Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) has become one of the most popular methods of intrusion for attackers. This blog analyzes a rapid RDP attack which evolved from initial access to lateral movement in only seven hours.
Late on a Saturday evening, a physical security company in the US was targeted by an attack after cyber-criminals exploited an exposed RDP server. By Sunday, all the organization’s internal services had become unusable. This blog will unpack the attack and the dangers of open RDP ports.
With the shift to remote working, IT teams have relied on remote access tools to manage corporate devices and keep the show running. Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) is a Microsoft protocol which enables administrators to access desktop computers. Since it gives the user complete control over the device, it is a valuable entry point for threat actors.
‘RDP shops’ selling credentials on the Dark Web have been around for years. xDedic, one of the most notorious crime forums which once boasted over 80,000 hacked servers for sale, was finally shut down by the FBI and Europol in 2019, five years after it had been founded. Selling RDP access is a booming industry because it provides immediate entry into an organization, removing the need to design a phishing email, develop malware, or manually search for zero-days and open ports. For less than $5, an attacker can purchase direct access to their target organization.
In the months following the COVID-19 outbreak, the number of exposed RDP endpoints increased by 127%. RDP usage surged as companies adapted to teleworking conditions, and it became almost impossible for traditional security tools to distinguish between the daily legitimate application of RDP and its exploitation. This led to a dramatic spike in successful server-side attacks. According to the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, RDP is now the single most common attack vector used by cyber-criminals – particularly ransomware gangs.
Breakdown of an RDP compromise
Initial intrusion
In this real-world attack, the target organization had around 7,500 devices active, one of which was an Internet-facing server with TCP port 3389 – the default port for RDP – open. In other words, the port was configured to accept network packets.
Darktrace detected a successful incoming RDP connection from a rare external endpoint, which utilized a suspicious authentication cookie. Given that the device was subject to a large volume of external RDP connections, it is likely the attacker brute-forced their way in, though they could have used an exploit or bought credentials off the Dark Web.
As incoming connections on port 3389 to this service were commonplace and expected as part of normal business, the connection was not flagged by any other security tool.
Figure 1: Timeline of the attack — the total dwell time was one day
Internal reconnaissance
Following the initial compromise, the device was seen engaging in network scanning activity within its own subnet to escalate access. After the scan, the device made Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) connections to multiple devices over DCE-RPC, which triggered multiple Darktrace alerts.
Figure 2: The graph highlights spikes in unusual activity events along with an accompanying large volume of model breaches
Command and control (C2)
The device then made a new RDP connection on a non-standard port, using an administrative authentication cookie to an endpoint which had never been seen on the network. Tor connections were observed after this point, indicating potential C2 communication.
Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst - Darktrace's AI investigation tool - breaks down the different stages of the incident
Lateral movement
The attacker then attempted lateral movement via SMB service control pipes and PsExec to five devices within the breach device’s subnet, which were likely identified during the network scan.
By using native Windows admin tools (PsExec, WMI, and svcctl) for lateral movement, the attacker managed to ‘live off the land’, evading detection from the rest of the security stack.
Ask the Expert
The organization’s own internal services were unavailable, so they reached out to Darktrace’s 24/7 Ask the Expert service. Darktrace’s cyber experts quickly determined the scope and nature of the compromise using the AI and began the remediation process. As a result, the threat was neutralized before the attacker could achieve their objectives, which may have included crypto-mining, deploying ransomware, or exfiltrating sensitive data.
RDP vulnerability: Dangers of exposed servers
Prior to the events described above, Darktrace had observed incoming connections on RDP and SQL from a large variety of rare external endpoints, suggesting that the server had been probed many times before. When unnecessary services are left open to the Internet, compromise is inevitable – it is simply a matter of time.
This is especially true of RDP. In this case, the attacker managed to successfully carry out reconnaissance and open external communication all through their initial access to the RDP port. Threat actors are always looking for a way in, so what could be considered a compliance issue can easily, and quickly, devolve into compromise.
Out of control remote control
The attack happened out of hours – at a time when the security team were off work enjoying their Saturday evenings – and it progressed at remarkable speed, escalating from initial intrusion to lateral movement in less than seven hours. It is very common for attackers to exploit these human vulnerabilities, moving fast and remaining undetected until the IT team are back at their desks on Monday morning.
It is for this reason that a security solution which does not sleep – and which can detect and autonomously respond to threats around the clock – is critical. Self-Learning AI can keep up with threats which escalate at machine speed, stopping them at every turn.
Thanks to Darktrace analyst Steven Sosa for his insights on the above threat find.
