses on understanding the technical impact of vulnerabilities globally (‘How could this CVE generally be exploited? Is it difficult to exploit? Are there pre-requisites to exploitation? …’), without taking local context of a vulnerability into account. We’ll discuss here how we create that local context through attack path modelling and map it to technical vulnerability information. The result is a stunningly powerful way to prioritize vulnerabilities.

We will explore:

1) The challenge and traditional approach to vulnerability prioritization
2) Creating local context through machine learning and attack path modelling
3) Examining the result – contextualized, vulnerability prioritization

The Challenge

Anyone dealing with Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM) knows this situation:

You have a vulnerability scanning report with dozens or hundreds of pages. There is a long list of ‘critical’ vulnerabilities. How do you start prioritizing these vulnerabilities, assuming your goal is reducing the most risk?

Sometimes the challenge is even more specific – you might have 100 servers with the same critical vulnerability present (e.g. MoveIT). But which one should you patch first, as all of those have the same technical vulnerability priority (‘critical’)? Which one will achieve the biggest risk reduction (critical asset e.g.)? Which one will be almost meaningless to patch (asset with no business impact e.g.) and thus just a time-sink for the patch and IT team?

There have been recent improvements upon flat CVE-scoring for vulnerability prioritization by adding threat-intelligence about exploitability of vulnerabilities into the mix. This is great, examples of that additional information are Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) and Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalogue (KEV).

Figure 2: The idea behind EPSS – focus on actually exploited CVEs. (diagram taken from https://www.first.org/epss/model)

With CVE and CVSS scores we have the theoretical technical impact of vulnerabilities, and with EPSS and KEV we have information about the likelihood of exploitation of vulnerabilities. That’s a step forward, but still doesn’t give us any local context. Now we know even more about the global and generic technical risk of a vulnerability, but we still lack the local impact on the organization.

Let’s add that missing link via machine learning and attack path modelling.

Adding Attack Path Modelling for Local Context

To prioritize technical vulnerabilities, we need to know as much as we can about the asset on which the vulnerability is present in the context of the local organization. Is it a crown jewel? Is it a choke point? Does it sit on a critical attack path? Is it a dead end, never used and has no business relevance? Does it have organizational priority? Is the asset used by VIP users, as part of a core business or IT process? Does it share identities with elevated credentials? Is the human user on the device susceptible to social engineering?

Those are just a few typical questions when trying to establish local context of an asset. Knowing more about the threat landscape, exploitability, or technical information of a CVE won’t help answer any of the above questions. Gathering, evaluating, maintaining, and using this local context for vulnerability prioritization is the hard part. This local context often resides informally in the head of the TVM or IT team member, having been assembled by having been at the organization for a long time, ‘knowing’ systems, applications and identities in question and talking to asset and application owners if time permits. This does unfortunately not scale, is time-consuming and heavily dependent on individuals.

Understanding all attack paths for an organization provides this local context programmatically.

We discover those attack paths, and these are bespoke for each organization through Darktrace PREVENT^™, using the following method (simplified):

1) Build an adaptive model of the local business. Collect, combine, and analyze (using machine learning and non-machine learning techniques) data from various data domains:

a. Network, Cloud, IT, and OT data (network-based attack paths, communication patterns, peer-groups, choke-points, …). Natively collected by Darktrace technology.

b. Email data (social engineering attack paths, phishing susceptibility, external exposure, security awareness level, …). Natively collected by Darktrace technology.

c. Identity data (account privileges, account groups, access levels, shared permissions, …). Collected via various integrations, e.g. Active Directory.

d. Attack surface data (internet-facing exposure, high-impact vulnerabilities, …). Natively collected by Darktrace technology.

e. SaaS information (further identity context). Natively collected by Darktrace

f. Vulnerability information (CVEs, CVSS, EPSS, KEV, …). Collected via integrations, e.g. Vulnerability Scanners or Endpoint products.

Figure 3: Darktrace PREVENT revealing each stage of an attack path

2) Understand what ‘crown jewels’ are and how to get to them. Calculate entity importance (user, technical asset), exposure levels, potential damage levels (blast radius) weakness levels, and other scores to identify most important entities and their relationships to each other (‘crown jewels’).

Various forms of machine learning and non-machine learning techniques are used to achieve this. Further details on some of the exact methods can be found here. The result is a holistic, adaptive and dynamic model of the organization that shows most important entities and how to get to them across various data domains.

The combination of local context and technical context, around the severity and likelihood of exploitation, creates the Darktrace Vulnerability Score. This enables effective risk-based prioritisation of CVE patching.

Figure 4: List of devices with the highest damage potential in the organization - local context

3) Map the attack path model of the organization to common cyber domain knowledge. We can then combine things like MITRE ATT&CK techniques with those identified connectivity patterns and attack paths – making it easy to understand which techniques, tools and procedures (TTPs) can be used to move through the organization, and how difficult it is to exploit each TTP.

Figure 5: An example attack path with associated MITRE techniques and difficulty scores for each TTP

We can now easily start prioritizing CVE patching based on actual, organizational risk and local context.

Bringing It All Together

Finally, we overlay the attack paths calculated by Darktrace with the CVEs collected from a vulnerability scanner or EDR. This can either happen as a native integration in Darktrace PREVENT, if we are already ingesting CVE data from another solution, or via CSV upload.

Figure 6: Darktrace's global CVE prioritization in action.

But you can also go further than just looking at the CVE that delivers the biggest risk reduction globally in your organization if it is patched. You can also look only at certain group of vulnerabilities, or a sub-set of devices to understand where to patch first in this reduced scope:

Figure 7: An example of the information Darktrace reveals around a CVE

This also provides the TVM team clear justification for the patch and infrastructure teams on why these vulnerabilities should be prioritized and what the positive impact will be on risk reduction.

Attack path modelling can be utilized for various other use cases, such as threat modelling and improving SOC efficiency. We’ll explore those in more depth at a later stage.

Want to explore more on using machine learning for vulnerability prioritization? Want to test it on your own data, for free? Arrange a demo today.

Senior Director of Product, Cloud | Darktrace

Inside the SOC

Written by

Max Heinemeyer

Global Field CISO

Written by

Adam Stevens

Senior Director of Product, Cloud | Darktrace

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Email

November 27, 2025

From Amazon to Louis Vuitton: How Darktrace Detects Black Friday Phishing Attacks

Why Black Friday Drives a Surge in Phishing Attacks

In recent years, Black Friday has shifted from a single day of online retail sales and discounts to an extended ‘Black Friday Week’, often preceded by weeks of online hype. During this period, consumers are inundated with promotional emails and marketing campaigns as legitimate retailers compete for attention.

Unsurprisingly, this surge in legitimate communications creates an ideal environment for threat actors to launch targeted phishing campaigns designed to mimic legitimate retail emails. These campaigns often employ social engineering techniques that exploit urgency, exclusivity, and consumer trust in well-known brands, tactics designed to entice recipients into opening emails and clicking on malicious links.

Additionally, given the seasonal nature of Black Friday and the ever-changing habits of consumers, attackers adopt new tactics and register fresh domains each year, rather than reusing domains previously flagged as spam or phishing endpoints. While this may pose a challenge for traditional email security tools, it presents no such difficulty for Darktrace / EMAIL and its anomaly-based approach.

In the days and weeks leading up to ‘Black Friday’, Darktrace observed a spike in sophisticated phishing campaigns targeting consumers, demonstrating how attackers combine phycological manipulation with technical evasion to bypass basic security checks during this high-traffic period. This blog showcases several notable examples of highly convincing phishing emails detected and contained by Darktrace / EMAIL in mid to late November 2025.

