January 2, 2023

Analyst's Guide to the ActiveAI Security Platform

Understand Darktrace's full functionality in preventing and detecting cyber threats, and how analysts can benefit from Darktrace's AI technology.

Written by

Gabriel Hernandez

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

Gabriel Hernandez

Jan 2023

On countless occasions, Darktrace has observed cyber-attacks disrupting business operations by using a vulnerable internet-facing asset as a starting point for infection. Finding that one entry point could be all a threat actor needs to compromise an entire organization. With the objective to prevent such vulnerabilities from being exploited, Darktrace’s latest product family includes Attack Surface Management (ASM) to continuously monitor customer attack surfaces for risks, high-impact vulnerabilities and potential external threats.

An attack surface is the sum of exposed and internet-facing assets and the associated risks a hacker can exploit to carry out a cyber-attack. Darktrace / Attack Surface Management uses AI to understand what external assets belong to an organization by searching beyond known servers, networks, and IPs across public data sources.

This blog discusses how Darktrace / Attack Surface Management could combine with Darktrace / NETWORK to find potential vulnerabilities and subsequent exploitation within network traffic. In particular, this blog will investigate the assets of a large Australian company which operates in the environmental sciences industry.

Introducing ASM

In order to understand the link between PREVENT and DETECT, the core features of ASM should first be showcased.

When facing the landing page, the UI highlights the number of registered assets identified (with zero prior deployment). The tool then organizes the information gathered online in an easily assessable manner. Analysts can see vulnerable assets according to groupings like ‘Misconfiguration’, ‘Social Media Threat’ and ‘Information Leak’ which shows the type of risk posed to said assets.

*Figure 2: The Network tab identifies the external facing assets and their hierarchy in a graphical format.*

The Network tab helps analysts to filter further to take more rapid action on the most vulnerable assets and interact with them to gather more information. The image below has been filtered by assets with the ‘highest scoring’ risk.

*Figure 3: PREVENT/ASM showing a high scoring asset.*

Interacting with the showcased asset selected above allows pivoting to the following page, this provides more granular information around risk metrics and the asset itself. This includes a more detailed description of what the vulnerabilities are, as well as general information about the endpoint including its location, URL, web status and technologies used.

*Figure 4: Asset pages for an external web page at risk.*

Filtering does not end here. Within the Insights tab, analysts can use the search bar to craft personalized queries and narrow their focus to specific types of risk such as vulnerable software, open ports, or potential cybersquatting attempts from malicious actors impersonating company brands. Likewise, filters can be made for assets that may be running software at risk from a new CVE.

*Figure 5: Insights page with custom queries to search for assets at risk of Log4J exploitation.*

For each of the entries that can be read on the left-hand side, a query that could resemble the one on the top right exists. This allows users to locate specific findings beyond those risks that are categorized as critical. These broader searches can range from viewing the inventory as a whole, to seeing exposed APIs, expiring certificates, or potential shadow IT. Queries will return a list with all the assets matching the given criteria, and users can then explore them further by viewing the asset page as seen in Figure 4.

Compromise Scenario‍

Now that a basic explanation of PREVENT/ASM has been given, this scenario will continue to look at the Australian customer but show how Darktrace can follow a potential compromise of an at-risk ASM asset into the network.

Having certain ports open could make it particularly easy for an attacker to access an internet-facing asset, particularly those sensitive ones such as 3389 (RDP), 445 (SMB), 135 (RPC Epmapper). Alternatively, a vulnerable program with a well-known exploitation could also aid the task for threat actors.

In this specific case, PREVENT/ASM identified multiple external assets that belonged to the customer with port 3389 open. One of these assets can be labelled as ‘Server A'. Whilst RDP connections can be protected with a password for a given user, if those were weak to bruteforce, it could be an easy task for an attacker to establish an admin session remotely to the victim machine.

*Figure 6: Insights tab query filtering for open RDP port 3389.*

N or zero-day vulnerabilities associated with the protocol could also be exploited; for example, CVE-2019-0708 exploits an RCE vulnerability in Remote Desktop where an unauthenticated attacker connects to the target system using RDP and sends specially crafted requests. This vulnerability is pre-authentication and requires no user interaction.

Certain protocols are known to be sensitive according to the control they provide on a destination machine. These are developed for administrative purposes but have the potential to ease an attacker’s job if accessible. Thanks to PREVENT/ASM, security teams can anticipate such activity by having visibility over those assets that could be vulnerable. If this RDP were successfully exploited, DETECT/Network would then highlight the unusual activity performed by the compromised device as the attacker moved through the kill chain.

There are several models within Darktrace which monitor for risks against internet facing assets. For example, ‘Server A’ which had an open 3389 port on ASM registered the following model breach in the network:

*Figure 7: Breach log showing Anomalous Server Activity / New Internet Facing System model for ‘Server A’.*

A model like this could highlight a misconfiguration that has caused an internal device to become unexpectedly open to the internet. It could also suggest a compromised device that has now been opened to the internet to allow further exploitation. If the result of a sudden change, such an asset would also be detected by ASM and highlighted within the ‘New Assets’ part of the Insights page. Ultimately this connection was not malicious, however it shows the ability for security teams to track between PREVENT to DETECT and verify an initial compromise.

A mock scenario can take this further. Using the continued example of an open port 3389 intrusion, new RDP cookies may be registered (perhaps even administrative). This could enable further lateral movement and eventual privilege escalation. Various DETECT models would highlight actions of this nature, two examples are below:

*Figure 8: RDP Lateral Movement related model breaches on customer.*

Alongside efforts to move laterally, Darktrace may find attempts at reconnaissance or C2 communication from compromised internet facing devices by looking at Darktrace DETECT model breaches including ‘Network Scan’, ‘SMB Scanning’ and ‘Active Directory Reconnaissance’. In this case the network also saw repeated failed internal connections followed by the ‘LDAP Brute-Force Activity model’ around the same time as the RDP activity. Had this been malicious, DETECT would then continue to provide visibility into the C2 and eventual malware deployment stages.

With the combined visibility of both tools, Darktrace users have support for greater triage across the whole kill chain. For customers also using RESPOND, actions will be taken from the DETECT alerting to subsequently block malicious activity. In doing so, inputs will have fed across the whole Cyber AI Loop by having learnt from PREVENT, DETECT and RESPOND.

This feed from the Cyber AI Loop works both ways. In Figure 9, below, a DETECT model breach shows a customer alert from an internet facing device:

*Figure 9: Model breach on internet-facing server.*

This breach took place because an established server suddenly started serving HTTP sessions on a port commonly used for HTTPS (secure) connections. This could be an indicator that a criminal may have gained control of the device and set it to listen on the given port and enable direct connection to the attacker’s machine or command and control server. This device can be viewed by an analyst in its Darktrace PREVENT version, where new metrics can be observed from a perspective outside of the network.

*Figure 10: Assets page for server. PREVENT shows few risks for this asset.*

This page reports the associated risks that could be leveraged by malicious actors. In this case, the events are not correlated, but in the event of an attack, this backwards pivoting could help to pinpoint a weak link in the chain and show what allowed the attacker into the network. In doing so this supports the remediation and recovery process. More importantly though, it allows organizations to be proactive and take appropriate security measures required before it could ever be exploited.

Concluding Thoughts

The combination of Darktrace / Attack Surface Management with Darktrace / NETWORK provides wide and in-depth visibility over a company’s infrastructure. Through the Darktrace platform, this coverage is continually learning and updating based on inputs from both. ASM can show companies the potential weaknesses that a cybercriminal could take advantage of. In turn this allows them to prioritize patching, updating, and management of their internet facing assets. At the same time, Darktrace will show the anomalous behavior of any of these internet facing devices, enabling security teams or respond to stop an attack. Use of these tools by an analyst together is effective in gaining informed security data which can be fed back to IT management. Leveraging this allows normal company operations to be performed without the worry of cyber disruption.

Credit to: Emma Foulger, Senior Cyber Analyst at Darktrace

Written by

Gabriel Hernandez

Inside the SOC

Written by

Gabriel Hernandez

•

September 30, 2026

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

•

September 24, 2026

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

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