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
ABOUT ThE AUTHOR
Oakley Cox
Analyst Technical Director, APAC
Oakley is a technical expert with 5 years’ experience as a Cyber Analyst. After leading a team of Cyber Analysts at the Cambridge headquarters, he relocated to New Zealand and now oversees the defense of critical infrastructure and industrial control systems across the APAC region. His research into cyber-physical security has been published by Cyber Security journals and CISA. Oakley is GIAC certified in Response and Industrial Defense (GRID), and has a Doctorate (PhD) from the University of Oxford.
A Thorn in Attackers’ Sides: How Darktrace Uncovered a CACTUS Ransomware Infection
24
Apr 2024
What is CACTUS Ransomware?
In May 2023, Kroll Cyber Threat Intelligence Analysts identified CACTUS as a new ransomware strain that had been actively targeting large commercial organizations since March 2023 [1]. CACTUS ransomware gets its name from the filename of the ransom note, “cAcTuS.readme.txt”. Encrypted files are appended with the extension “.cts”, followed by a number which varies between attacks, e.g. “.cts1” and “.cts2”.
As the cyber threat landscape adapts to ever-present fast-paced technological change, ransomware affiliates are employing progressively sophisticated techniques to enter networks, evade detection and achieve their nefarious goals.
How does CACTUS Ransomware work?
In the case of CACTUS, threat actors have been seen gaining initial network access by exploiting Virtual Private Network (VPN) services. Once inside the network, they may conduct internal scanning using tools like SoftPerfect Network Scanner, and PowerShell commands to enumerate endpoints, identify user accounts, and ping remote endpoints. Persistence is maintained by the deployment of various remote access methods, including legitimate remote access tools like Splashtop, AnyDesk, and SuperOps RMM in order to evade detection, along with malicious tools like Cobalt Strike and Chisel. Such tools, as well as custom scripts like TotalExec, have been used to disable security software to distribute the ransomware binary. CACTUS ransomware is unique in that it adopts a double-extortion tactic, stealing data from target networks and then encrypting it on compromised systems [2].
At the end of November 2023, cybersecurity firm Arctic Wolf reported instances of CACTUS attacks exploiting vulnerabilities on the Windows version of the business analytics platform Qlik, specifically CVE-2023-41266, CVE-2023-41265, and CVE-2023-48365, to gain initial access to target networks [3]. The vulnerability tracked as CVE-2023-41266 can be exploited to generate anonymous sessions and perform HTTP requests to unauthorized endpoints, whilst CVE-2023-41265 does not require authentication and can be leveraged to elevate privileges and execute HTTP requests on the backend server that hosts the application [2].
Darktrace’s Coverage of CACTUS Ransomware
In November 2023, Darktrace observed malicious actors leveraging the aforementioned method of exploiting Qlik to gain access to the network of a customer in the US, more than a week before the vulnerability was reported by external researchers.
Here, Qlik vulnerabilities were successfully exploited, and a malicious executable (.exe) was detonated on the network, which was followed by network scanning and failed Kerberos login attempts. The attack culminated in the encryption of numerous files with extensions such as “.cts1”, and SMB writes of the ransom note “cAcTuS.readme.txt” to multiple internal devices, all of which was promptly identified by Darktrace DETECT™.
While traditional rules and signature-based detection tools may struggle to identify the malicious use of a legitimate business platform like Qlik, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI was able to confidently identify anomalous use of the tool in a CACTUS ransomware attack by examining the rarity of the offending device’s surrounding activity and comparing it to the learned behavior of the device and its peers.
Unfortunately for the customer in this case, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not enabled in autonomous response mode during their encounter with CACTUS ransomware meaning that attackers were able to successfully escalate their attack to the point of ransomware detonation and file encryption. Had RESPOND been configured to autonomously act on any unusual activity, Darktrace could have prevented the attack from progressing, stopping the download of any harmful files, or the encryption of legitimate ones.
Cactus Ransomware Attack Overview
Holiday periods have increasingly become one of the favoured times for malicious actors to launch their attacks, as they can take advantage of the festive downtime of organizations and their security teams, and the typically more relaxed mindset of employees during this period [4].
Following this trend, in late November 2023, Darktrace began detecting anomalous connections on the network of a customer in the US, which presented multiple indicators of compromise (IoCs) and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) associated with CACTUS ransomware. The threat actors in this case set their attack in motion by exploiting the Qlik vulnerabilities on one of the customer’s critical servers.
Darktrace observed the server device making beaconing connections to the endpoint “zohoservice[.]net” (IP address: 45.61.147.176) over the course of three days. This endpoint is known to host a malicious payload, namely a .zip file containing the command line connection tool PuttyLink [5].
Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to autonomously identify over 1,000 beaconing connections taking place on the customer’s network and group them together, in this case joining the dots in an ongoing ransomware attack. AI Analyst recognized that these repeated connections to highly suspicious locations were indicative of malicious command-and-control (C2) activity.
Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Log showing the offending device making over 1,000 connections to the suspicious hostname “zohoservice[.]net” over port 8383, within a specific period.
The infected device was then observed downloading the file “putty.zip” over a HTTP connection using a PowerShell user agent. Despite being labelled as a .zip file, Darktrace’s detection capabilities were able to identify this as a masqueraded PuttyLink executable file. This activity resulted in multiple Darktrace DETECT models being triggered. These models are designed to look for suspicious file downloads from endpoints not usually visited by devices on the network, and files whose types are masqueraded, as well as the anomalous use of PowerShell. This behavior resembled previously observed activity with regards to the exploitation of Qlik Sense as an intrusion technique prior to the deployment of CACTUS ransomware [5].
Figure 2: The downloaded file’s URI highlighting that the file type (.exe) does not match the file's extension (.zip). Information about the observed PowerShell user agent is also featured.
Following the download of the masqueraded file, Darktrace observed the initial infected device engaging in unusual network scanning activity over the SMB, RDP and LDAP protocols. During this activity, the credential, “service_qlik” was observed, further indicating that Qlik was exploited by threat actors attempting to evade detection. Connections to other internal devices were made as part of this scanning activity as the attackers attempted to move laterally across the network.
Figure 3: Numerous failed connections from the affected server to multiple other internal devices over port 445, indicating SMB scanning activity.
The compromised server was then seen initiating multiple sessions over the RDP protocol to another device on the customer’s network, namely an internal DNS server. External researchers had previously observed this technique in CACTUS ransomware attacks where an RDP tunnel was established via Plink [5].
A few days later, on November 24, Darktrace identified over 20,000 failed Kerberos authentication attempts for the username “service_qlik” being made to the internal DNS server, clearly representing a brute-force login attack. There is currently a lack of open-source intelligence (OSINT) material definitively listing Kerberos login failures as part of a CACTUS ransomware attack that exploits the Qlik vulnerabilities. This highlights Darktrace’s ability to identify ongoing threats amongst unusual network activity without relying on existing threat intelligence, emphasizing its advantage over traditional security detection tools.
Figure 4: Kerberos login failures being carried out by the initial infected device. The destination device detected was an internal DNS server.
In the month following these failed Kerberos login attempts, between November 26 and December 22, Darktrace observed multiple internal devices encrypting files within the customer’s environment with the extensions “.cts1” and “.cts7”. Devices were also seen writing ransom notes with the file name “cAcTuS.readme.txt” to two additional internal devices, as well as files likely associated with Qlik, such as “QlikSense.pdf”. This activity detected by Darktrace confirmed the presence of a CACTUS ransomware infection that was spreading across the customer’s network.
Figure 5: The model, 'Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB', triggered in response to SMB file writes of the ransom note, ‘cAcTuS.readme.txt’, that was observed on the customer’s network.
Figure 6: CACTUS ransomware extensions, “.cts1” and “.cts7”, being appended to files on the customer’s network.
Following this initial encryption activity, two affected devices were observed attempting to remove evidence of this activity by deleting the encrypted files.
Figure 7: Attackers attempting to remove evidence of their activity by deleting files with appendage “.cts1”.
Conclusion
In the face of this CACTUS ransomware attack, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection enabled it to quickly identify multiple stages of the cyber kill chain occurring in the customer’s environment. These stages ranged from ‘initial access’ by exploiting Qlik vulnerabilities, which Darktrace was able to detect before the method had been reported by external researchers, to ‘actions on objectives’ by encrypting files. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI was also able to detect a previously unreported stage of the attack: multiple Kerberos brute force login attempts.
If Darktrace’s autonomous response capability, RESPOND, had been active and enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of this attack, it would have been able to take swift mitigative action to shut down such suspicious activity as soon as it was identified by DETECT, effectively containing the ransomware attack at the earliest possible stage.
Learning a network’s ‘normal’ to identify deviations from established patterns of behaviour enables Darktrace’s identify a potential compromise, even one that uses common and often legitimately used administrative tools. This allows Darktrace to stay one step ahead of the increasingly sophisticated TTPs used by ransomware actors.
Credit to Tiana Kelly, Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead, Anna Gilbertson, Cyber Analyst
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: How AI will impact the cyber threat landscape in 2024
22
Apr 2024
About the AI Cybersecurity Report
We surveyed 1,800 CISOs, security leaders, administrators, and practitioners from industries around the globe. Our research was conducted to understand how the adoption of new AI-powered offensive and defensive cybersecurity technologies are being managed by organizations.
Are organizations feeling the impact of AI-powered cyber threats?
Nearly three-quarters (74%) state AI-powered threats are now a significant issue. Almost nine in ten (89%) agree that AI-powered threats will remain a major challenge into the foreseeable future, not just for the next one to two years.