Darktrace’s Black Friday Detections

Brand Impersonation: Deal Watchdogs’ Amazon Deals

The impersonation major online retailers has become a common tactic in retail-focused attacks, none more so than Amazon, which ranked as the fourth most impersonated brand in 2024, only behind Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook [1]. Darktrace’s own research found Amazon to be the most mimicked brand, making up 80% of phishing attacks in its analysis of global consumer brands.

When faced with an email that appears to come from a trusted sender like Amazon, recipients are far more likely to engage, increasing the success rate of these phishing campaigns.

In one case observed on November 16, Darktrace detected an email with the subject line “NOW LIVE: Amazon’s Best Early Black Friday Deals on Gadgets Under $60”. The email was sent to a customer by the sender ‘Deal Watchdogs’, in what appeared to be an attempt to masquerade as a legitimate discount-finding platform. No evidence indicated that the company was legitimate. In fact, the threat actor made no attempt to create a convincing name, and the domain appeared to be generated by a domain generation algorithm (DGA), as shown in Figure 2.

‍

Although the email was sent by ‘Deal Watchdogs’, it attempted to impersonate Amazon by featuring realistic branding, including the Amazon logo and a shade of orange similar to that used by them for the ‘CLICK HERE’ button and headline text.

‍

Figure 1: The contents of the email observed by Darktrace, featuring authentic-looking Amazon branding.

‍

Darktrace identified that the email, marked as urgent by the sender, contained a suspicious link to a Google storage endpoint (storage.googleapis[.]com), which had been hidden by the text “CLICK HERE”. If clicked, the link could have led to a credential harvester or served as a delivery vector for a malicious payload hosted on the Google storage platform.

Fortunately, Darktrace immediately identified the suspicious nature of this email and held it before delivery, preventing recipients from ever receiving or interacting with the malicious content.

‍

Figure 2: Darktrace / EMAIL’s detection of the malicious phishing email sent to a customer.

‍

Around the same time, Darktrace detected a similar email attempting to spoof Amazon on another customer’s network with the subject line “Our 10 Favorite Deals on Amazon That Started Today”, also sent by ‘Deal Watchdogs,’ suggesting a broader campaign.

Analysis revealed that this email originated from the domain petplatz[.]com, a fake marketing domain previously linked to spam activity according to open-source intelligence (OSINT) [2].

Brand Impersonation: Louis Vuitton

A few days later, on November 20, Darktrace / EMAIL detected a phishing email attempting to impersonate the luxury fashion brand Louis Vuitton. At first glance, the email, sent under the name ‘Louis Vuitton’ and titled “[Black Friday 2025] Discover Your New Favorite Louis Vuitton Bag – Elegance Starts Here”, appeared to be a legitimate Black Friday promotion. However, Darktrace’s analysis uncovered several red flags indicating a elaborate brand impersonation attempt.

The email was not sent by Louis Vuitton but by rskkqxyu@bookaaatop[.]ru, a Russia-based domain never before observed on the customer’s network. Darktrace flagged this as suspicious, noting that .ru domains were highly unusual for this recipient’s environment, further reinforcing the likelihood of malicious intent. Subsequent analysis revealed that the domain had only recently registered and was flagged as malicious by multiple OSINT sources [3].

‍

Figure 3: Darktrace / EMAIL’s detection of the malicious email attempting to spoofLouis Vuitton, originating from a suspicious Russia-based domain.

‍

Darktrace further noted that the email contained a highly suspicious link hidden behind the text “View Collection” and “Unsubscribe,” ensuring that any interaction, whether visiting the supposed ‘handbag store’ or attempting to opt out of marketing emails, would direct recipients to the same endpoint. The link resolved to xn--80aaae9btead2a[.]xn--p1ai (топааабоок[.]рф), a domain confirmed as malicious by multiple OSINT sources [4]. At the time of analysis, the domain was inaccessible, likely due to takedown efforts or the short-lived nature of the campaign.

Darktrace / EMAIL blocked this email before it reached customer inboxes, preventing recipients from interacting with the malicious content and averting any disruption.

