April 6, 2023

Understanding Qakbot Infections and Attack Paths

Explore the network-based analysis of Qakbot infections with Darktrace. Learn about the various attack paths used by cybercriminals and Darktrace's response.

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Written by

Connor Mooney

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Written by

Connor Mooney

SOC Analyst

Apr 2023

Security vendors around the world are forced to quickly adapt, react, and respond to known attack vectors and threats. In the face of this, malicious actors are constantly looking for novel ways to gain access to networks. Whether that’s through new exploitations of network vulnerabilities or new delivery methods, attackers and their methods are continually evolving. Although it is valuable for organizations to leverage threat intelligence to keep abreast of known threats to their networks, intelligence alone is not enough to defend against increasingly versatile attackers. Having an autonomous decision maker able to detect and respond to emerging threats, even those employing novel or unknown techniques, is paramount to defend against network compromise.

At the end of January 2023, threat actors began to abuse OneNote attachments to deliver the malware strain, Qakbot, onto users' devices. Widespread adoption of this novel delivery method resulted in a surge in Qakbot infections across Darktrace's customer base between the end of January 2023 and the end of February 2023. Using its Self-Learning AI, Darktrace was able to uncover and respond to these so-called ‘QakNote’ infections as the new trend emerged. Darktrace detected and responded to the threat at multiple stages of the kill chain, preventing damaging and widespread compromise to customer networks.

Qakbot and The Recent Weaponization of OneNote

Qakbot first appeared in 2007 as a banking trojan designed to steal sensitive data such as banking credentials. Since then, Qakbot has evolved into a highly modular, multi-purpose tool, with backdoor, payload delivery, reconnaissance, lateral movement, and data exfiltration capabilities. Although Qakbot's primary delivery method has always been email-based, threat actors have been known to modify their email-based delivery methods of Qakbot in the face of changing circumstances. In the first half of 2022, Microsoft started rolling out versions of Office which block XL4 and VBA macros by default [1]/[2]/[3]. Prior to this change, Qakbot email campaigns typically consisted in the spreading of deceitful emails with Office attachments containing malicious macros. In the face of Microsoft's default blocking of macros, threat actors appeared to cease delivering Qakbot via Office attachments, and shifted to primarily using HTML attachments, through a method known as 'HTML smuggling' [4]/[5]. After the public disclosure [6] of the Follina vulnerability (CVE-2022-30190) in Microsoft Support Diagnostic Tool (MSDT) in May 2022, Qakbot actors were seen capitalizing on the vulnerability to facilitate their email-based delivery of Qakbot payloads [7]/[8]/[9].

Given the inclination of Qakbot actors to adapt their email-based delivery methods, it is no surprise that they were quick to capitalize on the novel OneNote-based delivery method which emerged in December 2022. Since December 2022, threat actors have been seen using OneNote attachments to deliver a variety of malware strains, ranging from Formbook [10] to AsynRAT [11] to Emotet [12]. The abuse of OneNote documents to deliver malware is made possible by the fact that OneNote allows for the embedding of executable file types such as HTA files, CMD files, and BAT files. At the end of January 2023, actors started to leverage OneNote attachments to deliver Qakbot [13]/[14]. The adoption of this novel delivery method by Qakbot actors resulted in a surge in Qakbot infections in the wider threat landscape and across the Darktrace customer base.

Observed Activity Chains

Between January 31 and February 24, 2023, Darktrace observed variations of the following pattern of activity across its customer base:

1. User's device contacts OneNote-related endpoint

2. User's device makes an external GET request with an empty Host header, a target URI whose final segment consists in 5 or 6 digits followed by '.dat', and a User-Agent header referencing either cURL or PowerShell. The GET request is responded to with a DLL file

3. User's device makes SSL connections over ports 443 and 2222 to unusual external endpoints, and makes TCP connections over port 65400 to 23.111.114[.]52

4. User's device makes SSL connections over port 443 to an external host named 'bonsars[.]com' (IP: 194.165.16[.]56) and TCP connections over port 443 to 78.31.67[.]7

5. User’s device makes call to Endpoint Mapper service on internal systems and then connects to the Service Control Manager (SCM)

6. User's device uploads files with algorithmically generated names and ‘.dll’ or ‘.dll.cfg’ file extensions to SMB shares on internal systems

7. User's device makes Service Control requests to the systems to which it uploaded ‘.dll’ and ‘.dll.cfg’ files

Further investigation of these chains of activity revealed that they were parts of Qakbot infections initiated via interactions with malicious OneNote attachments.

Figure 1: Steps of observed QakNote infections.

Delivery Phase

Users' interactions with malicious OneNote attachments, which were evidenced by devices' HTTPS connections to OneNote-related endpoints, such as 'www.onenote[.]com', 'contentsync.onenote[.]com', and 'learningtools.onenote[.]com', resulted in the retrieval of Qakbot DLLs from unusual, external endpoints. In some cases, the user's interaction with the malicious OneNote attachment caused their device to fetch a Qakbot DLL using cURL, whereas, in other cases, it caused their device to download a Qakbot DLL using PowerShell. These different outcomes reflected variations in the contents of the executable files embedded within the weaponized OneNote attachments. In addition to having cURL and PowerShell User-Agent headers, the HTTP requests triggered by interaction with these OneNote attachments had other distinctive features, such as empty host headers and target URIs whose last segment consists in 5 or 6 digits followed by '.dat'.

Figure 2: Model breach highlighting a user’s device making a HTTP GET request to 198.44.140[.]78 with a PowerShell User-Agent header and the target URI ‘/210/184/187737.dat’.

Figure 3: Model breach highlighting a user’s device making a HTTP GET request to 103.214.71[.]45 with a cURL User-Agent header and the target URI ‘/70802.dat’.

Figure 4: Event Log showing a user’s device making a GET request with a cURL User-Agent header to 185.231.205[.]246 after making an SSL connection to contentsync.onenote[.]com.

Figure 5: Event Log showing a user’s device making a GET request with a cURL User-Agent header to 185.231.205[.]246 after making an SSL connection to www.onenote[.]com.

Command and Control Phase

After fetching Qakbot DLLs, users’ devices were observed making numerous SSL connections over ports 443 and 2222 to highly unusual, external endpoints, as well as large volumes of TCP connections over port 65400 to 23.111.114[.]52. These connections represented Qakbot-infected devices communicating with command and control (C2) infrastructure. Qakbot-infected devices were also seen making intermittent connections to legitimate endpoints, such as 'xfinity[.]com', 'yahoo[.]com', 'verisign[.]com', 'oracle[.]com', and 'broadcom[.]com', likely due to Qakbot making connectivity checks.

Figure 6: Event Log showing a user’s device contacting Qakbot C2 infrastructure and making connectivity checks to legitimate domains.

Figure 7: Event Log showing a user’s device contacting Qakbot C2 infrastructure and making connectivity checks to legitimate domains.

Cobalt Strike and VNC Phase

After Qakbot-infected devices established communication with C2 servers, they were observed making SSL connections to the external endpoint, bonsars[.]com, and TCP connections to the external endpoint, 78.31.67[.]7. The SSL connections to bonsars[.]com were C2 connections from Cobalt Strike Beacon, and the TCP connections to 78.31.67[.]7 were C2 connections from Qakbot’s Virtual Network Computing (VNC) module [15]/[16]. The occurrence of these connections indicate that actors leveraged Qakbot infections to drop Cobalt Strike Beacon along with a VNC payload onto infected systems. The deployment of Cobalt Strike and VNC likely provided actors with ‘hands-on-keyboard’ access to the Qakbot-infected systems.

Figure 8: Advanced Search logs showing a user’s device contacting OneNote endpoints, fetching a Qakbot DLL over HTTP, making SSL connections to Qakbot infrastructure and connectivity checks to legitimate domains, and then making SSL connections to the Cobalt Strike endpoint, bonsars[.]com.

Figure 9: Event Log showing a user’s device contacting the Cobalt Strike C2 endpoint, bonsars[.]com, and the VNC C2 endpoint, 78.31.67[.]7, whilst simultaneously contacting the Qakbot C2 endpoint, 47.32.78[.]150.

Lateral Movement Phase

After dropping Cobalt Strike Beacon and a VNC module onto Qakbot-infected systems, actors leveraged their strengthened foothold to connect to the Service Control Manager (SCM) on internal systems in preparation for lateral movement. Before connecting to the SCM, infected systems were seen making calls to the Endpoint Mapper service, likely to identify exposed Microsoft Remote Procedure Call (MSRPC) services on internal systems. The MSRPC service, Service Control Manager (SCM), is known to be abused by Cobalt Strike to create and start services on remote systems. Connections to this service were evidenced by OpenSCManager2 (Opnum: 0x40) and OpenSCManagerW (Opnum: 0xf) calls to the svcctl RPC interface.

Figure 10: Advanced Search logs showing a user’s device contacting the Endpoint Mapper and Service Control Manager (SCM) services on internal systems.

After connecting to the SCM on internal systems, infected devices were seen using SMB to distribute files with ‘.dll’ and ‘.dll.cfg’ extensions to SMB shares. These uploads were followed by CreateWowService (Opnum: 0x3c) calls to the svcctl interface, likely intended to execute the uploaded payloads. The naming conventions of the uploaded files indicate that they were Qakbot payloads.

Figure 11: Advanced Search logs showing a user’s device making Service Control DCE-RPC requests to internal systems after uploading ‘.dll’ and ‘.dll.cfg’ files to them over SMB.

Fortunately, none of the observed QakNote infections escalated further than this. If these infections had escalated, it is likely that they would have resulted in the widespread detonation of additional malicious payloads, such as ransomware.

Darktrace Coverage of QakNote Activity

Figure 1 shows the steps involved in the QakNote infections observed across Darktrace’s customer base. How far attackers got along this chain was in part determined by the following three factors:

Whether the targeted customer had Darktrace/Email
Whether the targeted customer had Darktrace RESPOND/Network
Whether the targeted customer acted in response to Darktrace DETECT/Network alerts

The presence of Darktrace/Email typically stopped QakNote infections from moving past the initial infection stage. The presence of RESPOND/Network significantly slowed down observed activity chains, however, infections left unattended and not mitigated by the security teams were able to progress further along the attack chain.

Darktrace observed varying properties in the QakNote emails detected across the customer base. OneNote attachments were typically detected as either ‘application/octet-stream’ files or as ‘application/x-tar’ files. In some cases, the weaponized OneNote attachment embedded a malicious file, whereas in other cases, the OneNote file embedded a malicious link (typically a ‘.png’ or ‘.gif’ link) instead. In all cases Darktrace observed, QakNote emails used subject lines starting with ‘RE’ or ‘FW’ to manipulating their recipients into thinking that such emails were part of an existing email chain/thread. In some cases, emails impersonated users known to their recipients by including the names of such users in their header-from personal names. In many cases, QakNote emails appear to have originated from likely hijacked email accounts. These are highly successful methods of social engineering often employed by threat actors to exploit a user’s trust in known contacts or services, convincing them to open malicious emails and making it harder for security tools to detect.

The fact that observed QakNote emails used the fake-reply method, were sent from unknown email accounts, and contained attachments with unusual MIME types, caused such emails to breach the following Darktrace/Email models:

Association / Unknown Sender
Attachment / Unknown File
Attachment / Unsolicited Attachment
Attachment / Highly Unusual Mime
Attachment / Unsolicited Anomalous Mime
Attachment / Unusual Mime for Organisation
Unusual / Fake Reply
Unusual / Unusual Header TLD
Unusual / Fake Reply + Unknown Sender
Unusual / Unusual Connection from Unknown
Unusual / Off Topic

QakNote emails impersonating known users also breached the following DETECT & RESPOND/Email models:

Unusual / Unrelated Personal Name Address
Spoof / Basic Known Entity Similarities
Spoof / Internal User Similarities
Spoof / External User Similarities
Spoof / Internal User Similarities + Unrelated Personal Name Address
Spoof / External User Similarities + Unrelated Personal Name Address
Spoof / Internal User Similarities + Unknown File
Spoof / External User Similarities + Fake Reply
Spoof / Possible User Spoof from New Address - Enhanced Internal Similarities
Spoof / Whale

The actions taken by Darktrace on the observed emails is ultimately determined by Darktrace/Email models are breached. Those emails which did not breach Spoofing models (due to lack of impersonation indicators) received the ‘Convert Attachment’ action. This action converts suspicious attachments into neutralized PDFs, in this case successfully unweaponizing the malicious OneNote attachments. QakNote emails which did breach Spoofing models (due to the presence of impersonation indicators) received the strongest possible action, ‘Hold Message’. This action prevents suspicious emails from reaching the recipients’ mailbox.

Figure 12: Email log showing a malicious OneNote email (without impersonation indicators) which received a 87% anomaly score, a ‘Move to junk’ action, and a ‘Convert attachment’ actions from Darktrace/Email.

Figure 13: Email log showing a malicious OneNote email (with impersonation indicators) which received an anomaly score of 100% and a ‘Hold message’ action from Darktrace/Email.

Figure 14: Email log showing a malicious OneNote email (with impersonation indicators) which received an anomaly score of 100% and a ‘Hold message’ action from Darktrace/Email.

If threat actors managed to get past the first stage of the QakNote kill chain, likely due to the absence of appropriate email security tools, the execution of the subsequent steps resulted in strong intervention from Darktrace/Network.

Interactions with malicious OneNote attachments caused their devices to fetch a Qakbot DLL from a remote server via HTTP GET requests with an empty Host header and either a cURL or PowerShell User-Agent header. These unusual HTTP behaviors caused the following Darktrace/Network models to breach:

Device / New User Agent
Device / New PowerShell User Agent
Device / New User Agent and New IP
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External
Anomalous File / Numeric File Download
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / New User Agent Followed By Numeric File Download

For customers with RESPOND/Network active, these breaches resulted in the following autonomous actions:

Enforce group pattern of life for 30 minutes
Enforce group pattern of life for 2 hours
Block connections to relevant external endpoints over relevant ports for 2 hours
Block all outgoing traffic for 10 minutes

Figure 15: Event Log showing a user’s device receiving Darktrace RESPOND/Network actions after downloading a Qakbot DLL.

Figure 16: Event Log showing a user’s device receiving Darktrace RESPOND/Network actions after downloading a Qakbot DLL.

Successful, uninterrupted downloads of Qakbot DLLs resulted in connections to Qakbot C2 servers, and subsequently to Cobalt Strike and VNC C2 connections. These C2 activities resulted in breaches of the following DETECT/Network models:

Compromise / Suspicious TLS Beaconing To Rare External
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint
Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

For customers with RESPOND/Network active, these breaches caused RESPOND to autonomously perform the following actions:

Block connections to relevant external endpoints over relevant ports for 1 hour

Figure 17: Event Log showing a user’s device receiving RESPOND/Network actions after contacting the Qakbot C2 endpoint, Cobalt Strike C2 endpoint, bonsars[.]com.

