CTIPilot
AI-generated · no human review · verify critical claims against the linked source. how it works →

Fortinet FortiProxy

product · product:fortinet-fortiproxy single-source

Coverage
2
first 2026-08-11 → last 2026-10-16
Latest activity
2026-10-16
Unit 42: a memory-resident FortiGate implant rides an exploited FortiOS flaw that has no fix on 7.2, 7.0 and…
Peak priority
high
1 high · 1 notable
Targets
telco
sectors: telco, public-sector, healthcare · regions: europe
Sources cited
5
4 hosts

Action items (2)

Do-now tasks recorded on the entries about Fortinet FortiProxy, newest first. Check the date before acting on an older one.

  • Search authentication-server change history on every VDI, SSL-VPN and SSO portal for edits to authentication-processing files, and re-validate that a repeated OTP value cannot authenticate; a password reset and an MFA re-enrolment do not remove this backdoor.
    2026-08-11CVE-2024-55591 +1
  • If a Linux host has been encrypted with the .GNRA extension, preserve the encrypted files, their timestamps and the system logs before any rebuild: the advisory states the keys can be reconstructed from file timestamps, and reimaging destroys the recovery path.
    2026-08-11CVE-2024-55591 +1

Defender insights

What each entry about Fortinet FortiProxy tells a defender to do, newest first.

2026-10-16NOTABLEexploitedUnit 42: a memory-resident FortiGate implant rides an exploited FortiOS flaw that has no fix on 7.2, 7.0 and 6.4

Exposure · triage · detection

2026-08-11HIGHexploitedSix agencies publish the Gunra RaaS playbook, edge exploitation, an OTP-value MFA backdoor, and a recoverable Linux key

Triage · detection

Story timeline

  1. 2026-10-16PEERSTITCH: a memory-resident FortiGate implant installed through the FortiOS CLI path traversal CVE-2025-61624, which Fortinet lists as exploited and leaves unfixed on FortiOS 7.2, 7.0 and 6.4, after a FortiManager compromise exposed the configurations of 500+ firewalls
    active-threatsUnit 42: a memory-resident FortiGate implant rides an exploited FortiOS flaw that has no fix on 7.2, 7.0 and 6.4
  2. 2026-08-11Gunra ransomware-as-a-service: a joint six-agency advisory documents FortiOS edge exploitation, a persistent MFA backdoor built from one fixed OTP value, and a Linux encryptor whose keys can be reconstructed
    deep-diveSix agencies publish the Gunra RaaS playbook, edge exploitation, an OTP-value MFA backdoor, and a recoverable Linux key
ATT&CK techniques (43 across 13 tactics)

43 techniques observed across 2 entries about this entity, derived from entry metadata and body evidence, never asserted without a published entry behind it · pinned to MITRE ATT&CK v20.0 · compare on the matrix · Navigator layer (JSON)

  • Initial AccessValid Accounts · Valid Accounts: Default Accounts · Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts · External Remote Services · Exploit Public-Facing Application
  • ExecutionWindows Management Instrumentation · Command and Scripting Interpreter: Windows Command Shell · Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript · Native API
  • PersistenceValid Accounts · Valid Accounts: Default Accounts · Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts · Account Manipulation · External Remote Services · Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication
  • Privilege EscalationProcess Injection: Ptrace System Calls · Exploitation for Privilege Escalation · Valid Accounts · Valid Accounts: Default Accounts · Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts · Account Manipulation
  • StealthProcess Injection: Ptrace System Calls · Indicator Removal · Indicator Removal: Clear Command History · Valid Accounts · Valid Accounts: Default Accounts · Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts · Debugger Evasion · Delay Execution · Selective Exclusion
  • Defense ImpairmentModify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication · Disable or Modify Tools · Disable or Modify Tools: Clear Linux or Mac System Logs
  • Credential AccessOS Credential Dumping · OS Credential Dumping: NTDS · Network Sniffing · Steal Web Session Cookie · Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files · Credentials from Password Stores · Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication
  • DiscoveryNetwork Sniffing · System Network Connections Discovery · File and Directory Discovery · Debugger Evasion
  • Lateral MovementRemote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol · Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares · Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash · Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Ticket
  • CollectionData from Local System · Email Collection · Data from Cloud Storage · Archive Collected Data
  • Command and ControlIngress Tool Transfer · Protocol Tunneling
  • ExfiltrationExfiltration Over Alternative Protocol · Exfiltration Over Web Service
  • ImpactData Encrypted for Impact · Inhibit System Recovery · Financial Theft