‍

Figure 4: The suspicious domain linked in the Louis Vuitton phishing email, now defunct.

‍

Too good to be true?

Aside from spoofing well-known brands, threat actors frequently lure consumers with “too good to be true” luxury offers, a trend Darktrace observed in multiple cases throughout November.

In one instance, Darktrace identified an email with the subject line “[Black Friday 2025] Luxury Watches Starting at $250.” Emails contained a malicious phishing link, hidden behind text like “Rolex Starting from $250”, “Shop Now”, and “Unsubscribe”.

‍

Figure 5: Example of a phishing email detected by Darktrace, containing malicious links concealed behind seemingly innocuous text.

‍

Similarly to the Louis Vuitton email campaign described above, this malicious link led to a .ru domain (hxxps://x.wwwtopsalebooks[.]ru/.../d65fg4er[.]html), which had been flagged as malicious by multiple sources [5].

‍

Figure 6: Darktrace / EMAIL’s detection of a malicious email promoting a fake luxury watch store, which was successfully held from recipient inboxes.

‍

If accessed, this domain would redirect users to luxy-rox[.]com, a recently created domain (15 days old at the time of writing) that has also been flagged as malicious by OSINT sources [6]. When visited, the redirect domain displayed a convincing storefront advertising high-end watches at heavily discounted prices.

‍

Figure 7: The fake storefront presented upon visiting the redirectdomain, luxy-rox[.]com.

‍

Although the true intent of this domain could not be confirmed, it was likely a scam site or a credential-harvesting operation, as users were required to create an account to complete a purchase. As of the time or writing, the domain in no longer accessible .

This email illustrates a layered evasion tactic: attackers employed multiple domains, rapid domain registration, and concealed redirects to bypass detection. By leveraging luxury branding and urgency-driven discounts, the campaign sought to exploit seasonal shopping behaviors and entice victims into clicking.

Staying Protected During Seasonal Retail Scams

The investigation into these Black Friday-themed phishing emails highlights a clear trend: attackers are exploiting seasonal shopping events with highly convincing campaigns. Common tactics observed include brand impersonation (Amazon, Louis Vuitton, luxury watch brands), urgency-driven subject lines, and hidden malicious links often hosted on newly registered domains or cloud services.

These campaigns frequently use redirect chains, short-lived infrastructure, and psychological hooks like exclusivity and luxury appeal to bypass user scepticism and security filters. Organizations should remain vigilant during retail-heavy periods, reinforcing user awareness training, link inspection practices, and anomaly-based detection to mitigate these evolving threats.

Credit to Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead) and Owen Finn (Cyber Analyst)

‍

Appendices

References

1. https://keepnetlabs.com/blog/top-5-most-spoofed-brands-in-2024

2. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/petplatz.com

3. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/bookaaatop.ru

4. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/xn--80aaae9btead2a.xn--p1ai

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/e2b868a74531cd779d8f4a0e1e610ec7f4efae7c29d8b8ab32c7a6740d770897?nocache=1

6. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/luxy-rox.com

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC – Type – Description + Confidence

petplatz[.]com – Hostname – Spam domain

bookaaatop[.]ru – Hostname – Malicious Domain

xn--80aaae9btead2a[.]xn--p1ai (топааабоок[.]рф) – Hostname - Malicious Domain

hxxps://x.wwwtopsalebooks[.]ru/.../d65fg4er[.]html) – URL – Malicious Domain

luxy-rox[.]com – Hostname - Malicious Domain

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

Initial Access - Phishing – (T1566)

‍

About the author

Ryan Traill

Analyst Content Lead

Blog

Network

November 27, 2025

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

What is TAG-150?

TAG-150, a relatively new Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) operator, has been active since March 2025, demonstrating rapid development and an expansive, evolving infrastructure designed to support its malicious operations. The group employs two custom malware families, CastleLoader and CastleRAT, to compromise target systems, with a primary focus on the United States [1]. TAG-150’s infrastructure included numerous victim-facing components, such as IP addresses and domains functioning as command-and-control (C2) servers associated with malware families like SecTopRAT and WarmCookie, in addition to CastleLoader and CastleRAT [2].

