Blog
/

Inside the SOC

/
June 20, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
20
Jun 2024
This blog investigates the network-based activity detected by Darktrace in compromises stemming from the exploitation of a vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall devices, namely CVE-2024-3400.

Update:
Following the initial publication of this blog detailing exploitation campaigns utilizing the recently disclosed vulnerability, Darktrace analysts expanded the scope of the threat research investigation to identify potential earlier, pre-CVE disclosure, exploitation of CVE 2024-3400. While the majority of PAN-OS exploitation activity seen in the Darktrace customer base occurred after the public release of the CVE, Darktrace did also see tooling activity likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation prior to the vulnerability's disclosure. Unlike the post-CVE-release exploitation activity, which largely reflected indiscriminate, opportunistic targeting of unpatched systems, these pre-CVE release activities likely represented selective targeting by more calculated actors.

Between March 26 and 28, Darktrace identified two Palo Alto firewall devices within the network of a public sector customer making HTTP GET requests utilizing both cURL and wget user agents, versions of which were seen in later compromise activity in April. The devices requested multiple shell script files (.sh) from rare external IP addresses. These IPs are likely associated with an operational relay box (ORB) network[1]. The connections also occurred without a specified hostname lookup, suggesting the IPs were hardcoded into process code or already cached through unexpected running processes. One of the destination IPs was later confirmed by Palo Alto Network’s Unit 42 as associated with exploitation of the PAN-OS vulnerability[2]. This observed activity closely resembles post-exploitation activity seen on affected firewall devices in mid-April. However, unlike the more disruptive and noisier follow-on exploitation activity seen in post-CVE-release incidents, the pre-CVE-release case observed by Darktrace appears to have been much more discreet, likely due to the relevant threat actor's desire to remain undetected.

--

Introduction

Perimeter devices such as firewalls, virtual private networks (VPNs), and intrusion prevention systems (IPS), have long been the target of adversarial actors attempting to gain access to internal networks. However, recent publications and public service announcements by leading public institutions underscore the increased emphasis threat actors are putting on leveraging such products to initiate compromises.

A blog post by the UK National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) released in early 2024 notes that as improvements are made in the detection of phishing email payloads, threat actors have again begun re-focusing efforts to exploiting network edge devices, many of which are not secure by design, as a means of breach initiation.[i] As such, it comes as no surprise that new Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are constantly discovered that exploit such internet-exposed systems.

Darktrace analysts frequently observe the impacts of such CVEs first through their investigations via Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC). Beginning in April 2024, Darktrace’s SOC began handling alerts and customer requests for potential incidents involving Palo Alto Networks firewall devices.  Just days prior, external researchers publicly disclosed what would later be classified as PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability that affects several versions of Palo Alto Networks’ firewall operating system (PAN-OS), namely PAN-OS 11.1, 11.0 and 10.2. At the time, multiple Darktrace customers were unaware of the recently announced vulnerability.

The increase in observed SOC activity for Palo Alto firewall devices, coupled with the public announcement of the new CVE prompted Darktrace researchers to look for evidence of PAN-OS exploitation on customer networks. Researchers also focused on documenting post-exploitation activity from threat actors leveraging the recently disclosed vulnerability.

As such, this blog highlights the network-based behaviors involved in the CVE-2024-3400 attack chains investigated by Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams. Moreover, this investigation also provides a deeper insight into the post-compromise activities of threat actors leveraging the novel CVE.  Such insights will not only prove relevant for cybersecurity teams looking to inhibit compromises in this specific instance, but also highlights general patterns of behavior by threat actors utilizing such CVEs to target internet-facing systems.

CVE-2024-3400

In mid-April 2024, the Darktrace SOC observed an uptick in activity involving recurring patterns of malicious activity from Palo Alto firewall appliances. In response to this trend, Darktrace initiated a Threat Research investigation into such activity to try and identify common factors and indicators across seemingly parallel events. Shortly before the Threat Research team opened their investigation, external researchers provided public details of CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability in the GlobalProtect feature on Palo Alto Network firewall devices running PAN-OS versions: 10.2, 11.0, and 11.1.[ii]

In their proof of concept, security researchers at watchTowr demonstrated how an attacker can pass session ID (SESSID) values to these PAN-OS devices to request files that do not exist. In response, the system creates a zero-byte file with root privileges with the same name.[iii] Log data is passed on devices running telemetry services to external servers through command line functionality.[iv] Given this functionality, external actors could then request non-existent files in the SESSID containing command parameters which then be interpreted by the command line functionality.[v] Although researchers first believed the exploit could only be used against devices running telemetry services, this was later discovered to be untrue.[vi]

As details of CVE-2024-3400 began to surface, Darktrace’s Threat Research analysts quickly identified distinct overlaps in the observed activity on specific customer deployments and the post-exploitation behavior reported by external researchers. Given the parallels, Darktrace correlated the patterns of activity observed by the SOC team to exploitation of the newly discovered vulnerability in PAN-OS firewall appliances.