Initial Access TA0001

T1078Valid Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Compromised credentials may be used to bypass access controls placed on various resources on systems within the network and may even be used for persistent access to remote systems and externally available services, such as VPNs, Outlook Web Access, network devices, and remote desktop. Compromised credentials may also grant an adversary increased privilege to specific systems or access to restricted areas of the network. Adversaries may choose not to use malware or tools in conjunction with the legitimate access those credentials provide to make it harder to detect their presence.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.001Valid Accounts: Default Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a default account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Default accounts are those that are built-into an OS, such as the Guest or Administrator accounts on Windows systems. Default accounts also include default factory/provider set accounts on other types of systems, software, or devices, including the root user account in AWS, the root user account in ESXi, and the default service account in Kubernetes.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.002Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a domain account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Domain accounts are those managed by Active Directory Domain Services where access and permissions are configured across systems and services that are part of that domain. Domain accounts can cover users, administrators, and services.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1133External Remote Services×2

Adversaries may leverage external-facing remote services to initially access and/or persist within a network. Remote services such as VPNs, Citrix, and other access mechanisms allow users to connect to internal enterprise network resources from external locations. There are often remote service gateways that manage connections and credential authentication for these services. Services such as Windows Remote Management and VNC can also be used externally.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1190Exploit Public-Facing Application×2

Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network. The weakness in the system can be a software bug, a temporary glitch, or a misconfiguration.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Execution TA0002

T1047Windows Management Instrumentation×1

Adversaries may abuse Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) to execute malicious commands and payloads. WMI is designed for programmers and is the infrastructure for management data and operations on Windows systems. WMI is an administration feature that provides a uniform environment to access Windows system components.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1059.003Command and Scripting Interpreter: Windows Command Shell×1

Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution. The Windows command shell (cmd) is the primary command prompt on Windows systems. The Windows command prompt can be used to control almost any aspect of a system, with various permission levels required for different subsets of commands. The command prompt can be invoked remotely via Remote Services such as SSH.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1059.007Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript×1

Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution. JavaScript (JS) is a platform-independent scripting language (compiled just-in-time at runtime) commonly associated with scripts in webpages, though JS can be executed in runtime environments outside the browser.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1106Native API×1

Adversaries may interact with the native OS application programming interface (API) to execute behaviors. Native APIs provide a controlled means of calling low-level OS services within the kernel, such as those involving hardware/devices, memory, and processes. These native APIs are leveraged by the OS during system boot (when other system components are not yet initialized) as well as carrying out tasks and requests during routine operations.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Persistence TA0003

T1078Valid Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Compromised credentials may be used to bypass access controls placed on various resources on systems within the network and may even be used for persistent access to remote systems and externally available services, such as VPNs, Outlook Web Access, network devices, and remote desktop. Compromised credentials may also grant an adversary increased privilege to specific systems or access to restricted areas of the network. Adversaries may choose not to use malware or tools in conjunction with the legitimate access those credentials provide to make it harder to detect their presence.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.001Valid Accounts: Default Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a default account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Default accounts are those that are built-into an OS, such as the Guest or Administrator accounts on Windows systems. Default accounts also include default factory/provider set accounts on other types of systems, software, or devices, including the root user account in AWS, the root user account in ESXi, and the default service account in Kubernetes.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.002Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a domain account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Domain accounts are those managed by Active Directory Domain Services where access and permissions are configured across systems and services that are part of that domain. Domain accounts can cover users, administrators, and services.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1098Account Manipulation×1

Adversaries may manipulate accounts to maintain and/or elevate access to victim systems. Account manipulation may consist of any action that preserves or modifies adversary access to a compromised account, such as modifying credentials or permission groups. These actions could also include account activity designed to subvert security policies, such as performing iterative password updates to bypass password duration policies and preserve the life of compromised credentials.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1133External Remote Services×2

Adversaries may leverage external-facing remote services to initially access and/or persist within a network. Remote services such as VPNs, Citrix, and other access mechanisms allow users to connect to internal enterprise network resources from external locations. There are often remote service gateways that manage connections and credential authentication for these services. Services such as Windows Remote Management and VNC can also be used externally.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1556.006Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication×1

Adversaries may disable or modify multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms to enable persistent access to compromised accounts.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Privilege Escalation TA0004

T1055.008Process Injection: Ptrace System Calls×1

Adversaries may inject malicious code into processes via ptrace (process trace) system calls in order to evade process-based defenses as well as possibly elevate privileges. Ptrace system call injection is a method of executing arbitrary code in the address space of a separate live process.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1068Exploitation for Privilege Escalation×1

Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges. Exploitation of a software vulnerability occurs when an adversary takes advantage of a programming error in a program, service, or within the operating system software or kernel itself to execute adversary-controlled code. Security constructs such as permission levels will often hinder access to information and use of certain techniques, so adversaries will likely need to perform privilege escalation to include use of software exploitation to circumvent those restrictions.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078Valid Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Compromised credentials may be used to bypass access controls placed on various resources on systems within the network and may even be used for persistent access to remote systems and externally available services, such as VPNs, Outlook Web Access, network devices, and remote desktop. Compromised credentials may also grant an adversary increased privilege to specific systems or access to restricted areas of the network. Adversaries may choose not to use malware or tools in conjunction with the legitimate access those credentials provide to make it harder to detect their presence.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.001Valid Accounts: Default Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a default account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Default accounts are those that are built-into an OS, such as the Guest or Administrator accounts on Windows systems. Default accounts also include default factory/provider set accounts on other types of systems, software, or devices, including the root user account in AWS, the root user account in ESXi, and the default service account in Kubernetes.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.002Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a domain account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Domain accounts are those managed by Active Directory Domain Services where access and permissions are configured across systems and services that are part of that domain. Domain accounts can cover users, administrators, and services.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1098Account Manipulation×1

Adversaries may manipulate accounts to maintain and/or elevate access to victim systems. Account manipulation may consist of any action that preserves or modifies adversary access to a compromised account, such as modifying credentials or permission groups. These actions could also include account activity designed to subvert security policies, such as performing iterative password updates to bypass password duration policies and preserve the life of compromised credentials.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Stealth TA0005

T1055.008Process Injection: Ptrace System Calls×1

Adversaries may inject malicious code into processes via ptrace (process trace) system calls in order to evade process-based defenses as well as possibly elevate privileges. Ptrace system call injection is a method of executing arbitrary code in the address space of a separate live process.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1070Indicator Removal×1

Adversaries may selectively delete or modify artifacts generated to reduce indications of their presence and blend in with legitimate activity. Rather than broadly removing evidence, adversaries may target specific artifacts that appear anomalous or are likely to draw scrutiny, while leaving sufficient data intact to maintain the appearance of normal system behavior.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1070.003Indicator Removal: Clear Command History×1

In addition to clearing system logs, an adversary may clear the command history of a compromised account to conceal the actions undertaken during an intrusion. Various command interpreters keep track of the commands users type in their terminal so that users can retrace what they've done.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078Valid Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Compromised credentials may be used to bypass access controls placed on various resources on systems within the network and may even be used for persistent access to remote systems and externally available services, such as VPNs, Outlook Web Access, network devices, and remote desktop. Compromised credentials may also grant an adversary increased privilege to specific systems or access to restricted areas of the network. Adversaries may choose not to use malware or tools in conjunction with the legitimate access those credentials provide to make it harder to detect their presence.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.001Valid Accounts: Default Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a default account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Default accounts are those that are built-into an OS, such as the Guest or Administrator accounts on Windows systems. Default accounts also include default factory/provider set accounts on other types of systems, software, or devices, including the root user account in AWS, the root user account in ESXi, and the default service account in Kubernetes.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.002Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts×1

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of a domain account as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Domain accounts are those managed by Active Directory Domain Services where access and permissions are configured across systems and services that are part of that domain. Domain accounts can cover users, administrators, and services.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1622Debugger Evasion×1

Adversaries may employ various means to detect and avoid debuggers. Debuggers are typically used by defenders to trace and/or analyze the execution of potential malware payloads.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1678Delay Execution×1

Adversaries may employ various time-based methods to evade detection and analysis. These techniques often exploit system clocks, delays, or timing mechanisms to obscure malicious activity, blend in with benign activity, and avoid scrutiny. Adversaries can perform this behavior within virtualization/sandbox environments or natively on host systems.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1679Selective Exclusion×1

Adversaries may intentionally exclude certain files, folders, directories, file types, or system components from encryption or tampering during a ransomware or malicious payload execution. Some file extensions that adversaries may avoid encrypting include `.dll`, `.exe`, and `.lnk`.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Defense Impairment TA0112

T1556.006Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication×1

Adversaries may disable or modify multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms to enable persistent access to compromised accounts.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1685Disable or Modify Tools×1

Adversaries may disable, degrade, or tamper with security tools or applications (e.g., endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools, intrusion detection systems (IDS), antivirus, logging agents, sensors, etc.) to impair or reduce visibility of defensive capabilities. This may include stopping specific services, killing processes, modifying or deleting tool configuration files and Registry keys, or preventing tools from updating. This may also include impairing defenses more broadly by disrupting preventative, detection, and response mechanisms across host, network, and cloud environments.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1685.006Disable or Modify Tools: Clear Linux or Mac System Logs×1

Adversaries may clear system logs to hide evidence of an intrusion. macOS and Linux both keep track of system or user-initiated actions via system logs. The majority of native system logging is stored under the `/var/log/` directory. Subfolders in this directory categorize logs by their related functions, such as:

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

Credential Access TA0006

T1003OS Credential Dumping×1

Adversaries may attempt to dump credentials to obtain account login and credential material, normally in the form of a hash or a clear text password. Credentials can be obtained from OS caches, memory, or structures. Credentials can then be used to perform Lateral Movement and access restricted information.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1003.003OS Credential Dumping: NTDS×1

Adversaries may attempt to access or create a copy of the Active Directory domain database in order to steal credential information, as well as obtain other information about domain members such as devices, users, and access rights. By default, the NTDS file (NTDS.dit) is located in <code>%SystemRoot%\NTDS\Ntds.dit</code> of a domain controller.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1040Network Sniffing×2

Adversaries may passively sniff network traffic to capture information about an environment, including authentication material passed over the network. Network sniffing refers to using the network interface on a system to monitor or capture information sent over a wired or wireless connection. An adversary may place a network interface into promiscuous mode to passively access data in transit over the network, or use span ports to capture a larger amount of data.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1539Steal Web Session Cookie×1

An adversary may steal web application or service session cookies and use them to gain access to web applications or Internet services as an authenticated user without needing credentials. Web applications and services often use session cookies as an authentication token after a user has authenticated to a website.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1552.001Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files×1

Adversaries may search local file systems and remote file shares for files containing insecurely stored credentials. These can be files created by users to store their own credentials, shared credential stores for a group of individuals, configuration files containing passwords for a system or service, or source code/binary files containing embedded passwords.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · ATT&CK page ↗

T1555Credentials from Password Stores×1

Adversaries may search for common password storage locations to obtain user credentials. Passwords are stored in several places on a system, depending on the operating system or application holding the credentials. There are also specific applications and services that store passwords to make them easier for users to manage and maintain, such as password managers and cloud secrets vaults. Once credentials are obtained, they can be used to perform lateral movement and access restricted information.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1556.006Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication×1

Adversaries may disable or modify multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms to enable persistent access to compromised accounts.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Discovery TA0007

T1040Network Sniffing×2

Adversaries may passively sniff network traffic to capture information about an environment, including authentication material passed over the network. Network sniffing refers to using the network interface on a system to monitor or capture information sent over a wired or wireless connection. An adversary may place a network interface into promiscuous mode to passively access data in transit over the network, or use span ports to capture a larger amount of data.

Evidence: 2026-10-16/peerstitch-fortigate-implant-cve-2025-61624-fortimanager · 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1049System Network Connections Discovery×1

Adversaries may attempt to get a listing of network connections to or from the compromised system they are currently accessing or from remote systems by querying for information over the network.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1083File and Directory Discovery×1

Adversaries may enumerate files and directories or may search in specific locations of a host or network share for certain information within a file system. Adversaries may use the information from File and Directory Discovery during automated discovery to shape follow-on behaviors, including whether or not the adversary fully infects the target and/or attempts specific actions.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1622Debugger Evasion×1

Adversaries may employ various means to detect and avoid debuggers. Debuggers are typically used by defenders to trace and/or analyze the execution of potential malware payloads.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Lateral Movement TA0008

T1021.001Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol×1

Adversaries may use Valid Accounts to log into a computer using the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1021.002Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares×1

Adversaries may use Valid Accounts to interact with a remote network share using Server Message Block (SMB). The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1550.002Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash×1

Adversaries may “pass the hash” using stolen password hashes to move laterally within an environment, bypassing normal system access controls. Pass the hash (PtH) is a method of authenticating as a user without having access to the user's cleartext password. This method bypasses standard authentication steps that require a cleartext password, moving directly into the portion of the authentication that uses the password hash.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1550.003Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Ticket×1

Adversaries may “pass the ticket” using stolen Kerberos tickets to move laterally within an environment, bypassing normal system access controls. Pass the ticket (PtT) is a method of authenticating to a system using Kerberos tickets without having access to an account's password. Kerberos authentication can be used as the first step to lateral movement to a remote system.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Collection TA0009

T1005Data from Local System×1

Adversaries may search local system sources, such as file systems, configuration files, local databases, virtual machine files, or process memory, to find files of interest and sensitive data prior to Exfiltration.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1114Email Collection×1

Adversaries may target user email to collect sensitive information. Emails may contain sensitive data, including trade secrets or personal information, that can prove valuable to adversaries. Emails may also contain details of ongoing incident response operations, which may allow adversaries to adjust their techniques in order to maintain persistence or evade defenses. Adversaries can collect or forward email from mail servers or clients.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1530Data from Cloud Storage×1

Adversaries may access data from cloud storage.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1560Archive Collected Data×1

An adversary may compress and/or encrypt data that is collected prior to exfiltration. Compressing the data can help to obfuscate the collected data and minimize the amount of data sent over the network. Encryption can be used to hide information that is being exfiltrated from detection or make exfiltration less conspicuous upon inspection by a defender.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Command and Control TA0011

T1105Ingress Tool Transfer×1

Adversaries may transfer tools or other files from an external system into a compromised environment. Tools or files may be copied from an external adversary-controlled system to the victim network through the command and control channel or through alternate protocols such as ftp. Once present, adversaries may also transfer/spread tools between victim devices within a compromised environment (i.e. Lateral Tool Transfer).

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1572Protocol Tunneling×1

Adversaries may tunnel network communications to and from a victim system within a separate protocol to avoid detection/network filtering and/or enable access to otherwise unreachable systems. Tunneling involves explicitly encapsulating a protocol within another. This behavior may conceal malicious traffic by blending in with existing traffic and/or provide an outer layer of encryption (similar to a VPN). Tunneling could also enable routing of network packets that would otherwise not reach their intended destination, such as SMB, RDP, or other traffic that would be filtered by network appliances or not routed over the Internet.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Exfiltration TA0010

T1048Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol×1

Adversaries may steal data by exfiltrating it over a different protocol than that of the existing command and control channel. The data may also be sent to an alternate network location from the main command and control server.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1567Exfiltration Over Web Service×1

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service to exfiltrate data rather than their primary command and control channel. Popular Web services acting as an exfiltration mechanism may give a significant amount of cover due to the likelihood that hosts within a network are already communicating with them prior to compromise. Firewall rules may also already exist to permit traffic to these services.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Impact TA0040

T1486Data Encrypted for Impact×1

Adversaries may encrypt data on target systems or on large numbers of systems in a network to interrupt availability to system and network resources. They can attempt to render stored data inaccessible by encrypting files or data on local and remote drives and withholding access to a decryption key. This may be done in order to extract monetary compensation from a victim in exchange for decryption or a decryption key (ransomware) or to render data permanently inaccessible in cases where the key is not saved or transmitted.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1490Inhibit System Recovery×1

Adversaries may delete or remove built-in data and turn off services designed to aid in the recovery of a corrupted system to prevent recovery. This may deny access to available backups and recovery options.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

T1657Financial Theft×1

Adversaries may steal monetary resources from targets through extortion, social engineering, technical theft, or other methods aimed at their own financial gain at the expense of the availability of these resources for victims. Financial theft is the ultimate objective of several popular campaign types including extortion by ransomware, business email compromise (BEC) and fraud, "pig butchering," bank hacking, and exploiting cryptocurrency networks.

Evidence: 2026-08-11/gunra-raas-fortios-mfa-backdoor-linux-prng-recoverable · ATT&CK page ↗

Entries about Fortinet FortiProxy (2)

2026-10-16 · view entry permalink →

NOTABLECVE-2025-61624exploitedNATOB2

PEERSTITCH: a memory-resident FortiGate implant installed through the FortiOS CLI path traversal CVE-2025-61624, which Fortinet lists as exploited and leaves unfixed on FortiOS 7.2, 7.0 and 6.4, after a FortiManager compromise exposed the configurations of 500+ firewalls

Unit 42 investigated a September 2024 intrusion at a telecommunications organization, tracked as cluster CL-STA-0954, that began with CVE-2024-47575 against a centralized FortiManager appliance: the attackers registered a rogue virtual FortiGate, then exfiltrated an archive with the running configurations, cryptographic material and database files of more than 500 managed FortiGate firewalls (Unit 42, 2026-10-14). Unit 42 recovered the configurations' reversible-ciphertext credentials by brute force; the attackers later logged in over SSL VPN with legitimate credentials and pushed packet-capture settings to downstream firewalls (Unit 42, 2026-10-14).

For root they used CVE-2025-61624, a path traversal in the FortiOS CLI system.auto-script engine that lets an authenticated administrative account read and write arbitrary files as root (Unit 42, 2026-10-14). That installed PEERSTITCH, an ARM64 injector that attaches with ptrace to the logging daemon miglogd and the IPsec daemon iked, allocates a 16 KB read-write-execute region, NOP-patches three fixed offsets and links the daemons through /proc memory so that tagged VPN sessions skip default FortiOS validation; it leaves no persistent binary on disk, opens no listening port and makes no outbound connection of its own (Unit 42, 2026-10-14). Command and control ran through the firewall's own Apache mod_md ACME module, whose DNS-01 challenge handler executes Node.js with parameters from an attacker-run ACME server and so opens a reverse shell (Unit 42, 2026-10-14).

Fortinet's advisory FG-IR-26-122 of 2026-04-14 covers the CLI path traversal in FortiOS, FortiPAM, FortiProxy and FortiSwitchManager, lists it as known exploited, and for FortiOS gives fixes only in 7.6.5 and 7.4.10, telling users of 7.2, 7.0 and 6.4 to migrate to a fixed release (Fortinet, 2026-04-14).

Triage: legitimate FortiManager work also creates and deletes auto-scripts and adds devices; the report's signals are ../ in an auto-script name, a device registered from outside the management network, and accounts that match no administrator or tenant the organization created.

PEERSTITCH leaves no persistent binary on disk, opens no listening ports and initiates no outbound network connections.

The vulnerability allows an authenticated administrative account to read and write arbitrary files as root via path traversal in the FortiOS CLI system.auto-script engine.

the attackers exfiltrated an archive containing running configurations, cryptographic material and database files containing information about more than 500 managed FortiGate firewalls

The cryptographic trust material governing the platform's relationship with every managed device leaves with the attacker and remains valid until it is rotated.

Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 2026-10-14

Builds on: FBI and Secret Service: FortiBleed is still active, locks admins out of FortiGates and feeds…

threat16 Oct 04:22Zsingle-sourceOpen finding →

2026-08-11 · view entry permalink →

HIGHCVE-2024-55591 +1exploitedNATOA1

Gunra ransomware-as-a-service: a joint six-agency advisory documents FortiOS edge exploitation, a persistent MFA backdoor built from one fixed OTP value, and a Linux encryptor whose keys can be reconstructed

Six authorities (the FBI, CISA, the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center, the NSA, the US Secret Service and the Republic of Korea's National Police Agency) published a joint #StopRansomware advisory on Gunra on 2026-08-10 (CISA et al., 2026-08-10). Gunra first appeared in April 2025 and is, in the authoring agencies' assessment, based on or significantly influenced by the Conti source code leaked in 2022; as of January 2026 it runs a structured affiliate programme advertised on criminal forums, supplying a management panel, a configurable builder, cross-platform lockers and affiliate documentation, and the FBI records the group also operating under the name Golden Community and recruiting penetration testers as initial-access brokers (CISA et al., 2026-08-10). The victim set on the group's leak site spans the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific, and the advisory names government services and facilities, utilities, healthcare, financial services, critical manufacturing and transport among the affected sectors, which is why this reads directly onto the European public-sector and critical-infrastructure estate, not only onto its Korean and American case studies.

Initial access is the edge appliance. The FBI observed Gunra obtaining access primarily by exploiting known vulnerabilities in internet-facing firewall and VPN appliances, specifically the FortiOS and FortiProxy authentication-bypass flaws CVE-2024-55591 and CVE-2025-24472, both CWE-288 (CISA et al., 2026-08-10). The advisory points at the CVE records rather than restating affected versions, and it is explicit about what the exploitation buys: those two flaws let an actor abuse scheduled tasks on a vulnerable FortiOS firewall to create a new persistent super-user account named forticloud-sync carrying a hard-coded password (CISA et al., 2026-08-10). That account name is the cheapest hunt in this advisory: an appliance administrator enumeration that finds it has found an intrusion, and finding it after patching means the patch did not evict anyone. Separately, KNPA observed initial access through credential-exposure and SSH access-control weaknesses on internet-facing VPN gateways, and in one case through an SSL-VPN administrator account reachable with default credentials because no account-lockout control was configured.

The identity plane is where the intrusion becomes durable. After taking a network administrator's workstation and the SSL-VPN administrative console, the actors located an unused account with reach into both the internet-facing and internal networks and modified its configuration to bypass the mandatory password-change requirement, then used it (CISA et al., 2026-08-10). Against one victim they manipulated the traffic-control functionality of the SSL-VPN appliance itself to collect the credentials and session material users were sending to a corporate VDI authentication portal, then replayed the captured session cookies to impersonate legitimate users. Against the same victim they went one step further and edited the authentication-processing files on that VDI authentication portal server so that a specific attacker-chosen one-time-password value would always authenticate successfully, a standing MFA bypass rather than a stolen token. Credential access elsewhere is conventional but thorough: secretsdump.py against domain controllers to pull hashes out of NTDS for pass-the-hash and pass-the-ticket movement, psexec.py and smbclient.py over SMB for lateral movement, RDP into the VDI estate, and in one case theft of a symmetric key from a system access-control server that decrypted the stored passwords for every enterprise server account.

Behavioural shape, in telemetry terms. The operators work deliberately unsociable hours (the advisory records reconnaissance and internal activity concentrated between 22:00 and 06:00 to avoid administrator attention) and clear system and network access logs and shell command history behind them (CISA et al., 2026-08-10). Collection and exfiltration precede encryption: business documents, databases, personal data and internal mail are staged, a purpose-built executable pulls data out of Microsoft OneDrive and SharePoint, and for at least one victim compressed archives running to tens of terabytes went to a consumer file-sharing service, with 7-Zip, RClone and FileZilla among the tools observed on the group's own infrastructure. Recovery is attacked directly: volume shadow copies are deleted through WMI from a command shell before encryption, and against one victim backup and archive data was deleted at both the primary data centre and the disaster-recovery site, before and after deployment. The encryptor itself enumerates every drive letter through the native file-enumeration APIs, skips system directories and system-critical file extensions so the host stays bootable and the ransom note stays readable, checks for a debugger, and encrypts the surviving user data multi-threaded with ChaCha20 and RSA-4096, appending .ENCRT. Ransom notes land per directory and route victims to a Tor negotiation portal and an encrypted messenger with a five-to-seven-day clock.

The one piece of genuinely good news is a cryptographic mistake. The advisory records that as of March 2026 researchers identified a weakness in the Linux ELF variants, which append .GNRA: the encryption keys come from a weak pseudo-random generator seeded with the predictable srand(time(NULL)), and defenders may use that to mathematically reconstruct the keys from file timestamps and recover files without paying (CISA et al., 2026-08-10; original research at Breakglass Intelligence, 2026-03-12). This has an operational consequence that cuts against normal incident-response reflex: the advisory's own instruction, for a Gunra Linux incident where encryption has happened, is to preserve the encrypted files, their timestamps, the ransom notes and the system logs, because a rebuild-from-backup-and-move-on response throws away the timestamps the key reconstruction depends on. No such weakness is recorded for the Windows encryptor.

Detection concepts. Three of this actor's behaviours produce durable, vendor-neutral signal. In edge-appliance administrative logs and configuration audit trails, surface any newly created administrative or super-user account and any change that clears a mandatory-password-change flag on a dormant account; both are the advisory's stated persistence steps, and both are visible in configuration state rather than in transient telemetry. In authentication-server change control, file-integrity monitoring over the authentication-processing components of VDI, SSL-VPN and SSO portals is the only control that sees the OTP backdoor at all; it produces no failed logins, no impossible travel and no anomalous token, because from the portal's point of view the authentication genuinely succeeded. In endpoint process telemetry with parent lineage, the shadow-copy deletion is a command shell invoking the WMI command-line utility with a shadowcopy delete operation, and the credential-dumping and lateral-movement steps present as the Impacket family's characteristic service-creation-over-SMB and NTDS access patterns on domain controllers.

Triage: the tooling here is deliberately dual-use (remote-access and archiving utilities that administrators run legitimately every day) so presence alone is not the signal and the advisory says as much. The discriminators are contextual: the same remote-access agent installed on a host that has no help-desk ticket behind it, an archiving utility writing multi-gigabyte archives on a file server at 03:00, an account whose password-change requirement was cleared without a change record, and (the sharpest one) a successful multi-factor authentication in which the presented one-time-password value is identical across sessions or across users. Legitimate one-time codes never repeat; that is the whole property they exist for.

primarily through the exploitation of known vulnerabilities in internet-facing devices

create a new, malicious persistent user forticloud-sync with super user privileges and a hard-coded password

the Gunra actors modified authentication processing files on the corporate VDI authentication portal server to allow successful authentication when a specific, Gunra-designated one time password (OTP) value was entered, thereby enabling the continuous bypass of multi-factor authentication (MFA)

Defenders may leverage this to mathematically reconstruct the keys using file timestamps and recover files without paying the ransom.

Gunra ransomware appears to be based on, or significantly influenced by, the Conti ransomware source code leaked in 2022.

FBI, CISA, DC3, NSA, USSS and Republic of Korea National Police Agency 2026-08-10
threat11 Aug 04:36Zmulti-sourceOpen finding →

Co-occurring entities

Derived: referenced by the same focused operational entries (weekly summaries and report roundups don't count); ×N counts the shared entries.

Where this entity is cited

  • Deep dive1
  • Threats1

Source distribution

  • fortiguard.fortinet.com2 (40%)
  • cisa.gov1 (20%)
  • intel.breakglass.tech1 (20%)
  • unit42.paloaltonetworks.com1 (20%)