As of May 2025, CastleLoader alone had infected a reported 469 devices, underscoring the scale and sophistication of TAG-150’s campaign [1].

What are CastleLoader and CastleRAT?

CastleLoader is a loader malware, primarily designed to download and install additional malware, enabling chain infections across compromised systems [3]. TAG-150 employs a technique known as ClickFix, which uses deceptive domains that mimic document verification systems or browser update notifications to trick victims into executing malicious scripts. Furthermore, CastleLoader leverages fake GitHub repositories that impersonate legitimate tools as a distribution method, luring unsuspecting users into downloading and installing malware on their devices [4].

CastleRAT, meanwhile, is a remote access trojan (RAT) that serves as one of the primary payloads delivered by CastleLoader. Once deployed, CastleRAT grants attackers extensive control over the compromised system, enabling capabilities such as keylogging, screen capturing, and remote shell access.

TAG-150 leverages CastleLoader as its initial delivery mechanism, with CastleRAT acting as the main payload. This two-stage attack strategy enhances the resilience and effectiveness of their operations by separating the initial infection vector from the final payload deployment.

How are they deployed?

Castleloader uses code-obfuscation methods such as dead-code insertion and packing to hinder both static and dynamic analysis. After the payload is unpacked, it connects to its command-and-control server to retrieve and running additional, targeted components.

Its modular architecture enables it to function both as a delivery mechanism and a staging utility, allowing threat actors to decouple the initial infection from payload deployment. CastleLoader typically delivers its payloads as Portable Executables (PEs) containing embedded shellcode. This shellcode activates the loader’s core module, which then connects to the C2 server to retrieve and execute the next-stage malware.[6]

Following this, attackers deploy the ClickFix technique, impersonating legitimate software distribution platforms like Google Meet or browser update notifications. These deceptive sites trick victims into copying and executing PowerShell commands, thereby initiating the infection kill chain. [1]

When a user clicks on a spoofed Cloudflare “Verification Step” prompt, a background request is sent to a PHP script on the distribution domain (e.g., /s.php?an=0). The server’s response is then automatically copied to the user’s clipboard using the ‘unsecuredCopyToClipboard()’ function. [7].

The Python-based variant of CastleRAT, known as “PyNightShade,” has been engineered with stealth in mind, showing minimal detection across antivirus platforms [2]. As illustrated in Figure 1, PyNightShade communicates with the geolocation API service ip-api[.]com, demonstrating both request and response behavior

Figure 1: Packet Capture (PCAP) of PyNightShade, the Python-based variant of CastleRAT, communicating with the geolocation API service ip-api[.]com.

Darktrace Coverage

In mid-2025, Darktrace observed a range of anomalous activities across its customer base that appeared linked to CastleLoader, including the example below from a US based organization.

The activity began on June 26, when a device on the customer’s network was observed connecting to the IP address 173.44.141[.]89, a previously unseen IP for this network along with the use of multiple user agents, which was also rare for the user. It was later determined that the IP address was a known indicator of compromise (IoC) associated with TAG-150’s CastleRAT and CastleLoader operations [2][5].

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device making unusual connections to the malicious endpoint 173.44.141[.]89.

The device was observed downloading two scripts from this endpoint, namely ‘/service/download/data_5x.bin’ and ‘/service/download/data_6x.bin’, which have both been linked to CastleLoader infections by open-source intelligence (OSINT) [8]. The archives contains embedded shellcode, which enables attackers to execute arbitrary code directly in memory, bypassing disk writes and making detection by endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools significantly more difficult [2].

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of two scripts from the malicious endpoint.

In addition to this, the affected device exhibited a high volume of internal connections to a broad range of endpoints, indicating potential scanning activity. Such behavior is often associated with reconnaissance efforts aimed at mapping internal infrastructure.

