October 13, 2023

Protecting Brazilian Organizations from Malware

Discover how Darktrace DETECT thwarted a banking trojan targeting Brazilian organizations, preventing data theft and informing the customer.

Written by

Roberto Romeu

Senior 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

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

Oct 2023

Nationally Targeted Cyber Attacks

As the digital world becomes more and more interconnected, the threat of cyber-attacks transcends borders and presents a significant concern to security teams worldwide. Yet despite this, some malicious actors have shown a tendency to focus their attacks on specific countries. By employing highly tailored tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to target users and organizations from one nation, rather than launching more widespread campaigns, threat actors are able to maximize the efficiency and efficacy of their attacks.

What is Guildma and how does it work?

One example can be seen in the remote access trojan (RAT) and information stealer, Guildma. Guildma, also known by the demonic moniker, Astaroth, first appeared in the wild in 2017 and is a Latin America-based banking trojan known to primarily target organizations in Brazil, although has more recently been observed in North America and Europe too [1].

By concentrating their efforts on Brazil, Guildma is able to launch attacks with a high degree of specificity, focussing their language on Brazilian norms, referencing Brazilian institutions, and tailoring their social engineering accordingly. Moreover, considering that Brazilian customers likely represent a relatively small portion of security vendors’ clientele, there may be a limited pool of available indicators of compromise (IoCs). This limitation could significantly impact the efficacy of traditional security measures that rely on signature-based detection methods in identifying emerging threats.

Darktrace vs. Guildma

In June 2023, Darktrace observed a Guildma compromise on the network of a Brazilian customer in the manufacturing sector. The anomaly-based detection capabilities of Darktrace DETECT™ allowed it to identify suspicious activity surrounding the compromise, agnostic of any IoCs or specific signatures of a threat actor. Following the successful detection of the malware, the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) carried out a thorough investigation into the compromise and brought it to the attention of the customer’s security team, allowing them to quickly react and prevent any further escalation.

This early detection by Darktrace effectively shut down Guildma operations on the network before any sensitive data could be gathered and stolen by malicious actors.

Attack Overview

In the case of the Guildma RAT detected by Darktrace, the affected system was a desktop device, ostensibly used by one employee. The desktop was first observed on the customer’s network in April 2023; however, it is possible that the initial compromise took place before Darktrace had visibility over the network. Guildma compromises typically start with phishing campaigns, indicating that the initial intrusion in this case likely occurred beyond the scope of Darktrace’s monitoring [2].

Early indicators

On June 23, 2023, Darktrace DETECT observed the first instance of unusual activity being performed by the affected desktop device, namely regular HTTP POST requests to a suspicious domain, indicative of command-and-control (C2) beaconing activity. The domain used an unusual Top-Level Domain (TLD), with a plausibly meaningful (in Portuguese) second-level domain and a seemingly random 11-character third-level domain, “dn00x1o0f0h.puxaofolesanfoneiro[.]quest”.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace observed additional connections like this, representing something of a signature of the attack. The suspicious domains were typically registered within six months of observation, featured an uncommon TLD, and included a seemingly randomized third-level domain of 6-11 characters, followed by a plausibly legitimate second-level domain with a minimum of 15 characters. The connections to these unusual endpoints all followed a similar two-hour beaconing period, suggesting that Guildma may rotate its C2 infrastructure, using the Multi-Stage Channels TTP (MITRE ID T1104) to evade restrictions by firewalls or other signature-based security tools that rely on static lists of IoCs and “known bads”.

Figure 1: Model Breach Event Log for the “Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)”. The connections at two-hour intervals, including at unreasonably late hours, is consistent with beaconing for C2.

Living-off-the-land with BITS abuse

A week later, on June 30, 2023, the affected device was observed making an unusual Microsoft BITS connection. BitsAdmin is a deprecated administrative tool available on most Windows devices and can be leveraged by attackers to transfer malicious obfuscated payloads into and around an organization’s network. The domain observed during this connection, "cwiufv.pratkabelhaemelentmarta[.]shop”, follows the previously outlined domain naming convention. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources indicated that the endpoint had links to malware and, when visited, redirected users to the Brazilian versions of WhatsApp and Zoom. This is likely a tactic employed by threat actors to ensure users are unaware of suspicious domains, and subsequent malware downloads, by redirected them to a trusted source.

Figure 2: A screenshot of the Model Breach log summary of the “Unusual BITS Activity” model breach. The breach log contains key details such as the ASN, hostname, and user agent used in the breaching connection.

Obfuscated Tooling Downloads

Within one minute of the suspicious BITS activity, Darktrace detected the device downloading a suspicious file from the aforementioned endpoint, (cwiufv.pratkabelhaemelentmarta[.]shop). The file in question appeared to be a ZIP file with the 17-digit numeric name query, namely “?37627343830628786”, with the filename “zodzXLWwaV.zip”.

However, Darktrace DETECT recognized that the file extension did not match its true file type and identified that it was, in fact, an executable (.exe) file masquerading as a ZIP file. By masquerading files downloads, threat actors are able to make their malicious files seem legitimate and benign to security teams and traditional security tools, thereby evading detection. In this case, the suspicious file in question was indeed identified as malicious by multiple OSINT sources.

Following the initial download of this masqueraded file, Darktrace also detected subsequent downloads of additional executable files from the same endpoint. It is possible that these downloads represented Guildma actors attempting to download additional tooling, including the information-stealer widely known as Astaroth, in order to begin its data collection and exfiltration operations.

Figure 3: A screenshot of a graph produced by the Threat Visualizer of the affected device's external connections. The visual aid marks breaches with red and orange dots, creating a more intuitive explanation of observed behavior.

Darktrace SOC

The successful detection of the masqueraded file transfer triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model breach, a high-fidelity model designed to detect activity that is more likely indicative of an ongoing compromise.

This breach was immediately escalated to the Darktrace SOC for analysis by Darktrace’s team of expert analysts who were able to complete a thorough investigation and notify the customer’s security team of the compromise in just over half an hour. The investigation carried out by Darktrace’s analysts confirmed that the activity was, indeed, malicious, and provided the customer’s security team with details around the extent of the compromise, the specific IoCs, and risks this compromise posed to their digital environment. This information empowered the customer’s security team to promptly address the issue, having a significant portion of the investigative burden reduced and resolved by the round-the-clock Darktrace analyst team.

In addition to this, Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an investigation into the ongoing compromise and was able to connect the anomalous HTTP connections to the subsequent suspicious file downloads, viewing them as one incident rather than two isolated events. AI Analyst completed its investigation in just three minutes, upon which it provided a detailed summary of events of the activity, further aiding the customer’s remediation process.

Figure 4: CyberAI Analyst summary of the suspicious activity. A prose summary of the breach activity and the meaning of the technical details is included to maintain an easily digestible stream of information.

Conclusion

While the combination of TTPs observed in this Guildma RAT compromise is not uncommon globally, the specificity to targeting organizations in Brazil allows it to be incredibly effective. By focussing on just one country, malicious actors are able to launch highly specialized attacks, adapting the language used and tailoring the social engineering effectively to achieve maximum success. Moreover, as Brazil likely represents a smaller segment of security vendors’ customers, therefore leading to a limited pool of IoCs, attackers are often able to evade traditional signature-based detections.

Darktrace DETECT’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows for effective detection, mitigation, and response to emerging threats, regardless of the specifics of the attack and without relying on threat intelligence or previous IoCs. Ultimately in this case, Darktrace was able to identify the suspicious activity surrounding the Guildma compromise and swiftly bring it to the attention of the customer’s security team, before any data gathering, or exfiltration activity took place.

Darktrace’s threat detection capabilities coupled with its expert analyst team and round-the-clock SOC response is a highly effective addition to an organization’s defense-in-depth, whether in Brazil or anywhere else around the world.

Credit to Roberto Romeu, Senior SOC Analyst, Taylor Breland, Analyst Team Lead, San Francisco

References

https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/details/win.astaroth

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2020/03/05/guildma-devil-drives-electric/

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)
Device / Unusual BITS Activity
Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)
Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer (Enhanced Monitoring Model)
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

List of IoCs

IoC Type - Description + Confidence

5q710e1srxk.broilhasoruikaliventiladorrta[.]shop - Domain - Likely C2 server

m2pkdlse8md.roilhasohlcortinartai[.]hair - Domain - Likely C2 server

cwiufv.pratkabelhaemelentmarta[.]shop - Domain - C2 server

482w5pct234.jaroilcasacorkalilc[.]ru[.]com - Domain - C2 server

dn00x1o0f0h.puxaofolesanfoneiro[.]quest - Domain - Likely C2 server

10v7mybga55.futurefrontier[.]cyou - Domain - Likely C2 server

f788gbgdclp.growthgenerator[.]cyou - Domain - Likely C2 server

6nieek.satqabelhaeiloumelsmarta[.]shop - Domain - Likely C2 server

zodzXLWwaV.zip (SHA1 Hash: 2a4062e10a5de813f5688221dbeb3f3ff33eb417 ) - File hash - Malware

IZJQCAOXQb.zip (SHA1 Hash: eaec1754a69c50eac99e774b07ef156a1ca6de06 ) - File hash - Likely malware

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

ATT&CK Technique - Technique ID

Multi-Stage Channels - T1104

BITS Jobs - T1197

Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols - T1071.001

Acquire Infrastructure: Web Services - T1583.006

Obtain Capabilities: Malware - T1588.001

Masquerading - T1036

Written by

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Identity

July 3, 2025

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

The latest on the identity security landscape

Following the mass adoption of remote and hybrid working patterns, more critical data than ever resides in cloud applications – from Salesforce and Google Workspace, to Box, Dropbox, and Microsoft 365.

On average, a single organization uses 130 different Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications, and 45% of organizations reported experiencing a cybersecurity incident through a SaaS application in the last year.

As SaaS applications look set to remain an integral part of the digital estate, organizations are being forced to rethink how they protect their users and data in this area.

What is SaaS security?

SaaS security is the protection of cloud applications. It includes securing the apps themselves as well as the user identities that engage with them.

Below are the top eight threats that target SaaS security and user identities.

1. Account Takeover (ATO)

Attackers gain unauthorized access to a user’s SaaS or cloud account by stealing credentials through phishing, brute-force attacks, or credential stuffing. Once inside, they can exfiltrate data, send malicious emails, or escalate privileges to maintain persistent access.

2. Privilege escalation

Cybercriminals exploit misconfigurations, weak access controls, or vulnerabilities to increase their access privileges within a SaaS or cloud environment. Gaining admin or superuser rights allows attackers to disable security settings, create new accounts, or move laterally across the organization.

3. Lateral movement

Once inside a network or SaaS platform, attackers move between accounts, applications, and cloud workloads to expand their foot- hold. Compromised OAuth tokens, session hijacking, or exploited API connections can enable adversaries to escalate access and exfiltrate sensitive data.

4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking

Threat actors bypass MFA through SIM swapping, push bombing, or exploiting session cookies. By stealing an active authentication session, they can access SaaS environments without needing the original credentials or MFA approval.

5. OAuth token abuse

Attackers exploit OAuth authentication mechanisms by stealing or abusing tokens that grant persistent access to SaaS applications. This allows them to maintain access even if the original user resets their password, making detection and mitigation difficult.

6. Insider threats

Malicious or negligent insiders misuse their legitimate access to SaaS applications or cloud platforms to leak data, alter configurations, or assist external attackers. Over-provisioned accounts and poor access control policies make it easier for insiders to exploit SaaS environments.

7. Application Programming Interface (API)-based attacks

SaaS applications rely on APIs for integration and automation, but attackers exploit insecure endpoints, excessive permissions, and unmonitored API calls to gain unauthorized access. API abuse can lead to data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and service disruption.

8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS

Adversaries compromise SaaS-based email platforms (e.g., Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace) to send phishing emails, conduct invoice fraud, or steal sensitive communications. BEC attacks often involve financial fraud or data theft by impersonating executives or suppliers.

BEC heavily uses social engineering techniques, tailoring messages for a specific audience and context. And with the growing use of generative AI by threat actors, BEC is becoming even harder to detect. By adding ingenuity and machine speed, generative AI tools give threat actors the ability to create more personalized, targeted, and convincing attacks at scale.

Protecting against these SaaS threats

Traditionally, security leaders relied on tools that were focused on the attack, reliant on threat intelligence, and confined to a single area of the digital estate.

However, these tools have limitations, and often prove inadequate for contemporary situations, environments, and threats. For example, they may lack advanced threat detection, have limited visibility and scope, and struggle to integrate with other tools and infrastructure, especially cloud platforms.

AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape

New, more effective approaches involve AI-powered defense solutions that understand the digital business, reveal subtle deviations that indicate cyber-threats, and action autonomous, targeted responses.

[related-resource]

‍

About the author

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Blog

July 2, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

‍

Vulnerabilities are weaknesses in a system that can be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access or to disrupt normal operations. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (or CVEs) are a list of publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities that can be tracked and mitigated by the security community.

When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.

With a record-breaking 40,000 CVEs reported for 2024 and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) [1], anomaly-detection is essential for identifying these potential risks. The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems. Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.

‍For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.

Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.

Below are ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

Often, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender: attack vs patch.

Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security. After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.

Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].

The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].

Autonomous Response

Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.

For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.

This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.

In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.

For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.

Conclusion

By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.

Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Protecting Brazilian Organizations from Malware

Protecting Brazilian Organizations from Malware

Nationally Targeted Cyber Attacks

What is Guildma and how does it work?

Darktrace vs. Guildma

Attack Overview

Early indicators

Living-off-the-land with BITS abuse

Obfuscated Tooling Downloads

Darktrace SOC

Conclusion

References

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)

Customer Case Study: Leading Petrochemical Manufacturer

Tracking CVE-2025-31324: Darktrace’s detection of SAP Netweaver exploitation before and after disclosure

Blog

Identity

July 3, 2025

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

The latest on the identity security landscape

What is SaaS security?

1. Account Takeover (ATO)

2. Privilege escalation

3. Lateral movement

4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking

5. OAuth token abuse

6. Insider threats

7. Application Programming Interface (API)-based attacks

8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS

Protecting against these SaaS threats

AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape

Blog

July 2, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Below are ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

Autonomous Response

Conclusion

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs: