Blog
Comparando diferentes abordagens de inteligência artificial à segurança de e-mail
Innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) have fundamentally changed the email security landscape in recent years, but it can often be hard to determine what makes one system different to the next. In reality, under that umbrella term there exists a significant distinction in approach which may determine whether the technology provides genuine protection or simply a perceived notion of defense.
One backward-looking approach involves feeding a machine thousands of emails that have already been deemed to be malicious, and training it to look for patterns in these emails in order to spot future attacks. The second approach uses an AI system to analyze the entirety of an organization’s real-world data, enabling it to establish a notion of what is ‘normal’ and then spot subtle deviations indicative of an attack.
In the below, we compare the relative merits of each approach, with special consideration to novel attacks that leverage the latest news headlines to bypass machine learning systems trained on data sets. Training a machine on previously identified ‘known bads’ is only advantageous in certain, specific contexts that don’t change over time: to recognize the intent behind an email, for example. However, an effective email security solution must also incorporate a self-learning approach that understands ‘normal’ in the context of an organization in order to identify unusual and anomalous emails and catch even the novel attacks.
Signatures – a backward-looking approach
Over the past few decades, cyber security technologies have looked to mitigate risk by preventing previously seen attacks from occurring again. In the early days, when the lifespan of a given strain of malware or the infrastructure of an attack was in the range of months and years, this method was satisfactory. But the approach inevitably results in playing catch-up with malicious actors: it always looks to the past to guide detection for the future. With decreasing lifetimes of attacks, where a domain could be used in a single email and never seen again, this historic-looking signature-based approach is now being widely replaced by more intelligent systems.
Training a machine on ‘bad’ emails
The first AI approach we often see in the wild involves harnessing an extremely large data set with thousands or millions of emails. Once these emails have come through, an AI is trained to look for common patterns in malicious emails. The system then updates its models, rules set, and blacklists based on that data.
This method certainly represents an improvement to traditional rules and signatures, but it does not escape the fact that it is still reactive, and unable to stop new attack infrastructure and new types of email attacks. It is simply automating that flawed, traditional approach – only instead of having a human update the rules and signatures, a machine is updating them instead.
Relying on this approach alone has one basic but critical flaw: it does not enable you to stop new types of attacks that it has never seen before. It accepts that there has to be a ‘patient zero’ – or first victim – in order to succeed.
The industry is beginning to acknowledge the challenges with this approach, and huge amounts of resources – both automated systems and security researchers – are being thrown into minimizing its limitations. This includes leveraging a technique called “data augmentation” that involves taking a malicious email that slipped through and generating many “training samples” using open-source text augmentation libraries to create “similar” emails – so that the machine learns not only the missed phish as ‘bad’, but several others like it – enabling it to detect future attacks that use similar wording, and fall into the same category.
But spending all this time and effort into trying to fix an unsolvable problem is like putting all your eggs in the wrong basket. Why try and fix a flawed system rather than change the game altogether? To spell out the limitations of this approach, let us look at a situation where the nature of the attack is entirely new.
The rise of ‘fearware’
When the global pandemic hit, and governments began enforcing travel bans and imposing stringent restrictions, there was undoubtedly a collective sense of fear and uncertainty. As explained previously in this blog, cyber-criminals were quick to capitalize on this, taking advantage of people’s desire for information to send out topical emails related to COVID-19 containing malware or credential-grabbing links.
These emails often spoofed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or later on, as the economic impact of the pandemic began to take hold, the Small Business Administration (SBA). As the global situation shifted, so did attackers’ tactics. And in the process, over 130,000 new domains related to COVID-19 were purchased.
Let’s now consider how the above approach to email security might fare when faced with these new email attacks. The question becomes: how can you train a model to look out for emails containing ‘COVID-19’, when the term hasn’t even been invented yet?
And while COVID-19 is the most salient example of this, the same reasoning follows for every single novel and unexpected news cycle that attackers are leveraging in their phishing emails to evade tools using this approach – and attracting the recipient’s attention as a bonus. Moreover, if an email attack is truly targeted to your organization, it might contain bespoke and tailored news referring to a very specific thing that supervised machine learning systems could never be trained on.