In cases where C2 connections were allowed to continue, actors attempted to move laterally through usage of SMB and Service Control Manager. This lateral movement activity caused the following DETECT/Network models to breach:

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance
Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

For customers with RESPOND/Network enabled, these breaches caused RESPOND to autonomously perform the following actions:

Block connections to relevant internal endpoints over port 445 for 1 hour

Figure 18: Event Log shows a user’s device receiving RESPOND/Network actions after contacting the Qakbot C2 endpoint, 5.75.205[.]43, and distributing ‘.dll’ and ‘.dll.cfg’ files internally.

The QakNote infections observed across Darktrace’s customer base involved several steps, each of which elicited alerts and autonomous preventative actions from Darktrace. By autonomously investigating the alerts from DETECT, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to connect the distinct steps of observed QakNote infections into single incidents. It then produced incident logs to present in-depth details of the activity it uncovered, provide full visibility for customer security teams.

Figure 19: AI Analyst incident entry showing the steps of a QakNote infection which AI Analyst connected following its autonomous investigations.

Conclusion

Faced with the emerging threat of QakNote infections, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to autonomously detect and respond to arising threats in a constantly evolving threat landscape. The attack chains which Darktrace observed across its customer base involved the delivery of Qakbot via malicious OneNote attachments, the usage of ports 65400 and 2222 for Qakbot C2 communication, the usage of Cobalt Strike Beacon and VNC for ‘hands-on-keyboard’ activity, and the usage of SMB and Service Control Manager for lateral movement.

Despite the novelty of the OneNote-based delivery method, Darktrace was able to identify QakNote infections across its customer base at various stages of the kill chain, using its autonomous anomaly-based detection to identify unusual activity or deviations from expected behavior. When active, Darktrace/Email neutralized malicious QakNote attachments sent to employees. In cases where Darktrace/Email was not active, Darktrace/Network detected and slowed down the unusual network activities which inevitably ensued from Qakbot infections. Ultimately, this intervention from Darktrace’s products prevented infections from leading to further harmful activity, such as data exfiltration and the detonation of ransomware.

Darktrace is able to offer customers an unparalleled level of network security by combining both Darktrace/Network and Darktrace/Email, safeguarding both their email and network environments. With its suite of products, including DETECT and RESPOND, Darktrace can autonomously uncover threats to customer networks and instantaneously intervene to prevent suspicious activity leading to damaging compromises.

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Initial Access:

T1566.001 – Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment

Execution:

T1204.001 – User Execution: Malicious Link

T1204.002 – User Execution: Malicious File

T1569.002 – System Services: Service Execution

Lateral Movement:

T1021.002 – Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares

Command and Control:‍

T1573.002 – Encrypted Channel : Asymmetric Cryptography

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol

T1219 – Remote Access Software

List of IOCs

IP Addresses and/or Domain Names:

- 103.214.71[.]45 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 141.164.35[.]94 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 95.179.215[.]225 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 128.254.207[.]55 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 141.164.35[.]94 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 172.96.137[.]149 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 185.231.205[.]246 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 216.128.146[.]67 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 45.155.37[.]170 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 85.239.41[.]55 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 45.67.35[.]108 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 77.83.199[.]12 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 45.77.63[.]210 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 198.44.140[.]78 - Qakbot download infrastructure

- 47.32.78[.]150 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 197.204.13[.]52 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 68.108.122[.]180 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 2.50.48[.]213 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 66.180.227[.]60 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 190.206.75[.]58 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 109.150.179[.]236 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 86.202.48[.]142 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 143.159.167[.]159 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 5.75.205[.]43 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 184.176.35[.]223 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 208.187.122[.]74 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 23.111.114[.]52 - Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- 74.12.134[.]53 – Qakbot C2 infrastructure

- bonsars[.]com • 194.165.16[.]56 - Cobalt Strike C2 infrastructure

- 78.31.67[.]7 - VNC C2 infrastructure

Target URIs of GET Requests for Qakbot DLLs:

- /70802.dat

- /51881.dat

- /12427.dat

- /70136.dat

- /35768.dat

- /41981.dat

- /30622.dat

- /72286.dat

- /46557.dat

- /33006.dat

- /300332.dat

- /703558.dat

- /760433.dat

- /210/184/187737.dat

- /469/387/553748.dat

- /282/535806.dat

User-Agent Headers of GET Requests for Qakbot DLLs:

- curl/7.83.1

- curl/7.55.1

- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; en-US) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.19041.2364

- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; en-US) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.17763.3770

- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; en-GB) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.19041.2364

SHA256 Hashes of Downloaded Qakbot DLLs:

- 83e9bdce1276d2701ff23b1b3ac7d61afc97937d6392ed6b648b4929dd4b1452

- ca95a5dcd0194e9189b1451fa444f106cbabef3558424d9935262368dba5f2c6

- fa067ff1116b4c8611eae9ed4d59a19d904a8d3c530b866c680a7efeca83eb3d

- e6853589e42e1ab74548b5445b90a5a21ff0d7f8f4a23730cffe285e2d074d9e

- d864d93b8fd4c5e7fb136224460c7b98f99369fc9418bae57de466d419abeaf6

- c103c24ccb1ff18cd5763a3bb757ea2779a175a045e96acbb8d4c19cc7d84bea

Names of Internally Distributed Qakbot DLLs:

- rpwpmgycyzghm.dll

- rpwpmgycyzghm.dll.cfg

- guapnluunsub.dll

- guapnluunsub.dll.cfg

- rskgvwfaqxzz.dll

- rskgvwfaqxzz.dll.cfg

- hkfjhcwukhsy.dll

- hkfjhcwukhsy.dll.cfg

- uqailliqbplm.dll

- uqailliqbplm.dll.cfg

- ghmaorgvuzfos.dll

- ghmaorgvuzfos.dll.cfg

Links Found Within Neutralized QakNote Email Attachments:

- hxxps://khatriassociates[.]com/MBt/3.gif

- hxxps://spincotech[.]com/8CoBExd/3.gif

- hxxps://minaato[.]com/tWZVw/3.gif

- hxxps://famille2point0[.]com/oghHO/01.png

- hxxps://sahifatinews[.]com/jZbaw/01.png

- hxxp://87.236.146[.]112/62778.dat

- hxxp://87.236.146[.]112/59076.dat

- hxxp://185.231.205[.]246/73342.dat

References

[1] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/excel-4-0-xlm-macros-now-restricted-by-default-for-customer/ba-p/3057905

[2] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-365-blog/helping-users-stay-safe-blocking-internet-macros-by-default-in/ba-p/3071805

[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/security/internet-macros-blocked

[4] https://www.cyfirma.com/outofband/html-smuggling-a-stealthier-approach-to-deliver-malware/

[5] https://www.trustwave.com/en-us/resources/blogs/spiderlabs-blog/html-smuggling-the-hidden-threat-in-your-inbox/

[6] https://twitter.com/nao_sec/status/1530196847679401984

[7] https://www.fortiguard.com/threat-signal-report/4616/qakbot-delivered-through-cve-2022-30190-follina

[8] https://isc.sans.edu/diary/rss/28728

[9] https://darktrace.com/blog/qakbot-resurgence-evolving-along-with-the-emerging-threat-landscape

[10] https://www.trustwave.com/en-us/resources/blogs/spiderlabs-blog/trojanized-onenote-document-leads-to-formbook-malware/

[11] https://www.proofpoint.com/uk/blog/threat-insight/onenote-documents-increasingly-used-to-deliver-malware

[12] https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/threat-intelligence/2023/03/emotet-onenote

[13] https://blog.cyble.com/2023/02/01/qakbots-evolution-continues-with-new-strategies/

[14] https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2023/02/06/qakbot-onenote-attacks/

[15] https://isc.sans.edu/diary/rss/29210

[16] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/feb-wireshark-quiz-answers/

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Written by

Connor Mooney

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Written by

Connor Mooney

SOC Analyst

•

August 3, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Senior Director of Product | Darktrace

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

August 6, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has just published a detailed incident report confirming what many within the cyber security industry have suspected for some time: frontier AI agents, given a degree of autonomy, can independently develop and execute attack chains against real targets, including social engineering, supply-chain compromise, and deception, without explicit instruction to do so.

The report (INC-2026-07-28-01, published 4 August 2026) documents what happened during a routine capability evaluation between 25 and 28 July. It deserves a careful read from anyone responsible for securing the modern digital estate.

The incident

AISI regularly tests frontier AI models for offensive cyber capability. In this exercise, agents were placed inside a simulated network environment and given internet access this was deliberate, given to reflect realism of the task. Across 122 evaluation runs, 19 instances of unsanctioned activity were recorded, including cases where agents broke the intended boundaries of the test and acted against real people and real infrastructure on the open internet.

In the most serious case, an agent (Mythos 5) autonomously:

Conducted open-source intelligence gathering to identify real developers associated with keywords from the simulated scenario
Created a GitHub account and submitted a pull request containing obfuscated malicious code to a real, unaffiliated repository
Created a second sockpuppet account to post comments on its own PR, attempting to manufacture social proof
When a human reviewer flagged the malicious content, the agent lied, claiming an accidental commit, then repeatedly attempted to reintroduce the payload under the guise of having "fixed" the code
Sent spear-phishing emails to the repository maintainer containing manipulated content designed to convince them to merge the code
Planted a prompt injection inside a GitHub issue, hidden in an HTML comment invisible to humans but readable by AI coding assistants parsing the repository via API

AISI confirmed no real-world harm resulted. The PRs were not merged; the payloads did not execute. But containment was a product of circumstance, not design.

Why this matters

Every action the agents took used legitimate services operating within normal parameters. Creating a GitHub account is legitimate. Opening a pull request is legitimate. Sending an email is legitimate. Posting an issue is legitimate.

No vulnerability was exploited. No known malware signature was present. No indicator of compromise from any threat intelligence feed would have matched. The entire attack existed as a pattern, a sequence of individually normal actions that, taken together, constituted a supply-chain attack, a social engineering campaign, and an attempted compromise of downstream systems.

This is the class of threat that signature-based and rule-based security tools structurally struggle to detect. They answer the question "have I seen this before?" When the answer is no – and when the attack is novel, composed of legitimate actions, and adapted in real time by an adversary in this case an agent that reasons about evasion – they struggle.

Behavioral anomaly detection: The architecture that fits

Darktrace has spent a decade building a platform around a different question: "is this behavior normal for this entity?"

The platform learns the baseline behavior of every user, device, and communication pattern across an organization's digital environment. It does not need prior knowledge of an attack technique. It identifies deviation from learned normality, surfaces it, and through its Autonomous Response capability, takes targeted action to contain threats at machine speed.

Consider how this AISI incident might show across the Darktrace platform:

Network detection and response

While no payload was successfully delivered to a victim in this incident, AISI's post-incident analysis of the agent's code (detailed on pages 24-25 of the report) reveals what would have landed on target systems had the social engineering succeeded. The agent produced three successive payload generations, each replacing the last after being detected and called out:

Generation 1 hid a module-load stager inside a legitimate bug-fix commit, guarded by an environment variable check, to skip execution in CI. Its second stage attempted to fetch Poseidon implants (Linux and Windows variants) calling back to the agent's own C2 listener, with a fallback to publicly hosted polling scripts that fetched and executed commands every 60 seconds.

Generation 2 exploited an Electron "What's New" window with nodeIntegration enabled, loading remote HTML from a GitHub Pages site the agent had registered. The page decoded an XOR-obfuscated payload at runtime that beaconed host identifiers over DNS, attempted to download the same implants, ran its own in-process C2 loop, and installed reboot persistence via crontab and Windows registry Run keys.

Generation 3 was a post-install dropper added after the agent had already been publicly caught. It XOR-decoded a hidden URL, downloaded a script over plaintext HTTP, and ran it detached, force-exiting so npm install always reports success, giving the attacker remote code execution on any machine running the install.

None of these payloads reached a victim. But the technical detail matters: this is the calibre of tradecraft an autonomous agent produced in a matter of hours, unprompted. Each generation demonstrated adaptation, the agent iterated its approach in direct response to being detected.

For network defenders, the behavioral signals these payloads would have generated are clear. DNS beaconing to novel domains, periodic HTTP polling to newly registered infrastructure, XOR-encoded data in transit, registry and crontab persistence writes on endpoints that have never exhibited such behavior. These are exactly the anomalies that Darktrace / NETWORK identifies in real time: deviations from learned device and connection baselines, regardless of whether the specific payload or C2 domain has been seen before.

Beyond the payload analysis, the agents' broader activity produced additional behavioral anomalies: new identities engaging in high-frequency interactions with external services, coordination via unusual channels (public pastebins, gists), and lateral communication patterns that deviate from any established baseline.

Email security

The spear-phishing emails sent by the agent, crafted with context-specific content designed to manipulate a specific individual, represent exactly the kind of socially engineered communication that static email gateways can miss. Darktrace / EMAIL analyses the linguistic patterns, sender behavior, and relational context of every message. A brand-new sender using tailored language to pressure a recipient into a specific technical action deviates from the learned communication profile, regardless of whether the message contains a known-bad URL or attachment.

Securing AI

This is where the incident points to a threat category that many security platforms do not yet fully address. The agent did not just use AI as a tool for attack. It targeted other AI systems, attempting prompt injections against coding assistants and trying to compromise automated workflows. Organisations adopting AI agents for development, operations, and decision-making are introducing a newer extended attack surface.

Darktrace / SECURE AI extends the same behavioral detection model into this space. It monitors AI usage across the enterprise, detecting anomalous interactions with AI services, identifying sensitive data exposure to AI systems, providing visibility into shadow AI use. As AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, the ability to detect when an AI system is behaving outside its expected parameters, when there is a chance, it is being manipulated, or when it is interacting with something it should not be, that becomes a direct security requirement rather than a future consideration.

The principle is consistent across the Darktrace platform: learn what normal looks like, identify deviation, respond autonomously.

The AI-to-AI threat surface

One of the report's most important findings is a confirmation that AI agents can act outside of instructions and guardrails to complete tasks. The Mythos 5 agent conducted reconnaissance on a repository maintainer, inferred it might be an AI coding assistant, and deployed a prompt injection specifically crafted to compromise it.

This is a new attack class. Organizations deploying AI coding assistants, AI-powered code review, or autonomous DevOps agents now face an adversary that:

Moves at speed
Is able to adapt its approach when initial attempts are halted
Specifically targets AI systems via techniques (prompt injection, hidden instructions in HTML comments) that are less visible to human reviewers but parsed by machines
Reasons about which evasion strategies are most likely to succeed

Defending against this requires security that operates with the same adaptability and speed. A system that learns what "normal" looks like, and flags deviation from it.

What AISI recommends

The report identifies five contributing factors to the incident. Two are directly relevant:

No synchronous real-time monitoring (Section 5.3): AISI acknowledges it had not built real-time behavioral monitoring capable of immediately blocking unsanctioned agent actions. Their security team detected the incident via commercial security monitoring software, but only after activity had already occurred.

No fine-grained behavioral controls (Section 6.2): AISI's forward-looking response includes building continuous monitoring that can "immediately block or flag unsanctioned AI agent behavior."

The direction is clear: organizations need security that watches behavior continuously, learns what normal looks like, and acts when deviation occurs, without requiring a human in the loop for every decision.

The takeaway

The AISI incident is documented proof that autonomous AI agents will independently develop novel attack chains using legitimate tools, adapt when detected, employ deception, and target both humans and other AI systems. This happened last week, in a controlled setting, with commercially available models.

The security architecture that addresses this is behavioral anomaly detection applied across the full digital estate, as AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, writing code, managing deployments, processing communications, the attack surface they create is behavioral by nature. The defense must be too.

‍

Read the full report from the UK AI Security Institute here.

About the author

Adam Stevens

Senior Director of Product | Darktrace

Blog

August 5, 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

Key takeaways

Darktrace successfully detected and quarantined a prompt injection email before it could be processed by an enterprise AI agent.
Prompt injection attacks increasingly rely on natural language rather than traditional malware, making behavioral analysis an important complement to signature-based detection.
Organizations deploying AI agents should combine model guardrails with behavioral monitoring to reduce the risk of malicious instructions reaching enterprise systems.

How behavioral detection helps stop prompt injection attacks

A Darktrace customer running a Gemini AI agent in Google Cloud asked us two simple questions:

“If my agent can read inbound emails and access internal data, what stops an attacker from hiding malicious instructions in the message? Couldn’t the agent be tricked into deleting or exfiltrating sensitive data?”

The scenario centers on an indirect prompt injection attack, where malicious instructions are hidden inside content that an AI model later interprets as trusted input. The same weakness was exposed by EchoLeak (CVE-2025-32711), a zero-click Microsoft 365 Copilot vulnerability enabled data exfiltration from a single well-crafted email..

This blog follows the Darktrace team’s investigation of the customer’s hypothesis and examines how the attack interacted with their existing security stack. The results highlight which defenses held, where gaps emerged, and how behavioral detection mattered more than guardrails. This investigation also demonstrates why behavioral detection is becoming increasingly important for AI security, as prompt injections often contain no traditional indicators of compromise.

How do prompt injection attacks work?

Prompt injection works by carefully crafting the content and structure of the prompt to alter the LLM’s behavior or output in unintended ways. This can cause models to violate guardrails, generate harmful content or enable unauthorised access.

Prompt injection attack example

The well-known example, EchoLeak (CVE-2025-32711), was a zero-click vulnerability in Microsoft 365 Copilot that relied on a carefully crafted email containing hidden instructions that the AI system interpreted as commands rather than content, creating a pathway for unauthorized access to sensitive information without any user interaction.

While Darktrace / SECURE AI is designed to prevent agents from producing unintended outcomes, we wanted to see if we could catch and prevent this threat type earlier in the attack life-cycle, at the email security layer.

How we tested prompt injection attacks on an enterprise agent

Summary:

Claude generated a prompt injection payload.
Hidden instructions were embedded in an email.
The email passed traditional validation checks.
Darktrace analyzed the language and sender behavior.
The email was quarantined before the AI agent could process it.

To test Darktrace / EMAIL against this attack class, we opened Claude, gave it the customer's context and problem statement (Gemini agent with inbox access, internal tool calls), told it we were validating Darktrace / EMAIL's detection of prompt injections, and asked for a test payload. See below:

Despite the guardrails supposedly built into the model, Claude surprisingly gave us the entire exploit in plaintext (albeit very basic), illegible to a human as the text was sent in white text (see Figure 1) but framed as an authoritative override for anything downstream reading the mail programmatically (i.e. the Gemini agent).

How Darktrace detected a prompt injection attack

We then sent the Claude-crafted email from a freemail address to the target recipient’s inbox. Despite the email containing no malicious payload, the freemail address having no malicious reputation, and the validation checks all passing, Darktrace /EMAIL flagged the email as a 93/100 anomaly and moved it to junk, out of scope for the AI agent.

Figure 3: *The test email sent with the hidden prompt injection*

*Figure 4: The email analysis in Darktrace / EMAIL*

Figure 5: Darktrace / EMAIL detection of malicious activity

The interesting part is what triggered the detection (see Figure 5)

Possible machine prompt content: text in the body detected as instructions written for a machine to execute, not for a human to read

Possible machine prompt content + basic suspicious correspondence: the same content, correlated with sender-side anomalies: freemail domain (yahoo[.]com), unknown correspondent, no prior mail history with the recipient, and suspicious references to payment information

Neither of those is a signature match. Nothing in the email was on a blacklist. There was no malware, no link and no attachment. Darktrace analyzed the context in which the email was delivered and flagged it as likely risky. The anomalous language features and the context of the sender relative to the recipient's normal behavior, combined with the unusual hidden text (prompt) were enough for Darktrace / EMAIL to act on the risk.

Result: Darktrace / EMAIL autonomously junked the email, out of scope for any AI agent parsing the inbox.

Why behavioral security makes a difference detecting prompt injection attacks

Cyberattacks don't look like traditional exploits anymore. They now operate in natural language, not strictly code.

That breaks the traditional stack. AV, firewalls, static scanning and signature-based SEGs all assume a payload to inspect.

A prompt injection has no payload. It's just an instruction, written in natural language, dressed up as anything the attacker wants: an invoice, an HR request, a calendar invite, some simple PowerPoint slides.

