March 13, 2024

Simulated vs. Real Malware: What You Need To Know

Learn how Darktrace distinguishes between simulated and real malware. Discover the advanced detection techniques used to protect your network.

Written by

Priya Thapa

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

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

Written by

Priya Thapa

Cyber Analyst

Mar 2024

Distinguishing attack simulations from the real thing

In an era marked by the omnipresence of digital technologies and the relentless advancement of cyber threats, organizations face an ongoing battle to safeguard their digital environment. Although red and blue team exercises have long served as cornerstones in evaluating organizational defenses, their reliance on manual processes poses significant constraints [1]. Led by seasoned security professionals, these tests offer invaluable insights into security readiness but can be marred by their resource-intensive and infrequent testing cycles. The gaps between assessments leave organizations open to undetected vulnerabilities, compromising the true state of their security environment. In response to the ever-changing threat landscape, organizations are adopting a proactive stance towards cyber security to fortify their defenses.

At the forefront, these efforts tend to revolve around simulated attacks, a process designed to test an organization's security posture against both known and emerging threats in a safe and controlled environment [2]. These meticulously orchestrated simulations imitate the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by actual adversaries and provide organizations with invaluable insights into their security resilience and vulnerabilities. By immersing themselves in simulated attack scenarios, security teams can proactively probe for vulnerabilities, adopt a more aggressive defense posture, and stay ahead of evolving cyber threats.

Distinguishing between simulated malware observations and authentic malware activities stands as a critical imperative for organizations bolstering their cyber defenses. While simulated platforms offer controlled scenarios for testing known attack patterns, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI can detect known and unknown threats, identify zero-day threats, and previously unseen malware variants, including attack simulations. Whereas simulated platforms focus on specific known attack vectors, Darktrace DETECT™ and Darktrace RESPOND™ can identify and contain both known and unknown threats across the entire attack surface, providing unparalleled protection of the cyber estate.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Simulated Attacks

In January 2024, the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) received a high volume of alerts relating to an unspecified malware strain that was affecting multiple customers across the fleet, raising concerns, and prompting the Darktrace Analyst team to swiftly investigate the multitude of incident. Initially, these activities were identified as malicious, exhibiting striking resemblance to the characteristics of Remcos, a sophisticated remote access trojan (RAT) that can be used to fully control and monitor any Windows computer from XP and onwards [3]. However, further investigation revealed that these activities were intricately linked to a simulated malware provider.

This discovery underscores a pivotal insight into Darktrace’s capabilities. To this point, leveraging advanced AI, Darktrace operates with a sophisticated framework that extends beyond conventional threat detection. By analyzing network behavior and anomalies, Darktrace not only discerns between simulated threats, such as those orchestrated by breach and attack simulation platforms and genuine malicious activities but can also autonomously respond to these threats with RESPOND. This showcases Darktrace’s advanced capabilities in effectively mitigating cyber threats.

Attack Simulation Process: Initial Access and Intrusion

Darktrace initially observed devices breaching several DETECT models relating to the hostname “new-tech-savvy[.]com”, an endpoint that was flagged as malicious by multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors [4].

In addition, multiple HTML Application (HTA) file downloads were observed from the malicious endpoint, “new-tech-savvy[.]com/5[.]hta”. HTA files are often seen as part of the UAC-0050 campaign, known for its cyber-attacks against Ukrainian targets, which tends to leverage the Remcos RAT with advanced evasion techniques [5] [6]. Such files are often critical components of a malware operation, serving as conduits for the deployment of malicious payloads onto a compromised system. Often, within the HTA file resides a VBScript which, upon execution, triggers a PowerShell script. This PowerShell script is designed to facilitate the download of a malicious payload, namely “word_update.exe”, from a remote server. Upon successful execution, “word_update.exe” is launched, invoking cmd.exe and initiating the sharing of malicious data. This process results in the execution of explorer.exe, with the malicious RemcosRAT concealed within the memory of explorer.exe. [7].