This isn’t to say there’s not a time and a place in email security for looking at past attacks to set yourself up for the future. It just isn’t here.
Spotting intention
Darktrace uses this approach for one specific use which is future-proof and not prone to change over time, to analyze grammar and tone in an email in order to identify intention: asking questions like ‘does this look like an attempt at inducement? Is the sender trying to solicit some sensitive information? Is this extortion?’ By training a system on an extremely large data set collected over a period of time, you can start to understand what, for instance, inducement looks like. This then enables you to easily spot future scenarios of inducement based on a common set of characteristics.
Training a system in this way works because, unlike news cycles and the topics of phishing emails, fundamental patterns in tone and language don’t change over time. An attempt at solicitation is always an attempt at solicitation, and will always bear common characteristics.
For this reason, this approach only plays one small part of a very large engine. It gives an additional indication about the nature of the threat, but is not in itself used to determine anomalous emails.
Detecting the unknown unknowns
In addition to using the above approach to identify intention, Darktrace uses unsupervised machine learning, which starts with extracting and extrapolating thousands of data points from every email. Some of these are taken directly from the email itself, while others are only ascertainable by the above intention-type analysis. Additional insights are also gained from observing emails in the wider context of all available data across email, network and the cloud environment of the organization.
Only after having a now-significantly larger and more comprehensive set of indicators, with a more complete description of that email, can the data be fed into a topic-indifferent machine learning engine to start questioning the data in millions of ways in order to understand if it belongs, given the wider context of the typical ‘pattern of life’ for the organization. Monitoring all emails in conjunction allows the machine to establish things like:
- Does this person usually receive ZIP files?
- Does this supplier usually send links to Dropbox?
- Has this sender ever logged in from China?
- Do these recipients usually get the same emails together?
The technology identifies patterns across an entire organization and gains a continuously evolving sense of ‘self’ as the organization grows and changes. It is this innate understanding of what is and isn’t ‘normal’ that allows AI to spot the truly ‘unknown unknowns’ instead of just ‘new variations of known bads.’
This type of analysis brings an additional advantage in that it is language and topic agnostic: because it focusses on anomaly detection rather than finding specific patterns that indicate threat, it is effective regardless of whether an organization typically communicates in English, Spanish, Japanese, or any other language.
By layering both of these approaches, you can understand the intention behind an email and understand whether that email belongs given the context of normal communication. And all of this is done without ever making an assumption or having the expectation that you’ve seen this threat before.
Years in the making
It’s well established now that the legacy approach to email security has failed – and this makes it easy to see why existing recommendation engines are being applied to the cyber security space. On first glance, these solutions may be appealing to a security team, but highly targeted, truly unique spear phishing emails easily skirt these systems. They can’t be relied on to stop email threats on the first encounter, as they have a dependency on known attacks with previously seen topics, domains, and payloads.
An effective, layered AI approach takes years of research and development. There is no single mathematical model to solve the problem of determining malicious emails from benign communication. A layered approach accepts that competing mathematical models each have their own strengths and weaknesses. It autonomously determines the relative weight these models should have and weighs them against one another to produce an overall ‘anomaly score’ given as a percentage, indicating exactly how unusual a particular email is in comparison to the organization’s wider email traffic flow.
It is time for email security to well and truly drop the assumption that you can look at threats of the past to predict tomorrow’s attacks. An effective AI cyber security system can identify abnormalities with no reliance on historical attacks, enabling it to catch truly unique novel emails on the first encounter – before they land in the inbox.
Curtiu e quer mais?
Blog
Nuvem
Darktrace Integrates Self-Learning AI with Amazon Security Lake to Support Security Investigations
.jpg)
Darktrace has deepened its relationship with AWS by integrating its detection and response capabilities with Amazon Security Lake.
This development will allow mutual customers to seamlessly combine Darktrace AI’s bespoke understanding of their organization with the Threat Intelligence offered by other security tools, and investigate all of their alerts in one central location.
This integration will improve the value security teams get from both products, streamlining analyst workflows and improving their ability to detect and respond to the full spectrum of known and unknown cyber-threats.