Campaign Analysis

Between the April and May 2024, Darktrace identified four main themes of post-exploitation activity involving Palo Alto Network firewall devices likely targeted via CVE-2024-3400: exploitation validation, shell command and tool retrieval, configuration data exfiltration, and ongoing command and control through encrypted channels and application protocols.

1. Exploit Validation and Further Vulnerability Enumeration

Many of the investigated attack chains began with malicious actors using out-of-band application security testing (OAST) services such as Interactsh to validate exploits against Palo Alto firewall appliances. This exploit validation activity typically resulted in devices attempting to contact unusual external endpoints (namely, subdomains of ‘oast[.]pro’, ‘oast[.]live’, ‘oast[.]site’, ‘oast[.]online’, ‘oast[.]fun’, ‘oast[.]me’, and ‘g3n[.]in’) associated with OAST services such as Interactsh. These services can be used by developers to inspect and debug internet traffic, but also have been easily abused by threat actors.

While attempted connections to OAST services do not alone indicate CVE-2024-3400 exploitation, the prevalence of such activities in observed Palo Alto firewall attack chains suggests widespread usage of these OAST services to validate initial access methods and possibly further enumerate systems for additional vulnerabilities.

Figure 1: Model alert log details showcasing a PAN-OS device making DNS queries for Interactsh domain names in what could be exploit validation, and/or further host enumeration.

2. Command and Payload Transmission

The most common feature across analyzed incidents was HTTP GET requests for shell scripts and Linux executable files (ELF) from external IPs associated with exploitation of the CVE. These HTTP requests were frequently initiated using the utilities, cURL and wget. On nearly every device likely targeted by threat actors leveraging the CVE, Darktrace analysts highlighted the retrieval of shell scripts that either featured enumeration commands, the removal of evidence of compromise activity, or commands to retrieve and start binaries on the destination device.

a) Shell Script Retrieval

Investigated devices commonly performed HTTP GET requests to retrieve shell command scripts. Despite this commonality, there was some degree of variety amongst the retrieved payloads and their affiliation with certain command tools. Several distinct types of shell commands and files were identified during the analyzed breaches. For example, some firewall devices were seen requesting .txt files associated with both Sliver C2, whose malicious use has previously been investigated by Darktrace, and Cobalt Strike. The target URIs of devices’ HTTP requests for these files included, “36shr.txt”, “2.txt”, “bin.txt”, and “data.txt”.

More interestingly, though, was the frequency with which analyzed systems requested bash scripts from rare external IP addresses, sometimes over non-standard ports for the HTTP protocol. These bash scripts would feature commands usually for the recipient system to check for certain existing files and or running processes. If the file did not exist, the system would then use cURL or wget to obtain content from external sites, change the permissions of the file, and then execute, sending output to dev/null as a means of likely defense evasion. In some scripts, the system would first make a new folder, and change directories prior to acquiring external content. Additionally, some samples highlighted multiple attempts at enumeration of the host system.

Figure 2: Packet capture (PCAP) data highlighting the incoming shell scripts providing instructions to use cURL to obtain external content, change the permissions of the file to execute, and then run the binary using the credentials and details provided.
Figure 3: PCAP data highlighting a variation of a shell script seen in an HTTP response processed by compromised devices. The script provides instructions to make a directory, retrieve and execute external content, and to hide the output.

Not every retrieved file that was not explicitly a binary featured bash scripts. Model alerts on some deployments also included file masquerading attempts by threat actors, whereby the Palo Alto firewall device would request content with a misleading extension in the URI. In one such instance, the requested URI, and HTTP response header suggests the returned content is an image/png, but the actual body response featured configuration parameters for a new daemon service to be run on the system.

Figure 4: PCAP data indicating configuration details likely for a new daemon on an investigated host. Such HTTP body content differs from the image/png extension within the request URI and declared content type in the HTTP response header.

Bash scripts analyzed across customer deployments also mirrored those identified by external security teams. External researchers previously reported on a series of identifiable shell commands in some cases of CVE-2024-3400 exploitation analyzed by their teams. Commands frequently involved a persistence mechanism they later labeled as the “UPSTYLE” backdoor.[vii]  This python-based program operates by reading commands hidden in error logs generated by 404 requests to the compromised server. The backdoor interprets the requests and writes the output to CSS files on the device. In many cases, Darktrace’s Threat Research team noted clear parallels between shell commands retrieved via HTTP GET request with those directly involving UPSTYLE. There were also matches with some URI patterns identified with the backdoor and requests observed on Darktrace deployments.

Figure 5: HTTP response data containing shell commands potentially relating to the UPSTYLE backdoor.