As the customers were subscribed to Darktrace’s Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, an Enhanced Monitoring model was breached upon detection of the malicious HTA file. Enhanced Monitoring models are high-fidelity DETECT models designed to identify activity likely to be indicative of compromise. These PTN alerts were swiftly investigated by Darktrace’s round the clock SOC team.

Following this successful detection, Darktrace RESPOND took immediate action by autonomously blocking connections to the malicious endpoint, effectively preventing additional download attempts. Similar activity may be seen in the case of a legitimate malware attack; however, in this instance, the hostname associated with the download confirmed the detected malicious activity was the result of an attack simulation.

Figure 1: The Breach Log displays the model breach, “Anomalous File/Incoming HTA File”, where a device was detected downloading the HTA file, “5.hta” from the endpoint, “new-tech-savvy[.]com”.
'

Figure 2: The Model Breach Event Log shows a device making connections to the endpoint, “new-tech-savvy[.]com”. As a result, theRESPOND model, “Antigena/Network/External Threat/Antigena File then New Outbound Block", breached and connections to this malicious endpoint were blocked.

Figure 3: The Breach Log further showcases another RESPOND model, “Antigena/Network/External Threat/Antigena Suspicious File Block", which was triggered when the device downloaded a HTA file from the malicious endpoint, “new-tech-savvy[.]com".

In other cases, Darktrace observed SSL and HTTP connections also attributed to the same simulated malware provider, highlighting Darktrace’s capability to distinguish between legitimate and simulated malware attack activity.

Figure 4: The Model Breach “Anomalous Connection/Low and Slow Exfiltration" displays the hostname of a simulated malware provider, confirming the detected malicious activity as the result of an attack simulation.

Figure 5: The Model Breach Event Log shows the SSL connections made to an endpoint associated with the simulated malware provider.

Figure 6: Darktrace’s Advanced Search displays SSL connection logs to the endpoint of the simulated malware provider around the time the simulation activity was observed.

Upon detection of the malicious activity occurring within affected customer networks, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ investigated and correlated the events at machine speed. Figure 8 illustrates the synopsis and additional technical information that AI Analyst generated on one customer’s environment, detailing that over 220 HTTP queries to 18 different endpoints for a single device were seen. The investigation process can also be seen in the screenshot, showcasing Darktrace’s ability to provide ‘explainable AI’ detail. AI Analyst was able to autonomously search for all HTTP connections made by the breach device and identified a single suspicious software agent making one HTTP request to the endpoint, 45.95.147[.]236.

Furthermore, the malicious endpoints, 45.95.147[.]236, previously observed in SSH attacks using brute-force or stolen credentials, and “tangible-drink.surge[.]sh”, associated with the Androxgh0st malware [8] [9] [10], were detected to have been requested by another device.

This highlights Darktrace’s ability to link and correlate seemingly separate events occurring on different devices, which could indicate a malicious attack spreading across the network. AI Analyst was also able to identify a username associated with the simulated malware prior to the activity through Kerberos Authentication Service (AS) requests. The device in question was also tagged as a ‘Security Device’ – such tags provide human analysts with valuable context about expected device activity, and in this case, the tag corroborates with the testing activity seen. This exemplifies how Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst takes on the labor-intensive task of analyzing thousands of connections to hundreds of endpoints at a rapid pace, then compiling results into a single pane that provides customer security teams with the information needed to evaluate activities observed on a device.

All in all, this demonstrates how Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is capable of offering an unparalleled level of awareness and visibility over any anomalous and potentially malicious behavior on the network, saving security teams and administrators a great deal of time.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Log containing a summary of the attack simulation activity,, including relevant technical details, and the AI investigation process.

Conclusion

Simulated cyber-attacks represent the ever-present challenge of testing and validating security defenses, while the threat of legitimate compromise exemplifies the constant risk of cyber threats in today’s digital landscape. Darktrace emerges as the solution to this conflict, offering real-time detection and response capabilities that identify and mitigate simulated and authentic threats alike.

While simulations are crafted to mimic legitimate threats within predefined parameters and controlled environments, the capabilities of Darktrace DETECT transcend these limitations. Even in scenarios where intent is not malicious, Darktrace’s ability to identify anomalies and raise alerts remains unparalleled. Moreover, Darktrace’s AI Analyst and autonomous response technology, RESPOND, underscore Darktrace’s indispensable role in safeguarding organizations against emerging threats.

Credit to Priya Thapa, Cyber Analyst, Tiana Kelly, Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead

Appendices

Model Breaches

Darktrace DETECT Model Breach Coverage

Anomalous File / Incoming HTA File

Anomalous Connection / Low and Slow Exfiltration

Darktrace RESPOND Model Breach Coverage

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

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

• Possible HTTP Command and Control

• Suspicious File Download

List of IoCs

IP Address

38.52.220[.]2 - Malicious Endpoint

46.249.58[.]40 - Malicious Endpoint

45.95.147[.]236 - Malicious Endpoint

Hostname

tangible-drink.surge[.]sh - Malicious Endpoint

new-tech-savvy[.]com - Malicious Endpoint

References

1. https://xmcyber.com/glossary/what-are-breach-and-attack-simulations/

2. https://www.picussecurity.com/resource/glossary/what-is-an-attack-simulation

3. https://success.trendmicro.com/dcx/s/solution/1123281-remcos-malware-information?language=en_US&sfdcIFrameOrigin=null

4. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/c145cf7010545791602e9585f447347c75e5f19a0850a24e12a89325ded88735

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/7afd19e5696570851e6413d08b6f0c8bd42f4b5a19d1e1094e0d1eb4d2e62ce5

6. https://thehackernews.com/2024/01/uac-0050-group-using-new-phishing.html

7. https://www.uptycs.com/blog/remcos-rat-uac-0500-pipe-method

8. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.95.147.236/community

9. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/tangible-drink.surge.sh/community

10. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa24-016a

Written by

Priya Thapa

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Priya Thapa

Cyber Analyst

•

September 30, 2026

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

•

September 24, 2026

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

September 30, 2026

AI-Assisted Attacks Still Leave a Behavioral Trace

Key Insights

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

AI as part of the attacker’s workflow

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

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

‍

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

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

In both cases Darktrace observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operational consequences of AI-assisted attacks

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

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

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

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

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

‍

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Case 1

Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer from New External Endpoint

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Compromise / New or Repeated to Unusual SSL Port

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

‍

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

‍

Case 1

IoC	Type	Description + Confidence
onedrive[.]cv	Hostname	Likely C2 server
138.124.123[.]87	IP Address	Possible C2 server
hXXp://onedrive[.]cv/Downloads/CURP/ReportFinal.%E2%80%AE%E1%BA%9D%D4%81%EF%BD%90.scr	URI	Possible payload
google.services[.]ug	Hostname	Likely C2 server
77.110.127[.]205	IP Address	Likely C2 server
google.services[.]ug:57666	Hostname + Port	Likely C2 communication
google.services[.]ug:57888	Hostname + Port	Likely C2 communication
google.services[.]ug:56001	Hostname + Port	Likely C2 communication

‍

Case 2

IoC	Type	Description + Confidence
192.229.115[.]229	IP Address	Likely C2 communication

About the author

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

Blog

Network

September 30, 2026

A Chain Reaction: Blockchain-Hosted Infostealer Campaign Targets Windows and macOS

Key Insights

Darktrace detected a blockchain-hosted infostealer campaign targeting Windows and macOS devices across multiple customer environments.
The campaign combined ClickFix social engineering with trusted services and decentralized blockchain infrastructure to support malware delivery and C2 activity.
Compromised devices were observed connecting to rare and unusual external endpoints, including DGA C2 domains, blockchain-related endpoints, and cryptocurrency mining infrastructure.
The activity was associated with information-stealing malware strains including Atomic macOS Stealer (AMOS), Lumma, Rhadamanthys, Vidar, and Phexia.
Darktrace identified anomalous device behavior, beaconing patterns, rare external connections, cryptomining activity, and suspicious TLS/SSL communications without relying solely on prior knowledge or static indicators of compromise.
The campaign highlights how attackers are increasingly using legitimate and decentralized infrastructure to make detection, disruption, and attribution more challenging for defenders.

The Infostealer Ecosystem

The information stealer malware ecosystem continues to grow in value for threat actors across the digital threat landscape. Infostealers are increasingly delivered through Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) operating models, distributed through affiliate networks, and designed to withstand infrastructure takedowns. This resilience was demonstrated by the recent takedown of Lumma Stealer malicious domains by Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit (DCU) [1].

Infostealers are used to gather and exfiltrate sensitive information, including non-human identity (NHI) data, from compromised systems across cloud, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Virtual Private Network (VPN), and development environments. They can also support ransomware operations by expanding the credentials and access paths available to threat actors, contributing to the high volume of identity-based attacks observed across the broader threat landscape [2][3].

Darktrace’s Observations of ClickFix and Infostealers

Throughout 2026, Darktrace has observed multiple campaigns using ClickFix social engineering to trick users into carrying out malicious actions and downloading initial payloads, including information stealers. More recently, Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified a specific ClickFix campaign involving a blockchain-hosted infostealer targeting Windows and macOS devices.

Darktrace identified affected customer environments across Europe, the United States, Asia, and the Middle East where blockchain-hosted infostealer malware appears to have been delivered to compromised systems following likely ClickFix-driven initial access. Darktrace investigated the activity and found that decentralized blockchain infrastructure, alongside widely trusted legitimate services, was used to support malware delivery and information theft across Windows and macOS systems.

Following initial access, compromised systems established C2 communication, with C2 configuration and payloads hosted on public blockchain infrastructure. The ultimate objective appears to be credential and cryptocurrency theft through the deployment of information stealers such as Atomic macOS Stealer (AMOS), Lumma, Rhadamanthys, and Vidar [5][6][7].

Darktrace’s Investigation

Affected devices across the Darktrace customer base were observed making outbound connections to rare external endpoints in patterns consistent with beaconing and C2 activity. Darktrace primarily detected devices making repeated connections to algorithmically generated domains (DGA) such as hf98x4d[.]site [8]. In many cases, these domains were linked through open-source intelligence (OSINT) to information-stealing malware families including AMOS and Phexia [5][6][7][8][9].

In multiple cases, devices were also observed connecting to blockchain-related endpoints, such as polygon[.]drpc[.]org, as well as legitimate public services, including GitHub. The use of decentralized blockchain infrastructure and trusted services such as GitHub to facilitate malware distribution and C2 activity can make disruption and attribution significantly more difficult for defenders.

Darktrace also detected a significant proportion of impacted devices making outbound connections to cryptocurrency mining infrastructure associated with the legitimate open-source XMRig mining software and the HashVault mining pool, including pool.hashvault[.]pro and donate[.]ssl[.]xmrig[.]com, which were abused by the attackers, indicating, including pool.hashvault[.]pro and donate[.]ssl[.]xmrig[.]com, indicating active cryptomining on compromised systems.

In one case, mining activity was observed before and during connections to the DGA endpoint hf98x4d[.]site. Due to its highly anomalous nature, Darktrace's Real-Time AI Analyst autonomously investigated the activity as it occurred, correlating the two events into a single cryptocurrency mining incident and providing comprehensive visibility into the broader attack.

‍

Figure 1: Real-Time AI Analyst investigation of suspicious SSL and C2 communications with hf98x4d[.]site over port 443.

‍

Figure 2: Real-Time AI Analyst investigation into cryptocurrency mining activity involving pool[.]hashvault[.]pro over SSL on port 443.

‍

Around the same time, Darktrace identified the same device initiating connections to the GitHub endpoint release-assets[.]githubusercontent[.]com while continuing to make repeated connections to hf98x4d[.]site.

‍

Figure 3: Darktrace's detection of an affected device connecting to a GitHub endpoint between repeated connections to the anomalous external endpoint hf98x4d[.]site.

On the network of another customer, Darktrace observed an affected device making highly unusual outbound connections consistent with beaconing activity. The device initiated multiple connections over port 443 to the external hostname polygon[.]drpc[.]org. According to OSINT, this hostname is a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) endpoint provided by dRPC, a legitimate service enabling decentralized applications (dApps), cryptocurrency wallets, and developer tools to interact with the Polygon blockchain [10].

The same device was later observed making repeated TLS/SSL connections to the previously mentioned DGA C2 domain. In addition, it made outbound connections to the external IP 195.242.214[.]34 over destination port 51820, an endpoint associated with the ProtonVPN service. Collectively, these connections to blockchain-related infrastructure, the DGA C2 domain, and ProtonVPN-associated infrastructure suggested the device had been affected by the campaign.

Conclusion

This campaign demonstrates how attackers can combine ClickFix social engineering with trusted services and decentralized blockchain infrastructure to create a resilient, cross-platform malware delivery chain. By using services such as GitHub alongside blockchain RPC endpoints and rapidly replaceable DGA domains, the activity can blend into legitimate traffic while making infrastructure disruption and attribution more difficult.

For defenders, it’s a reminder that trusted infrastructure does not automatically mean trusted activity. Security teams should look for the behaviors surrounding these connections, including unusual outbound communication, repeated beaconing, unexpected access to blockchain services, suspicious TLS/SSL activity and cryptomining. In this campaign, Darktrace identified and correlated these deviations without depending solely on previously known indicators, providing visibility as affected devices moved between legitimate services, decentralized infrastructure and malicious C2 endpoints

Credit to Nahisha Nobregas (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst), Manoel Kadja (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

▪ Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

▪ Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

▪ Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA

▪ Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

▪ Compromise / DGA Beacon

▪ Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

▪ Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)

▪ Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)

▪ Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

▪ Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

▪ Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination

▪ Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

▪ Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

▪ Compromise / Monero Mining

▪ Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

▪ Device / New Connections On Suspicious Port

▪ Anomalous Connection / High Volume of Connections to Rare Domain

‍

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Indicator	Description
hf98x4d[.]site	C2 Endpoint (Hostname)
sj98xe4[.]xyz	C2 Endpoint (Hostname)
citcix6[.]xyz	C2 Endpoint (Hostname)
bduwih8[.]pro	C2 Endpoint (Hostname)

‍

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic (ID)	Technique
Persistence (T1176)	Browser Extensions (T1176.001)
Persistence (T1176)	Software Extensions
Command and Control (T1071)	Web Protocols (T1071.001)
Command and Control (T1568)	Domain Generation Algorithms (T1568.002)
Command and Control (T1071)	Application Layer Protocol
Command and Control (T1102)	One-Way Communication (T1102.003)
Command and Control (T1571)	Non-Standard Port
Command and Control (T1104)	Multi-Stage Channels
Command and Control (T1573)	Encrypted Channel
Command and Control (T1008)	Fallback Channels
Initial Access ICS (T0862)	Supply Chain Compromise
Command and Control ICS (T0885)	Commonly Used Port
Collection (T1185)	Browser Session Hijacking
Impact (T1496)	Compute Hijacking (T1496.001)
Impact (T1496)	Resource Hijacking
Command and Control (T1071)	Publish/Subscribe Protocols (T1071.001)
Lateral Movement (T1210)	Exploitation of Remote Services