How Darktrace and Amazon Security Lake augment security teams
Amazon Security Lake is a newly-released service that automatically centralizes an organization’s security data from cloud, on-premises, and custom sources into a customer owned purpose-built data lake. Both Darktrace and Amazon Security Lake support the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework (OCSF), an open standard to simplify, combine, and analyze security logs.
Customers can store security logs, events, alerts, and other relevant data generated by various AWS services and security tools. By consolidating security data in a central lake, organizations can gain a holistic view of their security posture, perform advanced analytics, detect anomalies and open investigations to improve their security practices.
With Darktrace DETECT and RESPOND AI engines covering all assets across IT, OT, network, endpoint, IoT, email and cloud, organizations can augment the value of their security data lakes by feeding Darktrace’s rich and context-aware datapoints to Amazon Security Lake.
Amazon Security Lake empowers security teams to improve the protection of your digital estate:
- Quick and painless data normalization
- Fast-tracks ability to investigate, triage and respond to security events
- Broader visibility aids more effective decision-making
- Surfaces and prioritizes anomalies for further investigation
- Single interface for seamless data management
How will Darktrace customers benefit?
Across the Cyber AI Loop, all Darktrace solutions have been architected with AWS best practices in mind. With this integration, Darktrace is bringing together its understanding of ‘self’ for every organization with the centralized data visibility of the Amazon Security Lake. Darktrace’s unique approach to cyber security, powered by groundbreaking AI research, delivers a superior dataset based on a deep and interconnected understanding of the enterprise.
Where other cyber security solutions are trained to identify threats based on historical attack data and techniques, Darktrace DETECT gains a bespoke understanding of every digital environment, continuously analyzing users, assets, devices and the complex relationships between them. Our AI analyzes thousands of metrics to reveal subtle deviations that may signal an evolving issue – even unknown techniques and novel malware. It distinguishes between malicious and benign behavior, identifying harmful activity that typically goes unnoticed. This rich dataset is fed into RESPOND, which takes precise action to neutralize threats against any and every asset, no matter where data resides.
Both DETECT and RESPOND are supported by Darktrace Self-Learning AI, which provides full, real-time visibility into an organization’s systems and data. This always-on threat analysis already makes humans better at cyber security, improving decisions and outcomes based on total visibility of the digital ecosystem, supporting human performance with AI coverage and empowering security teams to proactively protect critical assets.
Converting Darktrace alerts to the Amazon Security Lake Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework (OCSF) supplies the Security Operations Center (SOC) and incident response team with contextualized data, empowering them to accelerate their investigation, triage and response to potential cyber threats.
Darktrace is available for purchase on the AWS Marketplace.
Learn more about how Darktrace provides full-coverage, AI-powered cloud security for AWS, or see how our customers use Darktrace in their AWS cloud environments.
Blog
Dentro do SOC
Tracking the Hive: Darktrace’s Detection of a Hive Ransomware-as-Service
The threat of ransomware continues to be a constant concern for security teams across the cyber threat landscape. With the growing popularity of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), it is becoming more and more accessible for even inexperienced of would-be attackers. As a result of this low barrier to entry, the volume of ransomware attacks is expected to increase significantly.
What’s more, RaaS is a highly tailorable market in which buyers can choose from varied kits and features to use in their ransomware deployments meaning attacks will rarely behave the same. To effectively detect and safeguard against these differentiations, it is crucial to implement security measures that put the emphasis on detecting anomalies and focusing on deviations in expected behavior, rather than relying on depreciated indicators of compromise (IoC) lists or playbooks that focus on attack chains unable to keep pace with the increasing speed of ransomware evolution.
In early 2022, Darktrace DETECT/Network™ identified several instances of Hive ransomware on the networks of multiple customers. Using its anomaly-based detection, Darktrace was able to successfully detect the attacks and multiple stages of the kill chain, including command and control (C2) activity, lateral movement, data exfiltration, and ultimately data encryption and the writing of ransom notes.
Hive Ransomware
Hive ransomware is a relatively new strain that was first observed in the wild in June 2021. It is known to target a variety of industries including healthcare, energy providers, and retailers, and has reportedly attacked over 1,500 organizations, collecting more than USD 100m in ransom payments [1].
Hive is distributed via a RaaS model where its developers update and maintain the code, in return for a percentage of the eventual ransom payment, while users (or affiliates) are given the tools to carry out attacks using a highly sophisticated and complex malware they would otherwise be unable to use. Hive uses typical tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) associated with ransomware, though they do vary depending on the Hive affiliate carrying out the attack.
In most cases a double extortion attack is carried out, whereby data is first exfiltrated and then encrypted before a ransom demand is made. This gives attackers extra leverage as victims are at risk of having their sensitive data leaked to the public on websites such as the ‘HiveLeaks’ TOR website.
Attack Timeline
Owing to the highly customizable nature of RaaS, the tactics and methods employed by Hive actors are expected to differ on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless in the majority of Hive ransomware incidents identified on Darktrace customer environments, Darktrace DETECT observed the following general attack stages and features. This is possibly indicative of the attacks originating from the same threat actor(s) or from a widely sold batch with a particular configuration to a variety of actors.
Acesso Inicial
Although Hive actors are known to gain initial access to networks through multiple different vectors, the two primary methods reported by security researchers are the exploitation of Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities, or the distribution of phishing emails with malicious attachments [2][3].
In the early stages of one Hive ransomware attack observed on the network of a Darktrace customer, for example, Darktrace detected a device connecting to the rare external location 23.81.246[.]84, with a PowerShell user agent via HTTP. During this connection, the device attempted to download an executable file named “file.exe”. It is possible that the file was initially accessed and delivered via a phishing email; however, as Darktrace/Email was not enabled at the time of the attack, this was outside of Darktrace’s purview. Fortunately, the connection failed the proxy authentication was thus blocked as seen in the packet capture (PCAP) in Figure 2.
Shortly after this attempted download, the same device started to receive a high volume of incoming SSL connections from a rare external endpoint, namely 146.70.87[.]132. Darktrace logged that this endpoint was using an SSL certificate signed by Go Daddy CA, an easily obtainable and accessible SSL certificate, and that the increase in incoming SSL connections from this endpoint was unusual behavior for this device.
It is likely that this highly anomalous activity detected by Darktrace indicates when the ransomware attack began, likely initial payload download.
Darktrace DETECT models:
- Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External
- Anomalous Server Activity / New Internet Facing System
C2 Beaconing
Following the successful initial access, Hive actors begin to establish their C2 infrastructure on infected networks through numerous connections to C2 servers, and the download of additional stagers.
On customer networks infected by Hive ransomware, Darktrace identified devices initiating a high volume of connections to multiple rare endpoints. This very likely represented C2 beaconing to the attacker’s infrastructure. In one particular example, further open-source intelligence (OSINT) investigation revealed that these endpoints were associated with Cobalt Strike.
Darktrace DETECT models:
- Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP
- Atividade anômala do servidor / atividade externa anômala do dispositivo de Rede Crítica
- Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
- Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
- Compromise / Suspicious HTTP Beacons to Dotted Quad
- Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
- Device / Lateral Movement and C2 Activity
Internal Reconnaissance, Lateral Movement and Privilege Escalation
After C2 infrastructure has been established, Hive actors typically begin to uninstall antivirus products in an attempt to remain undetected on the network [3]. They also perform internal reconnaissance to look for vulnerabilities and open channels and attempt to move laterally throughout the network.
Amid the C2 connections, Darktrace was able to detect network scanning activity associated with the attack when a device on one customer network was observed initiating an unusually high volume of connections to other internal devices. A critical network device was also seen writing an executable file “mimikatz.exe” via SMB which appears to be the Mimikatz attack tool commonly used for credential harvesting.
There were also several detections of lateral movement attempts via RDP and DCE-RPC where the attackers successfully authenticated using an “Administrator” credential. In one instance, a device was also observed performing ITaskScheduler activity. This service is used to remotely control tasks running on machines and is commonly observed as part of malicious lateral movement activity. Darktrace DETECT understood that the above activity represented a deviation from the devices’ normal pattern of behavior and the following models were breached:
Darktrace DETECT models:
- Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation
- Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
- Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session
- Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity
- Conformidade / SMB Drive Write
- Device / Anomalous ITaskScheduler Activity
- Device / Attack and Recon Tools
- Device / Attack and Recon Tools In SMB
- Device / EXE Files Distributed to Multiple Devices
- Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
- Device / Increase in New RPC Services
- User / New Admin Credentials on Server
Exfiltração de dados
At this stage of the attack, Hive actors have been known to carry out data exfiltration activity on infected networks using a variety of different methods. The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) reported that “Hive actors exfiltrate data likely using a combination of Rclone and the cloud storage service Mega[.]nz” [4]. Darktrace DETECT identified an example of this when a device on one customer network was observed making HTTP connections to endpoints related to Mega, including “w.apa.mega.co[.]nz”, with the user agent “rclone/v1.57.0” with at least 3 GiB of data being transferred externally (Figure 3). The same device was also observed transferring at least 3.6 GiB of data via SSL to the rare external IP, 158.51.85[.]157.
In another case, a device was observed uploading over 16 GiB of data to a rare external endpoint 93.115.27[.]71 over SSH. The endpoint in question was seen in earlier beaconing activity suggesting that this was likely an exfiltration event.
However, Hive ransomware, like any other RaaS kit, can differ greatly in its techniques and features, and it is important to note that data exfiltration may not always be present in a Hive ransomware attack. In one incident detected by Darktrace, there were no signs of any data leaving the customer environment, indicating data exfiltration was not part of the Hive actor’s objectives.
Darktrace DETECT models:
- Conexão anômala / Dados enviados para domínio raro
- Anomalous Connection / Lots of New Connections
- Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
- Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL
- Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
- Device / New User Agent and New IP
- Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints
- Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer
- Atividade inusitada / Transferência de dados externos inusitada
Ransomware Deployment
In the final stage of a typical Hive ransomware attack, the ransomware payload is deployed and begins to encrypt files on infected devices. On one customer network, Darktrace detected several devices connecting to domain controllers (DC) to read a file named “xxx.exe”. Several sources have linked this file name with the Hive ransomware payload [5].
In another example, Darktrace DETECT observed multiple devices downloading the executable files “nua64.exe” and “nua64.dll” from a rare external location, 194.156.90[.]25. OSINT investigation revealed that the files are associated with Hive ransomware.
Shortly after the download of this executable, multiple devices were observed performing an unusual amount of file encryption, appending randomly generated strings of characters to file extensions.
Although it has been reported that earlier versions of Hive ransomware encrypted files with a “.hive” extension [7], Darktrace observed across multiple customers that encrypted files had extensions that were partially-randomized, but consistently 20 characters long, matching the regular expression “[a-zA-Z0-9\-\_]{8}[\-\_]{1}[A-Za-z0-9\-\_]{11}”.
Following the successful encryption of files, Hive proceeds to drop a ransom note, named “HOW_TO_DECRYPT.txt”, into each affected directory. Typically, the ransom note will contain a link to Hive’s “sales department” and, in the event that exfiltration took place, a link to the “HiveLeaks” site, where attackers threaten to publish exfiltrated data if their demands are not met (Figure 6). In cases of Hive ransomware detected by Darktrace, multiple devices were observed attempting to contact “HiveLeaks” TOR domains, suggesting that endpoint users had followed links provided to them in ransom notes.
Examples of file extensions:
- 36C-AT9-_wm82GvBoCPC
- 36C-AT9--y6Z1G-RFHDT
- 36C-AT9-_x2x7FctFJ_q
- 36C-AT9-_zK16HRC3QiL
- 8KAIgoDP-wkQ5gnYGhrd
- kPemi_iF_11GRoa9vb29
- kPemi_iF_0RERIS1m7x8
- kPemi_iF_7u7e5zp6enp
- kPemi_iF_y4u7pB3d3f3
- U-9Xb0-k__T0U9NJPz-_
- U-9Xb0-k_6SkA8Njo5pa
- zm4RoSR1_5HMd_r4a5a9
Darktrace DETECT models:
- Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
- Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
- Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session
- Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
- Conformidade / SMB Drive Write
- Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
- Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB
- Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Write
- Compromise / High Priority Tor2Web
- Compromise / Tor2Web
- Device / EXE Files Distributed to Multiple Devices
Conclusão
As Hive ransomware attacks are carried out by different affiliates using varying deployment kits, the tactics employed tend to vary and new IoCs are regularly identified. Furthermore, in 2022 a new variant of Hive was written using the Rust programming language. This represented a major upgrade to Hive, improving its defense evasion techniques and making it even harder to detect [8].
Hive is just one of many RaaS offerings currently on the market, and this market is only expected to grow in usage and diversity of presentations. As ransomware becomes more accessible and easier to deploy it is essential for organizations to adopt efficient security measures to identify ransomware at the earliest possible stage.
Darktrace DETECT’s Self-Learning AI understands customer networks and learns the expected patterns of behavior across an organization’s digital estate. Using its anomaly-based detection Darktrace is able to identify emerging threats through the detection of unusual or unexpected behavior, without relying on rules and signatures, or known IoCs.
Credit to: Emily Megan Lim, Cyber Analyst, Hyeongyung Yeom, Senior Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead.
Appendices
MITRE AT&CK Mapping
Reconnaissance
T1595.001 – Scanning IP Blocks
T1595.002 – Vulnerability Scanning
Resource Development
T1583.006 – Web Services
Acesso Inicial
T1078 – Valid Accounts
T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1200 – Hardware Additions
Execução
T1053.005 – Scheduled Task
T1059.001 – PowerShell
Persistence/Privilege Escalation
T1053.005 – Scheduled Task
T1078 – Valid Accounts
Evasão de Defesa
T1078 – Valid Accounts
T1207 – Rogue Domain Controller
T1550.002 – Pass the Hash
Descoberta
T1018 – Remote System Discovery
T1046 – Network Service Discovery
T1083 – File and Directory Discovery
T1135 – Network Share Discovery
Lateral Movement
T1021.001 – Remote Desktop Protocol
T1021.002 – SMB/Windows Admin Shares
T1021.003 – Distributed Component Object Model
T1080 – Taint Shared Content
T1210 – Exploitation of Remote Services
T1550.002 – Pass the Hash
T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer
Collection
T1185 – Man in the Browser
Comand and Control
T1001 – Data Obfuscation
T1071 – Application Layer Protocol
T1071.001 – Web Protocols
T1090.003 – Multi-hop proxy
T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol
T1102.003 – One-Way Communication
T1571 – Non-Standard Port
Exfiltration
T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage
Impact
T1486 – Data Encrypted for Impact
T1489 – Service Stop
List of IoCs
23.81.246[.]84 - IP Address - Likely Malicious File Download Endpoint
146.70.87[.]132 - IP Address - Possible Ransomware Endpoint
5.199.162[.]220 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
23.227.178[.]65 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
46.166.161[.]68 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
46.166.161[.]93 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
93.115.25[.]139 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
185.150.1117[.]189 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
192.53.123[.]202 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint
209.133.223[.]164 - IP Address - Likely C2 Endpoint
cltrixworkspace1[.]com - Domain - C2 Endpoint
vpnupdaters[.]com - Domain - C2 Endpoint
93.115.27[.]71 - IP Address - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint
158.51.85[.]157 - IP Address - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint
w.api.mega.co[.]nz - Domain - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint
*.userstorage.mega.co[.]nz - Domain - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint
741cc67d2e75b6048e96db9d9e2e78bb9a327e87 - SHA1 Hash - Hive Ransomware File
2f9da37641b204ef2645661df9f075005e2295a5 - SHA1 Hash - Likely Hive Ransomware File
hiveleakdbtnp76ulyhi52eag6c6tyc3xw7ez7iqy6wc34gd2nekazyd[.]onion - TOR Domain - Likely Hive Endpoint
References
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-disrupts-hive-ransomware-variant
[2] https://www.varonis.com/blog/hive-ransomware-analysis
[3] https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/ransomware-spotlight/ransomware-spotlight-hive
[4]https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa22-321a
[5] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/22/c/nokoyawa-ransomware-possibly-related-to-hive-.html
[6] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/60f6a63e366e6729e97949622abd9de6d7988bba66f85a4ac8a52f99d3cb4764/detection
[7] https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/what-is-hive-ransomware/
[8] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2022/07/05/hive-ransomware-gets-upgrades-in-rust/