The presence of these UPSTYLE-related shell commands in response to Palo Alto firewall devices’ HTTP requests provides further evidence for initial exploitation of the CVE. Many bash scripts in examined cases interacted with folders and files likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation. These scripts frequently sought to delete contents of certain folders, such as “/opt/panlogs/tmp/device_telemetry/minute/*” where evidence of exploitation would likely reside. Moreover, recursive removal and copy commands were frequently seen targeting CSS files within the GlobalProtect folder, already noted as the vulnerable element within PAN-OS versions. This evidence is further corroborated by host-based forensic analysis conducted by external researchers.[viii]

Figure 6: PCAP data from investigated system indicating likely defense evasion by removing content on folders where CVE exploitation occurred.

b) Executable File Retrieval

Typically, following command processing, compromised Palo Alto firewall devices proceeded to make web requests for several unusual and potentially malicious files. Many such executables would be retrieved via processed scripts. While there a fair amount of variety in specific executables and binaries obtained, overall, these executables involved either further command tooling such as Sliver C2 or Cobalt Strike payloads, or unknown executables. Affected systems would also employ uncommon ports for HTTP connections, in a likely attempt to evade detection. Extensions featured within the URI, when visible, frequently noted ‘.elf’ (Linux executable) or ‘.exe’ payloads. While most derived hashes did not feature identifiable open-source intelligence (OSINT) details, some samples did have external information tying the sample to specific malware. For example, one such investigation featured a compromised system requesting a file with a hash identified as the Spark malware (backdoor) while another investigated case included a host requesting a known crypto-miner.

Figure 7: PCAP data highlighting compromised system retrieving ELF content from a rare external server running a simple Python HTTP server.
Figure 8: Darktrace model alert logs highlighting a device labeled “Palo Alto” making a HTTP request on an uncommon port for an executable file following likely CVE exploitation.

3. Configuration Data Exfiltration and Unusual HTTP POST Activity

During Darktrace’s investigations, there were also several instances of sensitive data exfiltration from PAN-OS firewall devices. Specifically, targeted systems were observed making HTTP POST requests via destination port 80 to rare external endpoints that OSINT sources associate with CVE-2024-3400 exploitation and activity. PCAP analysis of such HTTP requests revealed that they often contained sensitive configuration details of the targeted Palo Alto firewall devices, including the IP address, default gateway, domain, users, superusers, and password hashes, to name only a few. Threat actors frequently utilized Target URIs such as “/upload” in their HTTP POST requests of this multi-part boundary form data. Again, the User-Agent headers of these HTTP requests largely involved versions of cURL, typically 7.6.1, and wget.

Figure 9: PCAP datahighlighting Palo Alto Firewall device running vulnerable version of PAN-OSposting configuration details to rare external services via HTTP.
Figure 10: Model alert logs highlighting a Palo Alto firewall device performing HTTP POSTs to a rare external IP, without a prior hostname lookup, on an uncommon port using a URI associated with configuration data exfiltration across analyzed incidents
Figure 11: Examples of TargetURIs of HTTP POST requests involving base64 encoded IPs and potential dataegress.

4. Ongoing C2 and Miscellaneous Activity

Lastly, a smaller number of affected Palo Alto firewall devices were seen engaging in repeated beaconing and/or C2 communication via both encrypted and unencrypted protocols during and following the initial series of kill chain events. Such encrypted channels typically involved protocols such as TLS/SSL and SSH. This activity likely represented ongoing communication of targeted systems with attacker infrastructure. Model alerts typically highlighted unusual levels of repeated external connectivity to rare external IP addresses over varying lengths of time. In some investigated incidents, beaconing activity consisted of hundreds of thousands of connections over several days.

Figure 12:  Advanced search details highlighting high levels of ongoing external communication to endpoints associated with C2 infrastructure exploiting CVE-2024-3400.

Some beaconing activity appears to have involved the use of the WebSocket protocol, as indicated by the appearance of “/ws” URIs and validated within packet captures. Such connections were then upgraded to an encrypted connection.

Figure 13:  PCAP highlighting use of WebSocket protocol to engage in ongoing external connectivity to likely C2 infrastructure following CVE-2024-3400 compromise.

While not directly visible in all the deployments, some investigations also yielded evidence of attempts at further post-exploitation activity. For example, a handful of the analyzed binaries that were downloaded by examined devices had OSINT information suggesting a relation to crypto-mining malware strains. However, crypto-mining activity was not directly observed at this time. Furthermore, several devices also triggered model alerts relating to brute-forcing activity via several authentication protocols (namely, Keberos and RADIUS) during the time of compromise. This brute-force activity likely represented attempts to move laterally from the affected firewall system to deeper parts of the network.

Figure 14: Model alert logs noting repeated SSL connectivity to a Sliver C2-affiliated endpoint in what likely constitutes C2 connectivity.
Figure 15: Model alert logs featuring repeated RADIUS login failures from a compromised PAN-OS device using generic usernames, suggesting brute-force activity.

Conclusion

Between April and late May 2024, Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams identified several instances of likely PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400 exploitation across the Darktrace customer base. The subsequent investigation yielded four major themes that categorize the observed network-based post-exploitation activity. These major themes were exploit validation activity, retrieval of binaries and shell scripts, data exfiltration via HTTP POST activity, and ongoing C2 communication with rare external endpoints. The insights shared in this article will hopefully contribute to the ongoing discussion within the cybersecurity community about how to handle the likely continued exploitation of this vulnerability. Moreover, this article may also help cybersecurity professionals better respond to future exploitation of not only Palo Alto PAN-OS firewall devices, but also of edge devices more broadly.

