Bytesize Security: A Guide to HTML Phishing Attachments
Darktrace guides you through the common signs of HTML phishing attachments, including common phishing emails, clever impersonations, fake webpages, and more.
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
One of the most common types of phishing email seen by the Darktrace SOC, involves the use of HTML attachments (Figure 1). These emails make use of an attachment to hide redirects to overtly malicious or suspicious domains. Some even impersonate legitimate web pages and send any entered or captured information back to the attacker's infrastructure once opened or filled out by the recipient. Indicators of these attempts can be identified from a few key patterns found across multiple emails.
Figure 1: An example of a suspicious HTML attachment containing dynamic content
A typical feature of these HTML attachments is the use of a generic-sounding filename that relates to the message's subject line, but with no specific information pertaining to the recipient or their line of business. These files almost always contain some form of Javascript code, as they often make use of external Javascript libraries to accomplish whatever goal is being pursued. For example, an attacker might use Javascript to convincingly impersonate a trustworthy website and trick the recipient into providing credentials or sensitive information, or they might use it to deploy malware and get a foothold on the device for further compromise once opened. This can be further identified by the presence of certain links in the HTML file itself (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The HTML file previously referenced contained multiple rare and suspicious links
Figure 2 above is an example of an HTML file containing multiple links with calls for .js files. This shows that the attachment contains Javascript and is making calls for external libraries for an undetermined purpose.
Another common red flag is when the file contains links to common Product or Service images from domains wholly unrelated to those services, as seen below (Figure 3).
Figure 3: An example of an unusual .png call from a rare domain. The subsequent image called is for a company with no apparent relation to the hosting domain
The examples above imply an obvious (and poor) attempt by the HTML file to impersonate a Microsoft webpage, likely a fake login page set up for credential harvesting, as the ‘Microsoft’ logo is being pulled from a domain entirely unrelated to Microsoft or any common image-hosting service.
Rather than impersonating a website directly in the file and loading resources from external sources, these HTML files will instead directly point toward a webpage that already contains these elements. This comes with its own set of pros and cons: by hosting their phishing page in a public setting, they are far more likely to be taken down, however it may be easier to appear legitimate than if they were to build it all out in the HTML file itself.
The final routine element in these types of HTML phishing emails is the mechanism by which the attacker intends to receive any successfully scammed credentials or information. If the fake webpage is entirely contained in the HTML file, this often presents as a suspicious PHP link present in the file itself (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Phishing HTMLs often include links to rare domains with PHP destinations as an indication that it will engage in some form of HTTP POST communication
PHP calls suggest that some part of the webpage is intended to submit an HTTP POST or equivalent ‘submission’ call, often present in the ‘Login’ button in these scenarios. After the victim clicks this button, the webpage sends all the form-submission items to the endpoint hosting the PHP page, which is commonly an indicator of the webserver hosting the attacker infrastructure running the phishing attack.
If the HTML file redirects to an externally hosted phishing page, identical PHP links are often found in the source code of those pages (Figure 5). This serves the same function as sending any entered credentials back to the attacker.
Figure 5: The source-code of an external-hosted phishing page, showing calls for PHP pages hosted on alternate attacker infrastructure
The process of HTML attacks is so standardized that they are commonly released in the form of easily deployable phishing kits. These can be deployed on unsuspecting compromised webservers with little to no modification, resulting in virtually identical attacks being seen year-round. WordPress seems to be a prime target for hosting such attacks, with the site owners often becoming unsuspecting victims in propagating these phishing campaigns. An unfortunate side effect of these kits being readily available is that the attackers often don't bother to set any sort of access restrictions on their phishing servers once established, which can result in their entire setup being publicly viewable with a simple link modification. One example is seen below (Figure 6).
Figure 6: The parent directory of the website hosting a suspicious PHP page was fully accessible without restriction
In this incident, the website hosting the PHP link seen earlier had a publicly accessible parent directory structure, where both the PHP file above and an additional suspicious .txt file could be seen. This .txt file appears to be where any information submitted by victims ultimately ended up written to (Figure 7).
Figure 7: The TXT file in the parent directory above appeared to contain the login information that was likely submitted to the PHP page referred to in the initial HTML attachment
Figure 7 above presents the unusual risk of not only having the victims’ credentials at the disposal of the original attacker, but also potentially exposed to any malicious actor that can get creative with a web-crawler to identify key elements of the files used by these particular phishing kits.
Fortunately, due to the standardized nature of these ready-made phishing kits, these types of attacks often conform to a series of common behaviors that Darktrace / EMAIL excels in identifying. Despite being a popular technique, it is extremely rare for attempts using this HTML attachment method to successfully get through a correct Darktrace / EMAIL deployment. Overall, this means one less risk for the end user to worry about.
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Darktrace / EMAIL Expands Behavioral Defense Across Email and Collaboration Workflows
New capabilities help employees understand suspicious content, give administrators more control over sensitive data, and show security teams where risky workflows sit across the organization.
“I wonder if running that tool influenced the connectivity in some way.”
“I might need to target down or reboot, but first, I'll investigate the network using ARP. I wonder if ARP is responding properly. If I see "ip neigh stale," that could indicate a problem. I think arping might help in this situation, but I’ll need to keep an eye on how the network is behaving. It's all about figuring out where the issue lies!”
図10：エージェントの異常なLDAPアクティビティに対してトリガーされたこのLinuxサーバーに対するモデル検知は、Cyber AI Analystによって自律的に調査され、その調査結果にはエージェントの異常なSMBセッションアクティビティに関する内容が含まれ、Cyber AIAnalystインシデントに記録されました。
DarktraceのCyber AI Analystは、エージェントのアクティビティによってトリガーされたモデル検知を自律的に調査し、その調査結果を1つの重要なインシデントレポートにまとめました。インシデント報告書の内容は、エージェントによるネットワークスキャンから始まりコーディング演習内容のSMBベースの上書きで終わる、エージェントの行動の各段階を詳しくカバーしています。
図20：Cyber AI Analystは、モデル検知に対する自律的な調査を通じて得られた所見をつなぎ合わせ、エージェントの進行状況のタイムラインを作成し、アクティビティを視覚的に表したグラフとともに提供しました。
Cyber Verification Program下のAnthropic Opus 4.6モデルなど、他のフロンティアモデルを使用したエージェントも、Darktraceのシミュレートされた環境で同じ設定とタスクを使ってテストされました。反復の度に、エージェントは演習の内容または採点プログラムを変更して不正を行おうとしました。基盤となるモデルに関係なく、エージェントは自分が置かれた環境を侵害することで、100％のスコアを達成する方法を見つけることに成功していました。これらのエージェントによるハッキングは、アクティビティの内容こそ違っていましたが、すべてその環境のベースラインの振る舞いから大きく逸脱した動作を引き起こしていました。これらの逸脱はDarktraceプラットフォームに十分な検知の機会を提供し、エージェントの逃げ場はありませんでした。
エージェンティックハーネスは会話履歴をローカルに保存しますが、ダークトレースの研究者たちは、保存されたAIの応答が本当にモデルによって生成されたものであるかどうかの検証が行われていないことを発見しました。また、この設計上の選択がAnthropic Claude Code、AWS Kiro-CLI、OpenAI Codex、およびオープンソースのPiにわたって共通していることを確認しました。
会話履歴は多くの場合クライアント側に保存されます。例えば、Anthropic Claude Code、OpenAI Codex、AWS Kiro-CLI、Piなどでもそうです。そのため、ユーザーはセッションを自由に再開でき、一部の製品にはその履歴を操作する機能が組み込まれています。たとえば、会話の中の特定の時点に戻り、送信したメッセージを編集して、会話を別の軌道へ進めていくことができます。きわめて重要な点として、私たちが調査したすべてのケースにおいて、保存されているAIの応答が対応するモデルから生成されたものであり改ざんされていないことの検証は行われていませんでした。
.avif)