However, only a slight majority (56%) thought AI-powered threats were a separate issue from traditional/non AI-powered threats. This could be the case because there are few, if any, reliable methods to determine whether an attack is AI-powered.
Identifying exactly when and where AI is being applied may not ever be possible. However, it is possible for AI to affect every stage of the attack lifecycle. As such, defenders will likely need to focus on preparing for a world where threats are unique and are coming faster than ever before.
Are security stakeholders concerned about AI’s impact on cyber threats and risks?
The results from our survey showed that security practitioners are concerned that AI will impact organizations in a variety of ways. There was equal concern associated across the board – from volume and sophistication of malware to internal risks like leakage of proprietary information from employees using generative AI tools.
What this tells us is that defenders need to prepare for a greater volume of sophisticated attacks and balance this with a focus on cyber hygiene to manage internal risks.
One example of a growing internal risks is shadow AI. It takes little effort for employees to adopt publicly-available text-based generative AI systems to increase their productivity. This opens the door to “shadow AI”, which is the use of popular AI tools without organizational approval or oversight. Resulting security risks such as inadvertent exposure of sensitive information or intellectual property are an ever-growing concern.
Are organizations taking strides to reduce risks associated with adoption of AI in their application and computing environment?
71.2% of survey participants say their organization has taken steps specifically to reduce the risk of using AI within its application and computing environment.
16.3% of survey participants claim their organization has not taken these steps.
These findings are good news. Even as enterprises compete to get as much value from AI as they can, as quickly as possible, they’re tempering their eager embrace of new tools with sensible caution.
Still, responses varied across roles. Security analysts, operators, administrators, and incident responders are less likely to have said their organizations had taken AI risk mitigation steps than respondents in other roles. In fact, 79% of executives said steps had been taken, and only 54% of respondents in hands-on roles agreed. It seems that leaders believe their organizations are taking the needed steps, but practitioners are seeing a gap.
Do security professionals feel confident in their preparedness for the next generation of threats?
A majority of respondents (six out of every ten) believe their organizations are inadequately prepared to face the next generation of AI-powered threats.
The survey findings reveal contrasting perceptions of organizational preparedness for cybersecurity threats across different regions and job roles. Security administrators, due to their hands-on experience, express the highest level of skepticism, with 72% feeling their organizations are inadequately prepared. Notably, respondents in mid-sized organizations feel the least prepared, while those in the largest companies feel the most prepared.
Regionally, participants in Asia-Pacific are most likely to believe their organizations are unprepared, while those in Latin America feel the most prepared. This aligns with the observation that Asia-Pacific has been the most impacted region by cybersecurity threats in recent years, according to the IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index.
The optimism among Latin American respondents could be attributed to lower threat volumes experienced in the region, but it's cautioned that this could change suddenly (1).
What are biggest barriers to defending against AI-powered threats?
The top-ranked inhibitors center on knowledge and personnel. However, issues are alluded to almost equally across the board including concerns around budget, tool integration, lack of attention to AI-powered threats, and poor cyber hygiene.
The cybersecurity industry is facing a significant shortage of skilled professionals, with a global deficit of approximately 4 million experts (2). As organizations struggle to manage their security tools and alerts, the challenge intensifies with the increasing adoption of AI by attackers. This shift has altered the demands on security teams, requiring practitioners to possess broad and deep knowledge across rapidly evolving solution stacks.
Educating end users about AI-driven defenses becomes paramount as organizations grapple with the shortage of professionals proficient in managing AI-powered security tools. Operationalizing machine learning models for effectiveness and accuracy emerges as a crucial skill set in high demand. However, our survey highlights a concerning lack of understanding among cybersecurity professionals regarding AI-driven threats and the use of AI-driven countermeasures indicating a gap in keeping pace with evolving attacker tactics.
The integration of security solutions remains a notable problem, hindering effective defense strategies. While budget constraints are not a primary inhibitor, organizations must prioritize addressing these challenges to bolster their cybersecurity posture. It's imperative for stakeholders to recognize the importance of investing in skilled professionals and integrated security solutions to mitigate emerging threats effectively.
1. IBM, X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2024, Available at: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/L0GKXDWJ
2. ISC2, Cybersecurity Workforce Study 2023, Available at: https://media.isc2.org/-/media/Project/ISC2/Main/Media/ documents/research/ISC2_Cybersecurity_Workforce_Study_2023.pdf?rev=28b46de71ce24e6ab7705f6e3da8637e
![Cyber AI Analyst Incident Log showing the offending device making over 1,000 connections to the suspicious hostname “zohoservice[.]net” over port 8383, within a specific period.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/662971c1cf09890fd46729a1_Screenshot%202024-04-24%20at%201.55.10%20PM.png)