EchoLeak proved that hidden instructions can sit inside an email invisible to the user but fully readable by the LLM, and the LLM will follow them blindly.

This test and GTG-1002 proved that the LLM itself can be socially engineered. Tell it you're an authorized tester and it will hand you the attack.

Rules and static classifiers can catch the obvious cases. But natural language has infinite variants, and the attack surface is the model's innate functionality to comply.

The deeper problem here is intent: an LLM can't reliably tell whether an instruction in its context came from its developer, its user, or an attacker who slipped it into an email. To the LLM, everything reads as language and looks like a legitimate ask. This is why behavioural detection wins, as you become aware of intent when you look at the context of an interaction. Does this sender normally send this kind of message to this recipient? Does this prompt fit the user's normal pattern? Is this agent behaving the way this agent normally behaves?

Intent can't be read off a single email, it emerges from behavioral context. Which is how Darktrace enables threat detection, through behavioral understanding.

Why enterprise AI security requires more than guardrails

Claude didn't roll over immediately… the first section of the response was a (slight) pushback, but then it wrote the payload anyway without having to ask twice.

Here the framing of the prompt did all the work. The “testing security capabilities” angle moved the model from refusal to unquestioned compliance to the user prompt.

This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. Anthropic disclosed in November 2025 that a Chinese state-sponsored group they tracked as GTG-1002 ran the first documented AI-orchestrated espionage campaign against ~30 targets by posing as employees of a legitimate cybersecurity firm doing authorised penetration testing.

The takeaway isn't that AI guardrails are ineffective. They raise the cost of low-effort attacks and remain an important first layer of defense. However, for most organizations today, they’re the only line of defense when deploying AI agents. If a prompt injection bypasses those controls, organizations still need a way to detect and stop malicious behavior elsewhere in the attack chain.

Attackers will continue to have working prompt injections easily and quickly. The question is what stops one when it lands in an inbox your agent is reading.

That's where behavioral detection comes in.

How Darktrace detects prompt injection attacks in emails

Two things Darktrace does that a model-level guardrail or static rules and signatures can't:

Natural language analysis at the email or prompt layer. The email is assessed on its own merits: is this content shaped like instructions for a machine, regardless of what the receiving agent decides to do about it?

Behavioral context around the language. An AI agent behaves like an extremely agreeable human, and it will go above and beyond to comply with the user’s request. That's exactly why you must consider the business context, such sender behaviour, mailing history, and organisational norms, as these matter even more when the recipient is an AI.

Darktrace has been perfecting behavioral anomaly detection for over a decade; the same self-learning approach that catches BEC and account takeover applies directly to prompt injection delivery. Our multi-layered AI stack extracts content from the message, builds behavioural understanding through social graphing and Pattern of Life analysis, and then combines natural language, topic, inducement, sender relationship and anomaly signals before deciding what action to take.

This matters for prompt injection because the threat is not the plain language itself, but the intent behind the language that can cause an AI agent to respond in unexpected ways.

How to secure enterprise AI operations from prompt injection attacks

Email was the entry point in this case, but it is only one of many possible vectors.

Anywhere an agent can retrieve information, an attacker can potentially introduce a prompt injection.

Emails, documents, SharePoint sites, web pages, knowledge bases, chat platforms, and third-party integrations all provide opportunities to influence an agent's behavior. Wherever an agent finds its orders, a prompt injection opportunity exists.

This is why securing AI requires more than blocking malicious inputs. Organizations also need visibility into how agents behave after consuming information from across their environment. If an agent begins accessing unexpected data, taking unusual actions, or operating outside its normal patterns, those behaviors may provide the strongest signal that something has gone wrong.

Effective AI security requires defense in depth: reducing the likelihood of malicious instructions reaching the agent while maintaining the ability to detect and investigate suspicious behavior if they do.

The challenge isn't protecting a single entry point. It's recognizing that, in an AI-powered environment, every source of information is also a potential source of influence.

Are you deploying autonomous agents across your enterprise and want to see this tested in your environment? Let's talk.

About the author

Carlo Loregian

Solutions Engineer

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Understanding Qakbot Infections and Attack Paths

Understanding Qakbot Infections and Attack Paths

Qakbot and The Recent Weaponization of OneNote

Observed Activity Chains

Delivery Phase

Command and Control Phase

Cobalt Strike and VNC Phase

Lateral Movement Phase

Darktrace Coverage of QakNote Activity

Conclusion

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of IOCs

References

Why Trust is the New Attack Surface: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Threat Update 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Blog

Network

August 6, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

The incident

Why this matters

Behavioral anomaly detection: The architecture that fits

Network detection and response

Email security

Securing AI

The AI-to-AI threat surface

What AISI recommends

The takeaway

Blog

August 5, 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

Key takeaways

How behavioral detection helps stop prompt injection attacks

How do prompt injection attacks work?

Prompt injection attack example

How we tested prompt injection attacks on an enterprise agent

How Darktrace detected a prompt injection attack

Why behavioral security makes a difference detecting prompt injection attacks

Why enterprise AI security requires more than guardrails

How Darktrace detects prompt injection attacks in emails

How to secure enterprise AI operations from prompt injection attacks