Threat actors will continue to discover and leverage new CVEs impacting edge infrastructure. Since it is not yet known which CVEs threat actors will exploit next, relying on rules and signatures for the detection of exploitation of such CVEs is not a viable approach. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection, however, is well positioned to robustly adapt to threat actors’ changing methods, since although threat actors can change the CVEs they exploit, they cannot change the fact that their exploitation of CVEs results in highly unusual patterns of activity.

Credit to Adam Potter, Cyber Analyst, Sam Lister, Senior Cyber Analyst

Appendices ‍

Pre-CVE-Release IoCs

38.54[.]104[.]14/3.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/1.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/co.sh
38.54[.]104[.]14/

Indicators of Compromise

Indicator – Type – Description

94.131.120[.]80              IP             C2 Endpoint

94.131.120[.]80:53/?src=[REDACTED]=hour=root                  URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/?src=[REDACTED]min=root             URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]mips64            URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]x86_64             URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?deer               URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?host=IDS   URL        Payload

134.213.29[.]14/ldr[.]sh           URL        Payload

91ebcea4e6d34fd6e22f99713eaf67571b51ab01  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

185.243.115[.]250/snmpd2[.]elf        URL        Payload

23.163.0[.]111/com   URL        Payload

80.92.205[.]239/upload            URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43/upload            URL        C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com          Hostname         C2 Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com:63869/snmpgp      URL        Payload

146.70.87[.]237              IP address         C2 Endpoint

146.70.87[.]237:63867/snmpdd         URL        Payload

393c41b3ceab4beecf365285e8bdf0546f41efad   SHA1 File Hash               Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/r URL        Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/clientr     URL        Payload

138.68.44[.]59/manage            URL        Payload

72.5.43[.]90/patch      URL        Payload

217.69.3[.]218                 IP             C2 Endpoint

5e8387c24b75c778c920f8aa38e4d3882cc6d306                  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

217.69.3[.]218/snmpd[.]elf   URL        Payload

958f13da6ccf98fcaa270a6e24f83b1a4832938a    SHA1 File Hash               Payload

6708dc41b15b892279af2947f143af95fb9efe6e     SHA1 File Hash               Payload

dc50c0de7f24baf03d4f4c6fdf6c366d2fcfbe6c       SHA1 File Hash               Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/data[.]txt                  URL        Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/bin[.]txt   URL        Payload

bc9dc2e42654e2179210d98f77822723740a5ba6                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/123              URL        Payload

65283921da4e8b5eabb926e60ca9ad3d087e67fa                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

img.dxyjg[.]com/6hiryXjZN0Mx[.]sh                  URL        Payload

149.56.18[.]189/IC4nzNvf7w/2[.]txt                 URL        Payload

228d05fd92ec4d19659d71693198564ae6f6b117 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

54b892b8fdab7c07e1e123340d800e7ed0386600                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

165.232.121[.]217/rules          URL        Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request          URL        Payload

938faec77ebdac758587bba999e470785253edaf SHA1 File Hash               Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request63   URL        Payload

165.232.121[.]217:4443/termite/165.232.121[.]217             URL        Payload

92.118.112[.]60/snmpd2[.]elf               URL        Payload

2a90d481a7134d66e8b7886cdfe98d9c1264a386                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

92.118.112[.]60/36shr[.]txt   URL        Payload

d6a33673cedb12811dde03a705e1302464d8227f                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

c712712a563fe09fa525dfc01ce13564e3d98d67  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

091b3b33e0d1b55852167c3069afcdb0af5e5e79 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

5eebf7518325e6d3a0fd7da2c53e7d229d7b74b6                  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

183be7a0c958f5ed4816c781a2d7d5aa8a0bca9f SHA1 File Hash               Payload

e7d2f1224546b17d805617d02ade91a9a20e783e                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

e6137a15df66054e4c97e1f4b8181798985b480d SHA1 File Hash               Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/sea[.]png    URL        Payload

95.164.7[.]33/rules     URL        Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/lb64                URL        Payload

c2bc9a7657bea17792048902ccf2d77a2f50d2d7 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

923369bbb86b9a9ccf42ba6f0d022b1cd4f33e9d SHA1 File Hash               Payload

52972a971a05b842c6b90c581b5c697f740cb5b9                 SHA1 File Hash               Payload

95d45b455cf62186c272c03d6253fef65227f63a    SHA1 File Hash               Payload

322ec0942cef33b4c55e5e939407cd02e295973e                  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

6335e08873b4ca3d0eac1ea265f89a9ef29023f2  SHA1 File Hash               Payload

134.213.29[.]14              IP             C2 Endpoint

185.243.115[.]250       IP             C2 Endpoint

80.92.205[.]239              IP             C2 Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43              IP             C2 Endpoint

92.118.112[.]60              IP             C2 Endpoint

109.120.178[.]253       IP             C2 Endpoint

23.163.0[.]111                 IP             C2 Endpoint

72.5.43[.]90     IP             C2 Endpoint

165.232.121[.]217       IP             C2 Endpoint

8.210.242[.]112              IP             C2 Endpoint

149.56.18[.]189              IP             C2 Endpoint

95.164.7[.]33  IP             C2 Endpoint

138.68.44[.]59                 IP             C2 Endpoint

Img[.]dxyjg[.]com         Hostname         C2 Endpoint

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage

·      Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·      Device / New User Agent (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

·      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

·      Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

·      Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

·      Anomalous File / Suspicious Octet Stream Download

·      Anomalous File / Numeric File Download

·      Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

·      Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

·      Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

·      Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

·      Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

·      Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

·      Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

·      Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

·      Compromise / SSH Beacon

·      Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

·      Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

·      Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

·      Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

·      Compromise / Connection to Suspicious SSL Server

·      Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

·      Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

·      Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·      Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint

·      Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon

·      Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

·      Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

·      Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

·      Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

·      Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

·      Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

·      Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·      Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

·      Device / Multiple C2 Model Breaches

MITRE ATTACK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

Initial Access  T1190 – Exploiting Public-Facing Application

Execution           T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

Persistence      T1543.002 – Create or Modify System Processes: Systemd Service

Defense Evasion           T1070.004 – Indicator Removal: File Deletion

Credential Access       T1110.001 – Brute Force: Password Guessing

Discovery           T1083 – File and System Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

Collection         T1005 – Data From Local System

Command and Control            

T1071.001 – Application Layer Protocol:  Web Protocols

T1573.002 – Encrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

Exfiltration        

T1041 – Exfiltration over C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

References

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/china-nexus-espionage-orb-networks

[2] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cve-2024-3400/

[i]  https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/products-on-your-perimeter

[ii] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

[iii] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[iv] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[v] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[vi] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

[vii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/04/12/zero-day-exploitation-of-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-vulnerability-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

[viii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/05/15/detecting-compromise-of-cve-2024-3400-on-palo-alto-networks-globalprotect-devices/

‍

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.
Author
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
Get in touch
Share this article
Trending blogs
1
Darktrace is Positioned as a Leader in the IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Network Detection and Response 2024 Vendor Assessment
Dec 9, 2024
2
Cloud Security: Addressing Common CISO Challenges with Advanced Solutions
Nov 28, 2024
3
Preparing for 2025: Darktrace's Top 10 AI and Cybersecurity Predictions
Nov 3, 2024
4
Navigating Buying and Adoption Journeys for AI Cybersecurity Tools
Oct 15, 2024
5
How Darktrace won an email security trial by learning the business, not the breach
Oct 9, 2024

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

January 2, 2025

/

Inside the SOC

A Snake in the Net: Defending Against AiTM Phishing Threats and Mamba 2FA

Default blog imageDefault blog image

What are Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing kits?

Phishing-as-a-Service (PhaaS) platforms have significantly lowered the barriers to entry for cybercriminals, enabling a new wave of sophisticated phishing attacks. Among the most concerning developments in this landscape is the emergence of Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing kits, which enhance traditional phishing tactics by allowing attackers to intercept and manipulate communications in real-time. The PhaaS marketplace offers a wide variety of innovative capabilities, with basic services starting around USD 120 and more advanced services costing around USD 250 monthly [1].

These AiTM kits are designed to create convincing decoy pages that mimic legitimate login interfaces, often pre-filling user information to increase credibility. By acting as a man-in-the-middle, attackers can harvest sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, and even multi-factor authentication (MFA) tokens without raising immediate suspicion. This capability not only makes AiTM attacks more effective but also poses a significant challenge for cybersecurity defenses [2].

Mamba 2FA is one such example of a PhaaS strain with AiTM capabilities that has emerged as a significant threat to users of Microsoft 365 and other enterprise systems. Discovered in May 2024, Mamba 2FA employs advanced AiTM tactics to bypass MFA, making it particularly dangerous for organizations relying on these security measures.

What is Mamba 2FA?

Phishing Mechanism

Mamba 2FA employs highly convincing phishing pages that closely mimic legitimate Microsoft services like OneDrive and SharePoint. These phishing URLs are crafted with a specific structure, incorporating Base64-encoded parameters. This technique allows attackers to tailor the phishing experience to the targeted organization, making the deception more effective. If an invalid parameter is detected, users are redirected to a benign error page, which helps evade automated detection systems [5].

‍

Figure 1: Phishing page mimicking the Microsoft OneDrive service.

Real-Time Communication

A standout feature of Mamba 2FA is its use of the Socket.IO JavaScript library. This library facilitates real-time communication between the phishing page and the attackers' backend servers. As users input sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, and MFA tokens on the phishing site, this data is immediately relayed to the attackers, enabling swift unauthorized access [5].

Multi-Factor Authentication Bypass

Mamba 2FA specifically targets MFA methods that are not resistant to phishing, such as one-time passwords (OTPs) and push notifications. When a user enters their MFA token, it is captured in real-time by the attackers, who can then use it to access the victim's account immediately. This capability significantly undermines traditional security measures that rely on MFA for account protection.

Infrastructure and Distribution

The platform's infrastructure consists of two main components: link domains and relay servers. Link domains handle initial phishing attempts, while relay servers are responsible for stealing credentials and completing login processes on behalf of the attacker. The relay servers are designed to mask their IP addresses by using proxy services, making it more difficult for security systems to block them [3].

Evasion Techniques

To evade detection by security tools, Mamba 2FA employs several strategies:

  • ‍Sandbox Detection: The platform can detect if it is being analyzed in a sandbox environment and will redirect users to harmless pages like Google’s 404 error page.‍
  • Dynamic URL Generation: The URLs used in phishing attempts are frequently rotated and often short-lived to avoid being blacklisted by security solutions.‍
  • HTML Attachments: Phishing emails often include HTML attachments that appear benign but contain hidden JavaScript that redirects users to the phishing page [5].

Darktrace’s Coverage of Mamba 2FA

Starting in July 2024, the Darktrace Threat Research team detected a sudden rise in Microsoft 365 customer accounts logging in from unusual external sources. These accounts were accessed from an anomalous endpoint, 2607:5500:3000:fea[::]2, and exhibited unusual behaviors upon logging into Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) accounts. This activity strongly correlates with a phishing campaign using Mamba 2FA, first documented in late June 2024 and tracked as Mamba 2FA by Sekoia [2][3].

Darktrace / IDENTITY  was able to identify the initial stages of the Mamba 2FA campaign by correlating subtle anomalies, such as unusual SaaS login locations. Using AI based on peer group analysis, it detected unusual behavior associated with these attacks. By leveraging Autonomous Response actions, Darktrace was able to neutralize these threats in every instance of the campaign detected.

On July 23, a SaaS user was observed logging in from a rare ASN and IP address, 2607:5500:3000:fea::2, originating from the US and successfully passed through MFA authentication.

Figure 2: Model Alert Event Log showing Darktrace’s detection of a SaaS user mailbox logging in from an unusual source it correlates with Mamba 2FA relay server.

Almost an hour later, the SaaS user was observed logging in from another suspicious IP address, 45.133.172[.]86, linked to ASN AS174 COGENT-174. This IP, originating from the UK, successfully passed through MFA validation.

Following this unusual access, the SaaS user was notably observed reading emails and files that could contain sensitive payment and contract information. This behavior suggests that the attacker may have been leveraging contextual information about the target to craft further malicious phishing emails or fraudulent invoices. Subsequently, the user was detected creating a new mailbox rule titled 'fdsdf'. This rule was configured to redirect emails from a specific domain to the 'Deleted Items' folder and automatically mark them as read.

Implications of Unusual Email Rules

Such unusual email rule configurations are a common tactic employed by attackers. They often use these rules to automatically forward emails containing sensitive keywords—such as "invoice”, "payment", or "confidential"—to an external address. Additionally, these rules help conceal malicious activities, keeping them hidden from the target and allowing the attacker to operate undetected.

Figure 3: The model alert “SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule,” pertaining to the unusual email rule created by the SaaS user named ‘fdsdf’.

Blocking the action

A few minutes later, the SaaS user from the unusual IP address 45.133.172[.]86 was observed attempting to send an email with the subject “RE: Payments.” Subsequently, Darktrace detected the user engaging in activities that could potentially establish persistence in the compromised account, such as registering a new authenticator app. Recognizing this sequence of anomalous behaviors, Darktrace implemented an Autonomous Response inhibitor, disabling the SaaS user for two hours. This action effectively contained potential malicious activities, such as the distribution of phishing emails and fraudulent invoices, and gave the customer’s security team the necessary time to conduct a thorough investigation and implement appropriate security measures.

Figure 4: Device Event Log displaying Darktrace’s Autonomous Response taking action by blocking the SaaS account.
Figure 5: Darktrace / IDENTITY highlighting the 16 model alerts that triggered during the observed compromise.

In another example from mid-July, similar activities related to the campaign were observed on another customer network. A SaaS user was initially detected logging in from the unusual external endpoint 2607:5500:3000:fea[::]2.

Figure 6: The SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login model alert was triggered by an unusual login from a suspicious IP address linked to Mamba 2FA.

A few minutes later, in the same manner as demonstrated in the previous case, the actor was observed logging in from another rare endpoint, 102.68.111[.]240. However, this time it was from a source IP located in Lagos, Nigeria, which no other user on the network had been observed connecting from. Once logged in, the SaaS user updated the settings to "User registered Authenticator App with Notification and Code," a possible attempt to maintain persistence in the SaaS account.

Figure 7: Darktrace / IDENTITY highlighted the regular locations for the SaaS user. The rarity scores associated with the Mamba 2FA IP location and another IP located in Nigeria were classified as having very low regularity scores for this user.

Based on unusual patterns of user behavior, a Cyber AI Analyst Incident was also generated, detailing all potential account hijacking activities. Darktrace also applied an Autonomous Response action, disabling the user for over five hours. This swift action was crucial in preventing further unauthorized access, potential data breaches and further implications.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst Incident detailing the unusual activities related to the SaaS account hijacking.

Since the customer had subscribed to Darktrace Security Operations Centre (SOC) services, Darktrace analysts conducted an additional human investigation confirming the account compromise.

How Darktrace Combats Phishing Threats

The initial entry point for Mamba 2FA account compromises primarily involves phishing campaigns using HTML attachments and deceptive links. These phishing attempts are designed to mimic legitimate Microsoft services, such as OneDrive and SharePoint, making them appear authentic to unsuspecting users. Darktrace / EMAIL leverages multiple capabilities to analyze email content for known indicators of phishing. This includes looking for suspicious URLs, unusual attachments (like HTML files with embedded JavaScript), and signs of social engineering tactics commonly used in phishing campaigns like Mamba 2FA. With these capabilities, Darktrace successfully detected Mamba 2FA phishing emails in networks where this tool is integrated into the security layers, consequently preventing further implications and account hijacks of their users.

Mamba 2FA URL Structure and Domain Names

The URL structure used in Mamba 2FA phishing attempts is specifically designed to facilitate the capture of user credentials and MFA tokens while evading detection. These phishing URLs typically follow a pattern that incorporates Base64-encoded parameters, which play a crucial role in the operation of the phishing kit.

The URLs associated with Mamba 2FA phishing pages generally follow this structure [6]:

https://{domain}/{m,n,o}/?{Base64 string}

Below are some potential Mamba 2FA phishing emails, with the Base64 strings already decoded, that were classified as certain threats by Darktrace / EMAIL. This classification was based on identifying multiple suspicious characteristics, such as HTML attachments containing JavaScript code, emails from senders with no previous association with the recipients, analysis of redirect links, among others. These emails were autonomously blocked from being delivered to users' inboxes.

Figure 9: Darktrace / EMAIL highlighted a possible phishing email from Mamba 2FA, which was classified as a 100% anomaly.
Figure 10: Darktrace / EMAIL highlighted a URL that resembles the characteristics associated with Mamba 2FA.

Conclusion

The rise of PhaaS platforms and the advent of AiTM phishing kits represent a concerning evolution in cyber threats, pushing the boundaries of traditional phishing tactics and exposing significant vulnerabilities in current cybersecurity defenses. The ability of these attacks to effortlessly bypass traditional security measures like MFA underscores the need for more sophisticated, adaptive strategies to combat these evolving threats.

By identifying and responding to anomalous activities within Microsoft 365 accounts, Darktrace not only highlights the importance of comprehensive monitoring but also sets a new standard for proactive threat detection. Furthermore, the autonomous threat response capabilities and the exceptional proficiency of Darktrace / EMAIL in intercepting and neutralizing sophisticated phishing attacks illustrate a robust defense mechanism that can effectively safeguard users and maintain the integrity of digital ecosystems.

Credit to Patrick Anjos (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login
  • SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use
  • SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Suspicious Internal Exchange Activity
  • SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update
  • SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified
  • SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login, Sent Mail, Deleted Sent
  • SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage
  • SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual External Sources For SaaS Credential
  • IaaS / Compliance / Uncommon Azure External User Invite
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 External User Added to Group
  • SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login
  • SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified
  • SaaS/ Unusual Activity / Unusual MFA Auth and SaaS Activity
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents:

  • Possible Hijack of Office365 Account
  • Possible Hijack of AzureActiveDirectory Account
  • Possible Unsecured Office365 Resource

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC       Type    Description + Confidence

2607:5500:3000:fea[::]2 - IPv6 - Possible Mamba 2FA relay server

2607:5500:3000:1cab:[:]2 - IPv6 - Possible Mamba 2FA relay server

References

1.     https://securityaffairs.com/136953/cyber-crime/caffeine-phishing-platform.html

2.     https://any.run/cybersecurity-blog/analysis-of-the-phishing-campaign/

3.     https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-mamba-2fa-bypass-service-targets-microsoft-365-accounts/

4.     https://cyberinsider.com/microsoft-365-accounts-targeted-by-new-mamba-2fa-aitm-phishing-threat/

5.     https://blog.sekoia.io/mamba-2fa-a-new-contender-in-the-aitm-phishing-ecosystem/

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - Cloud Accounts

DISCOVERY - Cloud Service Dashboard

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Compromise Accounts

CREDENTIAL ACCESS - Steal Web Session Cookie

PERSISTENCE - Account Manipulation

PERSISTENCE - Outlook Rules

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Email Accounts

INITIAL ACCESS - Phishing

Continue reading
About the author
Patrick Anjos
Senior Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

December 19, 2024

/
No items found.

Darktrace Recognized in the Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Email Security Platforms

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Darktrace has been recognized in the first ever Gartner Magic Quadrant for Email Security Platforms (ESP).  As a Challenger, we have been recognized based on our Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision.

The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Email Security is designed to help organizations evaluate which email security solutions might be the best fit for their needs by providing a visual representation of the market vendors and the strengths and cautions of different vendors. We encourage our customers to read the full report to get the complete picture.