Darktrace / NETWORK correlated these behaviors and generated an Enhanced Monitoring model, a high-fidelity security model designed to detect activity consistent with the early stages of an attack. These high-priority models are continuously monitored and triaged by Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) as part of the Managed Threat Detection and Managed Detection & Response services, ensuring that subscribed customers are promptly alerted to emerging threats.

Figure 4: Darktrace detected an unusual ZIP file download alongside the anomalous script, followed by internal connectivity. This activity was correlated under an Enhanced Monitoring model.

Darktrace Autonomous Response

Fortunately, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was fully configured, enabling it to take immediate action against the offending device by blocking any further connections external to the malicious endpoint, 173.44.141[.]89. Additionally, Darktrace enforced a ‘group pattern of life’ on the device, restricting its behavior to match other devices in its peer group, ensuring it could not deviate from expected activity, while also blocking connections over 443, shutting down any unwanted internal scanning.

Figure 5: Actions performed by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response to contain the ongoing attack.

Conclusion

The rise of the MaaS ecosystem, coupled with attackers’ growing ability to customize tools and techniques for specific targets, is making intrusion prevention increasingly challenging for security teams. Many threat actors now leverage modular toolkits, dynamic infrastructure, and tailored payloads to evade static defenses and exploit even minor visibility gaps. In this instance, Darktrace demonstrated its capability to counter these evolving tactics by identifying early-stage attack chain behaviors such as network scanning and the initial infection attempt. Autonomous Response then blocked the CastleLoader IP delivering the malicious ZIP payload, halting the attack before escalation and protecting the organization from a potentially damaging multi-stage compromise

Credit to Ahmed Gardezi (Cyber Analyst) Tyler Rhea (Senior Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Connections
Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
Initial Attack Chain Activity (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

T15588.001 - Resource Development – Malware
TG1599 – Defence Evasion – Network Boundary Bridging
T1046 – Discovery – Network Service Scanning
T1189 – Initial Access

List of IoCs
IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

173.44.141[.]89 – IP – CastleLoader C2 Infrastructure
173.44.141[.]89/service/download/data_5x.bin – URI – CastleLoader Script
173.44.141[.]89/service/download/data_6x.bin – URI - CastleLoader Script
wsc.zip – ZIP file – Possible Payload

References

[1] - https://blog.polyswarm.io/castleloader

[2] - https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/from-castleloader-to-castlerat-tag-150-advances-operations

[3] - https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/34160-castleloader-malware

[4] - https://www.scworld.com/brief/malware-loader-castleloader-targets-devices-via-fake-github-clickfix-phishing

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/173.44.141.89/community

[6] https://thehackernews.com/2025/07/castleloader-malware-infects-469.html

[7] https://www.cryptika.com/new-castleloader-attack-using-cloudflare-themed-clickfix-technique-to-infect-windows-computers/

[8] https://www.cryptika.com/castlebot-malware-as-a-service-deploys-range-of-payloads-linked-to-ransomware-attacks/

About the author

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Improve Security with Attack Path Modeling

The Challenge

Adding Attack Path Modelling for Local Context

Bringing It All Together

From Amazon to Louis Vuitton: How Darktrace Detects Black Friday Phishing Attacks

Managing OT Remote Access with Zero Trust Control & AI Driven Detection

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Blog

Email

November 27, 2025

From Amazon to Louis Vuitton: How Darktrace Detects Black Friday Phishing Attacks

Why Black Friday Drives a Surge in Phishing Attacks

Darktrace’s Black Friday Detections

Brand Impersonation: Deal Watchdogs’ Amazon Deals

Brand Impersonation: Louis Vuitton

Too good to be true?

Staying Protected During Seasonal Retail Scams

Appendices

Blog

Network

November 27, 2025

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

What is TAG-150?

What are CastleLoader and CastleRAT?

How are they deployed?

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace Autonomous Response

Conclusion

Appendices

References