Darktrace / EMAIL has a unique AI approach to identifying threats, including NLP and behavioral analysis, instead of traditional security measures like signatures and sandboxing – providing protection against advanced attacks like Business Email Compromise (BEC) and spear phishing. We believe our AI-first approach delivers high-quality solutions that our customers trust, allowing them to stay ahead of sophisticated threats that other tools miss.  

We’re proud of Darktrace’s rapid growth, geographic scale, and ability to execute effectively in the email security market, which reflect our commitment to delivering high-quality, reliable solutions that meet the evolving needs of our customers.

What do we believe makes Darktrace the fastest growing email security solution on the market?

An AI-first approach to innovation: Catching the threats others miss

As one of the founders of the ICES category, Darktrace has a long history of innovation, backed by over 200 patents. While other email security solutions are only just starting to apply machine learning (ML) techniques to outdated methods like signature analysis, reputation lists, and sandboxing, Darktrace has redefined the approach to email threat detection with its pioneering AI-driven anomaly detection engine.

Traditional ESPs often miss advanced threats because they rely on rules and signatures that focus on payloads and blindly trust known sources. This approach requires constant updates and frequently fails to detect threats like Business Email Compromise and Spear Phishing. In contrast, Darktrace / EMAIL uses advanced anomaly detection to identify the most sophisticated threats by focusing on unusual patterns and behaviors. This innovative approach has consistently delivered superior detection, stopping on average 58% of the threats that other solutions in the security stack miss.1

But our AI-first approach doesn’t stop at the inbox. At Darktrace, we transcend the limitations of traditional email security by leveraging a platform that unifies insights across multiple domains, providing robust protection against multi-domain threats. Our award-winning solutions defend the most popular attack vectors, including email, messaging, network, and identity protection. By combining signals from all domains, we establish unique behavioral profiles for each device and user, significantly enhancing detection precision.  

This pioneering approach has led to introducing industry-first advancements like QR code analysis and automated incident investigations, alongside game-changing functionality including:

  • Microsoft Teams security with advanced messaging analysis: The ability to identify critical early phishing and insider threats across both email and Microsoft Teams messaging.  
  • AI analyst narratives for improved end user reporting: that reduces phishing investigations by 60% by exposing unique narratives that provide the context of each received email and give feedback to each employee as they interact with their mail.2
  • Mailbox Security Assistant: to perform advanced behavioral browser analysis and stop malicious links within webpages, detecting and remediating 70% more malicious phishing links than traditional tools.3  
  • AI based, autonomous data loss prevention: to immediately secure your organization from misdirected emails, insider threats, and data loss—both classified and unclassified- without any administrative overhead.

Customer trust that fuels exponential growth

With almost 5,000 customers in under 5 years, we've doubled the growth rate of other vendors in the email security market. Our rapid market penetration, fueled by customer satisfaction and pioneering technology, showcases our revolutionary approach and sets new industry standards. 

Darktrace’s exceptional customer retention is fueled by an unparalleled customer experience, extensive regional support, dedicated account teams, and cutting-edge scalable technology. We pride ourselves on having a global network with local expertise, consisting of 110 worldwide offices which provide local language and technical support to offer multilingual, in-house assistance to our customer base.

Check it out – Darktrace / EMAIL has the highest percentage of 5-star ratings with a 4.8 rating on Gartner® Peer Insights™.4

Supporting every stage of your email security journey

Darktrace / EMAIL supports your security maturity journey, from first time security buyers to mature security stacks looking to augment their existing ESPs – by handling advanced threats without extensive tuning. And unlike other solutions that create a siloed and parallel solution, it works harmoniously with native email providers to create a modern email security stack. That’s why Darktrace performs well with first-time email security buyers and has strong renewal rates.

Integrating with Microsoft and Google via API, we replace traditional Secure Email Gateways (SEGs) with a modern, comprehensive email security stack. By combining approaches, our solution merges attack-centric analysis, which learns attack patterns and threat intelligence, with a business-centric approach that understands user behavior and inbox activity to deliver a unified stack that defends the entire threat spectrum – leading Darktrace to be recognized as Microsoft Partner of the year UK 2024.  

Our user-friendly, self-learning AI solution requires minimal tuning and deployment, making it perfect for customers looking for a highly usable but lightly configurable solution that will accompany them throughout their lifetime as they mature their email security stack in line with the evolving threat landscape.

Learn more

Get complimentary access to the full Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Email Security Platforms here.

To learn more about Darktrace / EMAIL or to get a free demo, check out the product hub.

References

1 From September 1 – December 31 2023, 58% of the phishing emails analyzed by Darktrace / EMAIL had already passed through native spam filtering and email security controls. (Darktrace End of Year Threat Report 2023)

2 When customers deployed the Darktrace / EMAIL Outlook Add-in there was a 60% decrease in incorrectly reported phishing emails. Darktrace Internal Research, 2024

3 Once a user reports phishing that contains a link, an automated second level triage engages our link analysis infrastructure expanding the signals analyzed. Darktrace Internal Research, 2024

4 Based on 252 reviews as of 19th December 2024

Continue reading
About the author
Carlos Gray
Product Manager
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI