CTIPilot

Microsoft 365

product · product:microsoft-365 single-source

Coverage timeline
11
first 2026-07-10 → last 2026-08-23
Peak priority
high
4 high · 7 notable
Sources cited
29
19 hosts
Sections touched
3
active-threats, deep-dive, research
Co-occurring entities
8
see Co-occurring entities below
ATT&CK techniques
65
pinned v19.2 · see below

ATT&CK techniques

65 techniques observed across 11 entries, derived from entry metadata and body evidence, never asserted without a published entry behind it · pinned to MITRE ATT&CK v19.2 · compare on the matrix · Navigator layer (JSON)

Reconnaissance TA0043

T1598Phishing for Information×1

Adversaries may send phishing messages to elicit sensitive information that can be used during targeting. Phishing for information is an attempt to trick targets into divulging information, frequently credentials or other actionable information. Phishing for information is different from Phishing in that the objective is gathering data from the victim rather than executing malicious code.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1598.004Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Voice×2

Adversaries may use voice communications to elicit sensitive information that can be used during targeting. Spearphishing for information is an attempt to trick targets into divulging information, frequently credentials or other actionable information. Spearphishing for information frequently involves social engineering techniques, such as posing as a source with a reason to collect information (ex: Impersonation) and/or creating a sense of urgency or alarm for the recipient.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · ATT&CK page ↗

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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×4

Valid accounts in cloud environments may allow adversaries to perform actions to achieve Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Cloud accounts are those created and configured by an organization for use by users, remote support, services, or for administration of resources within a cloud service provider or SaaS application. Cloud Accounts can exist solely in the cloud; alternatively, they may be hybrid-joined between on-premises systems and the cloud through syncing or federation with other identity sources such as Windows Active Directory.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · ATT&CK page ↗

T1190Exploit Public-Facing Application×1

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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1566Phishing×1

Adversaries may send phishing messages to gain access to victim systems. All forms of phishing are electronically delivered social engineering. Phishing can be targeted, known as spearphishing. In spearphishing, a specific individual, company, or industry will be targeted by the adversary. More generally, adversaries can conduct non-targeted phishing, such as in mass malware spam campaigns.

Evidence: 2026-07-25/microsoft-email-threat-landscape-q2-2026-teams-vishing-surge · ATT&CK page ↗

T1566.001Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment×1

Adversaries may send spearphishing emails with a malicious attachment in an attempt to gain access to victim systems. Spearphishing attachment is a specific variant of spearphishing. Spearphishing attachment is different from other forms of spearphishing in that it employs the use of malware attached to an email. All forms of spearphishing are electronically delivered social engineering targeted at a specific individual, company, or industry. In this scenario, adversaries attach a file to the spearphishing email and usually rely upon User Execution to gain execution. Spearphishing may also involve social engineering techniques, such as posing as a trusted source.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1566.002Phishing: Spearphishing Link×3

Adversaries may send spearphishing emails with a malicious link in an attempt to gain access to victim systems. Spearphishing with a link is a specific variant of spearphishing. It is different from other forms of spearphishing in that it employs the use of links to download malware contained in email, instead of attaching malicious files to the email itself, to avoid defenses that may inspect email attachments. Spearphishing may also involve social engineering techniques, such as posing as a trusted source.

Evidence: 2026-07-24/kratos-phaas-takedown-bka-sneaky2fa-m365-aitm · 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · 2026-07-10/forg365-m365-phaas-aitm-devicecode-forgcookie · ATT&CK page ↗

T1566.004Phishing: Spearphishing Voice×4

Adversaries may use voice communications to ultimately gain access to victim systems. Spearphishing voice is a specific variant of spearphishing. It is different from other forms of spearphishing in that it employs the use of manipulating a user into providing access to systems through a phone call or other forms of voice communications. Spearphishing frequently involves social engineering techniques, such as posing as a trusted source (ex: Impersonation) and/or creating a sense of urgency or alarm for the recipient.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-25/microsoft-email-threat-landscape-q2-2026-teams-vishing-surge · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · 2026-07-10/helix-data-extortion-devicecode-vishing-sharepoint-exfil · ATT&CK page ↗

Execution TA0002

T1053.005Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task×1

Adversaries may abuse the Windows Task Scheduler to perform task scheduling for initial or recurring execution of malicious code. There are multiple ways to access the Task Scheduler in Windows. The schtasks utility can be run directly on the command line, or the Task Scheduler can be opened through the GUI within the Administrator Tools section of the Control Panel. In some cases, adversaries have used a .NET wrapper for the Windows Task Scheduler, and alternatively, adversaries have used the Windows netapi32 library and Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) to create a scheduled task. Adversaries may also utilize the Powershell Cmdlet `Invoke-CimMethod`, which leverages WMI class `PS_ScheduledTask` to create a scheduled task via an XML path.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1059.001Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell×1

Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution. PowerShell is a powerful interactive command-line interface and scripting environment included in the Windows operating system. Adversaries can use PowerShell to perform a number of actions, including discovery of information and execution of code. Examples include the <code>Start-Process</code> cmdlet which can be used to run an executable and the <code>Invoke-Command</code> cmdlet which runs a command locally or on a remote computer (though administrator permissions are required to use PowerShell to connect to remote systems).

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1204.004User Execution: Malicious Copy and Paste×2

An adversary may rely upon a user copying and pasting code in order to gain execution. Users may be subjected to social engineering to get them to copy and paste code directly into a Command and Scripting Interpreter. One such strategy is "ClickFix," in which adversaries present users with seemingly helpful solutions (such as prompts to fix errors or complete CAPTCHAs) that instead instruct the user to copy and paste malicious code.

Evidence: 2026-08-23/blockchain-dead-drop-c2-commodity-graphspy · 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

Persistence TA0003

T1053.005Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task×1

Adversaries may abuse the Windows Task Scheduler to perform task scheduling for initial or recurring execution of malicious code. There are multiple ways to access the Task Scheduler in Windows. The schtasks utility can be run directly on the command line, or the Task Scheduler can be opened through the GUI within the Administrator Tools section of the Control Panel. In some cases, adversaries have used a .NET wrapper for the Windows Task Scheduler, and alternatively, adversaries have used the Windows netapi32 library and Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) to create a scheduled task. Adversaries may also utilize the Powershell Cmdlet `Invoke-CimMethod`, which leverages WMI class `PS_ScheduledTask` to create a scheduled task via an XML path.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×4

Valid accounts in cloud environments may allow adversaries to perform actions to achieve Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Cloud accounts are those created and configured by an organization for use by users, remote support, services, or for administration of resources within a cloud service provider or SaaS application. Cloud Accounts can exist solely in the cloud; alternatively, they may be hybrid-joined between on-premises systems and the cloud through syncing or federation with other identity sources such as Windows Active Directory.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · ATT&CK page ↗

T1098.005Account Manipulation: Device Registration×3

Adversaries may register a device to an adversary-controlled account. Devices may be registered in a multifactor authentication (MFA) system, which handles authentication to the network, or in a device management system, which handles device access and compliance.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · 2026-07-10/helix-data-extortion-devicecode-vishing-sharepoint-exfil · ATT&CK page ↗

T1176Software Extensions×1

Adversaries may abuse software extensions to establish persistent access to victim systems. Software extensions are modular components that enhance or customize the functionality of software applications, including web browsers, Integrated Development Environments (IDEs), and other platforms. Extensions are typically installed via official marketplaces, app stores, or manually loaded by users, and they often inherit the permissions and access levels of the host application.

Evidence: 2026-07-10/forg365-m365-phaas-aitm-devicecode-forgcookie · ATT&CK page ↗

T1543.001Create or Modify System Process: Launch Agent×1

Adversaries may create or modify launch agents to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When a user logs in, a per-user launchd process is started which loads the parameters for each launch-on-demand user agent from the property list (.plist) file found in <code>/System/Library/LaunchAgents</code>, <code>/Library/LaunchAgents</code>, and <code>~/Library/LaunchAgents</code>. Property list files use the <code>Label</code>, <code>ProgramArguments </code>, and <code>RunAtLoad</code> keys to identify the Launch Agent's name, executable location, and execution time. Launch Agents are often installed to perform updates to programs, launch user specified programs at login, or to conduct other developer tasks.

Evidence: 2026-08-23/blockchain-dead-drop-c2-commodity-graphspy · ATT&CK page ↗

T1543.003Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service×2

Adversaries may create or modify Windows services to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When Windows boots up, it starts programs or applications called services that perform background system functions. Windows service configuration information, including the file path to the service's executable or recovery programs/commands, is stored in the Windows Registry.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1546.015Event Triggered Execution: Component Object Model Hijacking×1

Adversaries may establish persistence by executing malicious content triggered by hijacked references to Component Object Model (COM) objects. COM is a system within Windows to enable interaction between software components through the operating system. References to various COM objects are stored in the Registry.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1547.001Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder×1

Adversaries may achieve persistence by adding a program to a startup folder or referencing it with a Registry run key. Adding an entry to the "run keys" in the Registry or startup folder will cause the program referenced to be executed when a user logs in. These programs will be executed under the context of the user and will have the account's associated permissions level.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1556.006Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication×4

Privilege Escalation TA0004

T1053.005Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task×1

Adversaries may abuse the Windows Task Scheduler to perform task scheduling for initial or recurring execution of malicious code. There are multiple ways to access the Task Scheduler in Windows. The schtasks utility can be run directly on the command line, or the Task Scheduler can be opened through the GUI within the Administrator Tools section of the Control Panel. In some cases, adversaries have used a .NET wrapper for the Windows Task Scheduler, and alternatively, adversaries have used the Windows netapi32 library and Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) to create a scheduled task. Adversaries may also utilize the Powershell Cmdlet `Invoke-CimMethod`, which leverages WMI class `PS_ScheduledTask` to create a scheduled task via an XML path.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×4

Valid accounts in cloud environments may allow adversaries to perform actions to achieve Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Cloud accounts are those created and configured by an organization for use by users, remote support, services, or for administration of resources within a cloud service provider or SaaS application. Cloud Accounts can exist solely in the cloud; alternatively, they may be hybrid-joined between on-premises systems and the cloud through syncing or federation with other identity sources such as Windows Active Directory.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · ATT&CK page ↗

T1098.005Account Manipulation: Device Registration×3

Adversaries may register a device to an adversary-controlled account. Devices may be registered in a multifactor authentication (MFA) system, which handles authentication to the network, or in a device management system, which handles device access and compliance.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · 2026-07-10/helix-data-extortion-devicecode-vishing-sharepoint-exfil · ATT&CK page ↗

T1484.001Domain or Tenant Policy Modification: Group Policy Modification×1

Adversaries may modify Group Policy Objects (GPOs) to subvert the intended discretionary access controls for a domain, usually with the intention of escalating privileges on the domain. Group policy allows for centralized management of user and computer settings in Active Directory (AD). GPOs are containers for group policy settings made up of files stored within a predictable network path `\<DOMAIN>\SYSVOL\<DOMAIN>\Policies\`.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1543.001Create or Modify System Process: Launch Agent×1

Adversaries may create or modify launch agents to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When a user logs in, a per-user launchd process is started which loads the parameters for each launch-on-demand user agent from the property list (.plist) file found in <code>/System/Library/LaunchAgents</code>, <code>/Library/LaunchAgents</code>, and <code>~/Library/LaunchAgents</code>. Property list files use the <code>Label</code>, <code>ProgramArguments </code>, and <code>RunAtLoad</code> keys to identify the Launch Agent's name, executable location, and execution time. Launch Agents are often installed to perform updates to programs, launch user specified programs at login, or to conduct other developer tasks.

Evidence: 2026-08-23/blockchain-dead-drop-c2-commodity-graphspy · ATT&CK page ↗

T1543.003Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service×2

Adversaries may create or modify Windows services to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When Windows boots up, it starts programs or applications called services that perform background system functions. Windows service configuration information, including the file path to the service's executable or recovery programs/commands, is stored in the Windows Registry.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1546.015Event Triggered Execution: Component Object Model Hijacking×1

Adversaries may establish persistence by executing malicious content triggered by hijacked references to Component Object Model (COM) objects. COM is a system within Windows to enable interaction between software components through the operating system. References to various COM objects are stored in the Registry.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1547.001Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder×1

Adversaries may achieve persistence by adding a program to a startup folder or referencing it with a Registry run key. Adding an entry to the "run keys" in the Registry or startup folder will cause the program referenced to be executed when a user logs in. These programs will be executed under the context of the user and will have the account's associated permissions level.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1548.002Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control×1

Adversaries may bypass UAC mechanisms to elevate process privileges on system. Windows User Account Control (UAC) allows a program to elevate its privileges (tracked as integrity levels ranging from low to high) to perform a task under administrator-level permissions, possibly by prompting the user for confirmation. The impact to the user ranges from denying the operation under high enforcement to allowing the user to perform the action if they are in the local administrators group and click through the prompt or allowing them to enter an administrator password to complete the action.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

Stealth TA0005

T1027Obfuscated Files or Information×1

Adversaries may attempt to make an executable or file difficult to discover or analyze by encrypting, encoding, or otherwise obfuscating its contents on the system or in transit. This is common behavior that can be used across different platforms and the network to evade defenses.

Evidence: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1036.005Masquerading: Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location×2

Adversaries may match or approximate the name or location of legitimate files, Registry keys, or other resources when naming/placing them. This is done for the sake of evading defenses and observation.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1070.008Indicator Removal: Clear Mailbox Data×1

Adversaries may modify mail and mail application data to remove evidence of their activity. Email applications allow users and other programs to export and delete mailbox data via command line tools or use of APIs. Mail application data can be emails, email metadata, or logs generated by the application or operating system, such as export requests.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×4

Valid accounts in cloud environments may allow adversaries to perform actions to achieve Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. Cloud accounts are those created and configured by an organization for use by users, remote support, services, or for administration of resources within a cloud service provider or SaaS application. Cloud Accounts can exist solely in the cloud; alternatively, they may be hybrid-joined between on-premises systems and the cloud through syncing or federation with other identity sources such as Windows Active Directory.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · ATT&CK page ↗

T1497Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion×1

Adversaries may employ various means to detect and avoid virtualization and analysis environments. This may include changing behaviors based on the results of checks for the presence of artifacts indicative of a virtual machine environment (VME) or sandbox. If the adversary detects a VME, they may alter their malware to disengage from the victim or conceal the core functions of the implant. They may also search for VME artifacts before dropping secondary or additional payloads. Adversaries may use the information learned from Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion during automated discovery to shape follow-on behaviors.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1564.008Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules×1

Adversaries may use email rules to hide inbound emails in a compromised user's mailbox. Many email clients allow users to create inbox rules for various email functions, including moving emails to other folders, marking emails as read, or deleting emails. Rules may be created or modified within email clients or through external features such as the <code>New-InboxRule</code> or <code>Set-InboxRule</code> PowerShell cmdlets on Windows systems.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1684.001Social Engineering: Impersonation×1

Adversaries may impersonate a trusted person or organization in order to persuade and trick a target into performing some action on their behalf. For example, adversaries may communicate with victims (via Phishing for Information, Phishing, or Internal Spearphishing) while impersonating a known sender such as an executive, colleague, or third-party vendor. Established trust can then be leveraged to accomplish an adversary’s ultimate goals, possibly against multiple victims.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · ATT&CK page ↗

Defense Impairment TA0112

T1484.001Domain or Tenant Policy Modification: Group Policy Modification×1

Adversaries may modify Group Policy Objects (GPOs) to subvert the intended discretionary access controls for a domain, usually with the intention of escalating privileges on the domain. Group policy allows for centralized management of user and computer settings in Active Directory (AD). GPOs are containers for group policy settings made up of files stored within a predictable network path `\<DOMAIN>\SYSVOL\<DOMAIN>\Policies\`.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1556.006Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication×4
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: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

Credential Access TA0006

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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1056.001Input Capture: Keylogging×1

Adversaries may log user keystrokes to intercept credentials as the user types them. Keylogging is likely to be used to acquire credentials for new access opportunities when OS Credential Dumping efforts are not effective, and may require an adversary to intercept keystrokes on a system for a substantial period of time before credentials can be successfully captured. In order to increase the likelihood of capturing credentials quickly, an adversary may also perform actions such as clearing browser cookies to force users to reauthenticate to systems.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1110.003Brute Force: Password Spraying×1

Adversaries may use a single or small list of commonly used passwords against many different accounts to attempt to acquire valid account credentials. Password spraying uses one password (e.g. 'Password01'), or a small list of commonly used passwords, that may match the complexity policy of the domain. Logins are attempted with that password against many different accounts on a network to avoid account lockouts that would normally occur when brute forcing a single account with many passwords.

Evidence: 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · ATT&CK page ↗

T1111Multi-Factor Authentication Interception×1

Adversaries may target multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms, (i.e., smart cards, token generators, etc.) to gain access to credentials that can be used to access systems, services, and network resources. Use of MFA is recommended and provides a higher level of security than usernames and passwords alone, but organizations should be aware of techniques that could be used to intercept and bypass these security mechanisms.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1528Steal Application Access Token×6
T1539Steal Web Session Cookie×3

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: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-24/kratos-phaas-takedown-bka-sneaky2fa-m365-aitm · 2026-07-10/forg365-m365-phaas-aitm-devicecode-forgcookie · ATT&CK page ↗

T1555.003Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers×1

Adversaries may acquire credentials from web browsers by reading files specific to the target browser. Web browsers commonly save credentials such as website usernames and passwords so that they do not need to be entered manually in the future. Web browsers typically store the credentials in an encrypted format within a credential store; however, methods exist to extract plaintext credentials from web browsers.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1556.006Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication×4
T1557Adversary-in-the-Middle×5

Adversaries may attempt to position themselves between two or more networked devices using an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique to support follow-on behaviors such as Network Sniffing, Transmitted Data Manipulation, or replay attacks (Exploitation for Credential Access). By abusing features of common networking protocols that can determine the flow of network traffic (e.g. ARP, DNS, LLMNR, etc.), adversaries may force a device to communicate through an adversary controlled system so they can collect information or perform additional actions.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · 2026-07-25/microsoft-email-threat-landscape-q2-2026-teams-vishing-surge · 2026-07-24/kratos-phaas-takedown-bka-sneaky2fa-m365-aitm · ATT&CK page ↗

T1621Multi-Factor Authentication Request Generation×2

Adversaries may attempt to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms and gain access to accounts by generating MFA requests sent to users.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

Discovery TA0007

T1082System Information Discovery×1

An adversary may attempt to get detailed information about the operating system and hardware, including version, patches, hotfixes, service packs, and architecture. Adversaries may use this information to shape follow-on behaviors, including whether or not the adversary fully infects the target and/or attempts specific actions. This behavior is distinct from Local Storage Discovery which is an adversary's discovery of local drive, disks and/or volumes.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1497Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion×1

Adversaries may employ various means to detect and avoid virtualization and analysis environments. This may include changing behaviors based on the results of checks for the presence of artifacts indicative of a virtual machine environment (VME) or sandbox. If the adversary detects a VME, they may alter their malware to disengage from the victim or conceal the core functions of the implant. They may also search for VME artifacts before dropping secondary or additional payloads. Adversaries may use the information learned from Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion during automated discovery to shape follow-on behaviors.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1518.001Software Discovery: Security Software Discovery×1

Adversaries may attempt to get a listing of security software, configurations, defensive tools, and sensors that are installed on a system or in a cloud environment. This may include things such as cloud monitoring agents and anti-virus. Adversaries may use the information from Security Software 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: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1021.006Remote Services: Windows Remote Management×1

Adversaries may use Valid Accounts to interact with remote systems using Windows Remote Management (WinRM). The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1534Internal Spearphishing×1

After they already have access to accounts or systems within the environment, adversaries may use internal spearphishing to gain access to additional information or compromise other users within the same organization. Internal spearphishing is multi-staged campaign where a legitimate account is initially compromised either by controlling the user's device or by compromising the account credentials of the user. Adversaries may then attempt to take advantage of the trusted internal account to increase the likelihood of tricking more victims into falling for phish attempts, often incorporating Impersonation.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1550.001Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token×2

Adversaries may use stolen application access tokens to bypass the typical authentication process and access restricted accounts, information, or services on remote systems. These tokens are typically stolen from users or services and used in lieu of login credentials.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-10/m365-conditional-access-gaps-railway-lshiy-campaigns · ATT&CK page ↗

Collection TA0009

T1056.001Input Capture: Keylogging×1

Adversaries may log user keystrokes to intercept credentials as the user types them. Keylogging is likely to be used to acquire credentials for new access opportunities when OS Credential Dumping efforts are not effective, and may require an adversary to intercept keystrokes on a system for a substantial period of time before credentials can be successfully captured. In order to increase the likelihood of capturing credentials quickly, an adversary may also perform actions such as clearing browser cookies to force users to reauthenticate to systems.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1113Screen Capture×1

Adversaries may attempt to take screen captures of the desktop to gather information over the course of an operation. Screen capturing functionality may be included as a feature of a remote access tool used in post-compromise operations. Taking a screenshot is also typically possible through native utilities or API calls, such as <code>CopyFromScreen</code>, <code>xwd</code>, or <code>screencapture</code>.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1114.002Email Collection: Remote Email Collection×1

Adversaries may target an Exchange server, Office 365, or Google Workspace to collect sensitive information. Adversaries may leverage a user's credentials and interact directly with the Exchange server to acquire information from within a network. Adversaries may also access externally facing Exchange services, Office 365, or Google Workspace to access email using credentials or access tokens. Tools such as MailSniper can be used to automate searches for specific keywords.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · ATT&CK page ↗

T1115Clipboard Data×1

Adversaries may collect data stored in the clipboard from users copying information within or between applications.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1123Audio Capture×1

An adversary can leverage a computer's peripheral devices (e.g., microphones and webcams) or applications (e.g., voice and video call services) to capture audio recordings for the purpose of listening into sensitive conversations to gather information.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1125Video Capture×1

An adversary can leverage a computer's peripheral devices (e.g., integrated cameras or webcams) or applications (e.g., video call services) to capture video recordings for the purpose of gathering information. Images may also be captured from devices or applications, potentially in specified intervals, in lieu of video files.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

T1213.002Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint×3

Adversaries may leverage the SharePoint repository as a source to mine valuable information. SharePoint will often contain useful information for an adversary to learn about the structure and functionality of the internal network and systems. For example, the following is a list of example information that may hold potential value to an adversary and may also be found on SharePoint:

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-07-18/abbott-exact-sciences-shinyhunters-entra-sso-vishing · 2026-07-10/helix-data-extortion-devicecode-vishing-sharepoint-exfil · ATT&CK page ↗

T1530Data from Cloud Storage×2
T1557Adversary-in-the-Middle×5

Adversaries may attempt to position themselves between two or more networked devices using an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique to support follow-on behaviors such as Network Sniffing, Transmitted Data Manipulation, or replay attacks (Exploitation for Credential Access). By abusing features of common networking protocols that can determine the flow of network traffic (e.g. ARP, DNS, LLMNR, etc.), adversaries may force a device to communicate through an adversary controlled system so they can collect information or perform additional actions.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · 2026-07-25/microsoft-email-threat-landscape-q2-2026-teams-vishing-surge · 2026-07-24/kratos-phaas-takedown-bka-sneaky2fa-m365-aitm · ATT&CK page ↗

Command and Control TA0011

T1008Fallback Channels×1

Adversaries may use fallback or alternate communication channels if the primary channel is compromised or inaccessible in order to maintain reliable command and control and to avoid data transfer thresholds.

Evidence: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1071.001Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols×1

Adversaries may communicate using application layer protocols associated with web traffic to avoid detection/network filtering by blending in with existing traffic. Commands to the remote system, and often the results of those commands, will be embedded within the protocol traffic between the client and server.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1071.004Application Layer Protocol: DNS×1

Adversaries may communicate using the Domain Name System (DNS) application layer protocol to avoid detection/network filtering by blending in with existing traffic. Commands to the remote system, and often the results of those commands, will be embedded within the protocol traffic between the client and server.

Evidence: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1090.002Proxy: External Proxy×1

Adversaries may use an external proxy to act as an intermediary for network communications to a command and control server to avoid direct connections to their infrastructure. Many tools exist that enable traffic redirection through proxies or port redirection, including HTRAN, ZXProxy, and ZXPortMap. Adversaries use these types of proxies to manage command and control communications, to provide resiliency in the face of connection loss, or to ride over existing trusted communications paths to avoid suspicion.

Evidence: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · ATT&CK page ↗

T1102Web Service×1

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service as a means for relaying data to/from a compromised system. Popular websites, cloud services, and social media acting as a mechanism for C2 may give a significant amount of cover due to the likelihood that hosts within a network are already communicating with them prior to a compromise. Using common services, such as those offered by Google, Microsoft, or Twitter, makes it easier for adversaries to hide in expected noise. Web service providers commonly use SSL/TLS encryption, giving adversaries an added level of protection.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1102.001Web Service: Dead Drop Resolver×1

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service to host information that points to additional command and control (C2) infrastructure. Adversaries may post content, known as a dead drop resolver, on Web services with embedded (and often obfuscated/encoded) domains or IP addresses. Once infected, victims will reach out to and be redirected by these resolvers.

Evidence: 2026-08-23/blockchain-dead-drop-c2-commodity-graphspy · ATT&CK page ↗

T1102.002Web Service: Bidirectional Communication×1

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service as a means for sending commands to and receiving output from a compromised system over the Web service channel. Compromised systems may leverage popular websites and social media to host command and control (C2) instructions. Those infected systems can then send the output from those commands back over that Web service channel. The return traffic may occur in a variety of ways, depending on the Web service being utilized. For example, the return traffic may take the form of the compromised system posting a comment on a forum, issuing a pull request to development project, updating a document hosted on a Web service, or by sending a Tweet.

Evidence: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

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: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1219Remote Access Tools×1

An adversary may use legitimate remote access tools to establish an interactive command and control channel within a network. Remote access tools create a session between two trusted hosts through a graphical interface, a command line interaction, a protocol tunnel via development or management software, or hardware-level access such as KVM (Keyboard, Video, Mouse) over IP solutions. Desktop support software (usually graphical interface) and remote management software (typically command line interface) allow a user to control a computer remotely as if they are a local user inheriting the user or software permissions. This software is commonly used for troubleshooting, software installation, and system management. Adversaries may similarly abuse response features included in EDR and other defensive tools that enable remote access.

Evidence: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · ATT&CK page ↗

T1568Dynamic Resolution×1

Adversaries may dynamically establish connections to command and control infrastructure to evade common detections and remediations. This may be achieved by using malware that shares a common algorithm with the infrastructure the adversary uses to receive the malware's communications. These calculations can be used to dynamically adjust parameters such as the domain name, IP address, or port number the malware uses for command and control.

Evidence: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1573Encrypted Channel×1

Adversaries may employ an encryption algorithm to conceal command and control traffic rather than relying on any inherent protections provided by a communication protocol. Despite the use of a secure algorithm, these implementations may be vulnerable to reverse engineering if secret keys are encoded and/or generated within malware samples/configuration files.

Evidence: 2026-07-21/hollowgraph-m365-calendar-graph-api-c2-cavern · ATT&CK page ↗

T1573.002Encrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography×1

Adversaries may employ a known asymmetric encryption algorithm to conceal command and control traffic rather than relying on any inherent protections provided by a communication protocol. Asymmetric cryptography, also known as public key cryptography, uses a keypair per party: one public that can be freely distributed, and one private. Due to how the keys are generated, the sender encrypts data with the receiver’s public key and the receiver decrypts the data with their private key. This ensures that only the intended recipient can read the encrypted data. Common public key encryption algorithms include RSA and ElGamal.

Evidence: 2026-08-01/captivecrunch-storm-2945-hospitality-captive-portal-rat · ATT&CK page ↗

Exfiltration TA0010

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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · 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: 2026-07-29/talos-ir-trends-q2-2026-rmm-weaponization-auth-abuse · 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: 2026-08-07/unc6671-blackfile-multi-brand-passkey-vishing-aitm · ATT&CK page ↗

Story timeline

  1. 2026-08-23Dead-drop command-and-control went commodity: three of four new entrants on Red Canary's monthly list resolve their C2 from a dead drop, two of them from a public blockchain, and the fourth is a GUI for Entra ID device-code phishing
    researchDead-drop C2 moved from novelty to routine, and the control is an egress baseline rather than a blocklist
  2. 2026-08-07UNC6671 kept operating after BlackFile's announced retirement, across four further extortion brands, and its vishing pretext is now an urgent order to enroll a FIDO2 passkey
    deep-diveThe group behind BlackFile never stopped: GTIG ties four newer extortion brands to one operator whose lure attacks passkey enrolment, not the passkey
  3. 2026-08-01CaptiveCrunch: an SVR-linked sub-cluster hijacks hotel and conference captive portals to serve fake update lures, a Go RAT and a token-stealing PowerShell module to travelling staff
    deep-diveMicrosoft attributes worldwide captive-portal traffic manipulation to Storm-2945, delivering the CornFlake RAT and ChocoShell stealer to travellers
  4. 2026-07-29Talos IR Trends Q2 2026: ransomware operators ran their command-and-control through legitimate RMM agents, authentication abuse hit two-thirds of engagements, and missing logs stopped root-cause determination outright
    deep-diveCisco Talos IR's quarterly report puts three named intrusion chains on record, led by Sinobi running its command-and-control through a trojanized MeshAgent
  5. 2026-07-25Microsoft Email Threat Landscape Q2 2026: phishing moves off email into Teams vishing, and attachment lures drift PDF → DOCX
    researchMicrosoft's quarterly email report flags a sustained shift of social engineering into Teams voice-phishing
  6. 2026-07-24German BKA dismantles Kratos, the Sneaky2FA-derived AiTM phishing-as-a-service platform behind ~15,000 monthly Microsoft 365 credential-theft campaigns
    active-threatsA German-led takedown removes Kratos's infrastructure, but the AiTM tradecraft and affiliate base survive, as Tycoon2FA already showed
  7. 2026-07-21HOLLOWGRAPH: a Cavern-framework backdoor that turns a compromised Microsoft 365 calendar into a Graph-API dead-drop C2
    deep-diveGroup-IB details HOLLOWGRAPH, a .NET implant using a victim's own M365 calendar as two-way C2 over the Graph API, with DNS-tunneled Entra credential refresh
  8. 2026-07-18Abbott confirms a Cancer Diagnostics cyber incident; ShinyHunters claims a vished Entra SSO account and 30M+ records
    active-threatsAbbott confirms unauthorized access to its Cancer Diagnostics (Exact Sciences) systems as ShinyHunters claims a helpdesk-vishing to Entra SSO breach
  9. 2026-07-10Two 2026 M365 account-takeover campaigns (Railway device-code phishing, LSHIY ROPC spray) beat Conditional Access without breaking MFA
    researchHuntress: device-code phishing and ROPC token-spray defeat M365 tenants by routing around the auth paths Conditional Access actually inspects
  10. 2026-07-10'Helix' data-extortion cluster pairs manager-impersonation vishing with device-code phishing and automated SharePoint exfiltration
    active-threatsReliaQuest: new 'Helix' extortion cluster (BlackFile/ShinyHunters lineage) vishes staff into device-code sign-ins, then bulk-loots SharePoint
  11. 2026-07-10Forg365: a commercial Microsoft 365 phishing-as-a-service kit bundling device-code + AiTM phishing, in-panel AI lure drafting, and a browser extension for SSO-cookie persistence
    active-threatsZeroBEC details Forg365, a Telegram-sold M365 PhaaS that survives MFA and keeps operator access alive via a ForgCookie browser extension

Where this entity is cited

  • active-threats4
  • deep-dive4
  • research3

Source distribution

  • bleepingcomputer.com6 (21%)
  • huntress.com3 (10%)
  • microsoft.com2 (7%)
  • reliaquest.com2 (7%)
  • securelist.com2 (7%)
  • abbott.com1 (3%)
  • bka.de1 (3%)
  • blog.talosintelligence.com1 (3%)
  • other11 (38%)

Co-occurring entities

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

All cited sources (29)

Entries about Microsoft 365 (11)

2026-08-23 · view entry permalink →

NOTABLENATOB2

Dead-drop command-and-control went commodity: three of four new entrants on Red Canary's monthly list resolve their C2 from a dead drop, two of them from a public blockchain, and the fourth is a GUI for Entra ID device-code phishing

Red Canary's monthly threat round-up, published 2026-08-20 against July 2026 telemetry, is useful here not for its rankings but for what the new arrivals have in common: three of the four resolve their command-and-control address from a dead drop rather than from a hardcoded domain or IP, and two of those read that dead drop off a public blockchain (Red Canary, 2026-08-20). The technique, querying a smart contract whose stored value is the current C2 URL, which Red Canary calls EtherHiding and dates to first reporting in 2023; has been documented for a while; what this round-up records is its arrival in commodity tooling, Red Canary counts three of its top ten using it this month, two of them new arrivals.

The mechanics are worth stating precisely because they determine what a defender can and cannot block. Phexia, a macOS remote-access tool and stealer delivered through malicious copy-and-paste lures, queries public Polygon RPC endpoints for a smart contract's value, decodes the ABI-encoded response to extract a URL, posts to it and pipes the reply into osascript; it keeps Telegram and Steam profiles as redundant dead-drop channels and persists with a LaunchAgent that sets both KeepAlive and RunAtLoad. EtherRAT is "a Node.js-based remote access trojan observed targeting Windows workstations via social engineering and Linux servers via exploitation of server-side vulnerabilities", polling one or more public Ethereum RPC endpoints for a C2 URL held at a predefined contract address, with modules for credential theft, lateral movement and web-server hijacking. CastleRAT resolves its dead drop through steamcommunity.com or adversary-controlled domains. Red Canary's own summary of why this matters operationally: "The technique makes traditional C2 blocking challenging, since the URL can be updated dynamically by adversaries", the operator rewrites one contract value and the change propagates to every installation without redistributing the malware.

The fourth entrant is a different problem. GraphSpy is an open-source initial-access and post-exploitation tool for Entra ID and Microsoft 365 that, in Red Canary's words, "runs a local web server that presents a browser-based GUI, which enables less technical adversaries to engage in Entra ID attacks". It centralises device-code phishing, primary refresh token theft and abuse, Windows Hello for Business key registration, MFA method manipulation, and exfiltration from SharePoint, OneDrive, Outlook and Teams. Red Canary notes it is the third device-code phishing tool to reach its top ten in 2026, after GraphRunner in May and Kali365 in June, three separate toolkits in four months packaging the same identity attack behind progressively lower skill requirements.

Detection concepts, telemetry class first. For the dead-drop families the signal is in egress telemetry: an outbound HTTPS session from an endpoint or server to a public blockchain RPC endpoint, made by a process that has no business speaking to one; the request itself is ordinary-looking JSON-RPC to a widely used, reputable host, so the discriminator is the process and the host role, not the destination's reputation. On macOS, correlate it with process-lineage telemetry showing osascript executing content received from a network read, and with persistence artifacts; a newly written LaunchAgent whose program arguments carry an encoded payload. For GraphSpy the surface is identity telemetry rather than endpoint: device-code authentication events for users and locations that have no workflow requiring that flow, primary refresh token issuance followed by access from an unfamiliar device, and new Windows Hello for Business key or MFA method registration on an account that did not request it. Red Canary's own mitigation for the device-code half is to revoke the affected user's refresh tokens and active sessions, reset credentials, force re-authentication, and restrict the device-code flow through Conditional Access policies "for users and locations that do not require it".

GraphSpy runs a local web server that presents a browser-based GUI, which enables less technical adversaries to engage in Entra ID attacks.

The technique makes traditional C2 blocking challenging, since the URL can be updated dynamically by adversaries

the public blockchain RPC endpoints highlighted on chainlist.org are a good place to start, as adversaries are more likely to leverage widely-used URLs instead of standing up their own infrastructure

Red Canary 2026-08-20
research23 Aug 04:46Zsingle-sourceOpen finding ↗
Sources: Red Canary

2026-07-21 · view entry permalink →

NOTABLEupdatedNATOB2

HOLLOWGRAPH: a Cavern-framework backdoor that turns a compromised Microsoft 365 calendar into a Graph-API dead-drop C2

Group-IB has published a technical profile of HOLLOWGRAPH, a NativeAOT-compiled .NET DLL it "attribute[s], with high confidence, to the Cavern backdoor framework" (Group-IB, 2026-07-20), the modular C2 that Check Point Research previously tied to the Iran-MOIS-linked Cavern Manticore actor and that this pipeline has tracked since 2026-07-09. The interest for defenders is not the actor but the command-and-control design, which is built entirely on trusted Microsoft cloud services and leaves almost no attacker-owned network footprint. Infosecurity Magazine corroborates the reporting (Infosecurity Magazine, 2026-07-20).

HOLLOWGRAPH implements only two operations, get and send, and never beacons to attacker infrastructure. Instead it treats a compromised Microsoft 365 mailbox's calendar as a two-way dead-drop over the Graph API. To exfiltrate, the implant encrypts a file with hybrid RSA-OAEP + AES-256-GCM (separate key pairs per direction), creates a calendar event dated far in the future (2050-05-13, in a fixed 22:00–23:00 UTC window) so the mailbox owner is unlikely to notice, uploads the ciphertext as event attachments, and renames the event subject to an operator-recognisable tag. To receive tasking, it queries the same calendarView window, filters events by subject, downloads the attachment planted by the operator, and decrypts it. A separate, unencrypted channel refreshes the four Entra ID (Azure AD) values the implant needs (tenant ID, client ID, client secret and target mailbox) by DNS tunneling: length- and data-encoded queries against an attacker domain resolved as IPv6 AAAA records and reassembled into fixed-size chunks.

The kill chain, described for reasoning about detection: the implant authenticates as an application/service identity to Microsoft Graph and drives calendar operations programmatically; the Graph-API calendar dead-drop is bidirectional web-service command-and-control and the credential refresh rides DNS as an application-layer channel; the calendar payloads are encrypted end-to-end; and the implant operates against cloud-account credentials rather than an on-host identity. Group-IB is explicit about the attribution ceiling: it "cannot confidently attribute this activity to any previously identified threat actor," assessing only a low-confidence technical overlap with the Iranian-nexus Lyceum sub-group, so this is a Cavern-framework component, not a confirmed named-actor campaign. Telemetry to date is narrow: 12 infected systems, roughly 3 actively communicating, all evidence pointing to Israeli organisations, with activity observed between 3 June and 9 July 2026.

Group-IB Threat Intelligence team has identified HOLLOWGRAPH, a new malware sample that we attribute, with high confidence, to the Cavern backdoor framework

we cannot confidently attribute this activity to any previously identified threat actor.

Group-IB Threat Intelligence 2026-07-20

If Microsoft Graph authentication or tenant validation fails, the module attempts to retrieve replacement connection settings through DNS AAAA responses.

The new module shares several behavioral patterns with previously reported OilRig tooling, including the use of Microsoft-hosted services, attachment-based command exchange, and a secondary mechanism for restoring access to a cloud C2 channel.

Kaspersky (Securelist / GReAT) 2026-07-21

Project CAV3RN is a modular espionage framework used against targets in Israel.

The main finding is a complex C2 module that uses DNS A-record responses to choose between direct HTTPS and a Google Apps Script relay for each transaction. The same DNS infrastructure can validate and replace the relay deployment ID, allowing the operator to rotate the Google channel.

Kaspersky Securelist (GReAT) 2026-08-11
Updaterun 2026-07-22T0409Z-intelaffected_productsentitiesevidencesourcestechniquesbody

The HOLLOWGRAPH entry documented an Iran-linked backdoor that used Microsoft Graph and far-future Outlook calendar events as its command-and-control channel. Kaspersky GReAT has now published independent analysis of the same toolset (which Check Point tracks as "Cavern Manticore") detailing a new communication module (AzureCommunication.dll) that replaces the earlier HTTP/WebSocket component with Microsoft Graph, exchanging RSA-OAEP-SHA256 + AES-256-GCM-encrypted commands and results as attachments inside far-future Outlook calendar events (a fixed 2050-05-13 window) keyed to a controller-generated agent ID (Kaspersky, 2026-07-21; Check Point Research, 2026-07-06).

The new element beyond prior reporting is a resilience layer: when Graph authentication or tenant validation fails, the module recovers replacement connection settings (TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, UserEmail) via DNS AAAA responses from attacker-controlled nameservers, encoding length markers and 14-byte chunks in specially formatted subdomains. On attribution, Kaspersky retains its low-confidence assessment that Project CAV3RN is associated with OilRig (APT34) (a link it first drew in a previous report) noting the new module shares behavioural patterns with previously reported OilRig tooling (Microsoft-hosted-service C2, attachment-based command exchange, a secondary cloud-C2 recovery mechanism) while explicitly identifying no direct code reuse or infrastructure overlap (Kaspersky, 2026-07-21). Treat the OilRig association as an analytic lead, not a settled attribution.

Updaterun 2026-08-12T0411Z-intelevidencesourcestechniquesbody

Kaspersky's GReAT team published a further instalment on Project CAV3RN on 2026-08-11, describing it as "a modular espionage framework used against targets in Israel" and expanding on two earlier publications (Kaspersky Securelist, 2026-08-11). The prior entry here covered the framework's DNS-based C2 fallback and Kaspersky's low-confidence association with OilRig. The delta is a channel-selection design that is worth carrying into detection engineering regardless of who operates it.

Kaspersky states: "The main finding is a complex C2 module that uses DNS A-record responses to choose between direct HTTPS and a Google Apps Script relay for each transaction. The same DNS infrastructure can validate and replace the relay deployment ID, allowing the operator to rotate the Google channel" (Kaspersky Securelist, 2026-08-11). The mechanics are specific enough to hunt on. The communication module is a 64-bit DLL compiled with .NET 8 NativeAOT. Before polling for commands or sending a result, it issues an A-record query for a name built from a short random nonce concatenated with a numeric error state, then a hex-encoded client identifier, under a fixed operator-controlled domain. One exact address is treated as a rejection; otherwise the module reads the fourth octet of the answer and maps it, in combination with the current error state, onto direct HTTPS, the Apps Script relay, an exception, or closing the transaction with no channel at all. A recovered Apps Script deployment ID is written back to the module's on-disk configuration, while other configuration changes pushed by the operator stay in memory. The two channels differ in shape as well as destination. On the direct-HTTPS path the module contacts a configured attacker-controlled address whose endpoint is gated on a custom client-identifier HTTP header, returning a failure response to requests without it and an encoded tasking body to requests carrying it. On the Apps Script path the module instead POSTs a JSON envelope to the deployment URL, with the upstream method and the headers to replay (the same client-identifier value among them) carried as fields inside that JSON body rather than as headers on the request to Google. Tasking comes back base64-encoded and XORed either way.

The second new component is an inter-component broker, a 64-bit Visual C++ DLL that masquerades as the RNP OpenPGP library through a set of rnp_* exports, with one of those exports starting the broker. At startup it creates its control structure, initialises a message dispatcher and scans the host directory for DLLs, grouping candidates by their CompanyName resource and loading the highest-versioned member of each group that exposes four specific named exports. It rescans that directory every second, so a component can be added or upgraded without restarting the host, but only by dropping a higher-versioned DLL under a new path, because replacing a file in place is not detected (Kaspersky Securelist, 2026-08-11).

Triage: high-volume DNS lookups under a single parent domain are also how legitimate telemetry agents, CDN clients and some licence checks behave, so the query volume alone is not the signal. The discriminators the described mechanism supports are the label structure (a short changing nonce plus a stable hex-encoded identifier per host, rather than a service-shaped name) and the tight temporal coupling, with one lookup preceding each outbound connection rather than a periodic refresh independent of traffic. Note what is not available as a discriminator on the relay path: the custom client-identifier travels inside the JSON body of a TLS POST to a legitimate Google endpoint, so it is not visible to header inspection or to anything short of TLS interception at the proxy.

threat21 Jul 04:43Zmulti-sourceOpen finding ↗

2026-08-07 · view entry permalink →

HIGHNATOB2

UNC6671 kept operating after BlackFile's announced retirement, across four further extortion brands, and its vishing pretext is now an urgent order to enroll a FIDO2 passkey

The retirement of a ransomware brand is a press release, not an outcome. Google Threat Intelligence Group reports that UNC6671, the actor behind the BlackFile extortion brand whose shutdown was announced in May 2026, went on operating and diversified across four further extortion fronts (Redact, Pink, Helix and Falcon) with the intrusion tradecraft essentially untouched (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). The linkage is an assessment rather than a certainty, and GTIG says so: overlapping victim targeting across brands "support our assessment that a common group of threat actors are affiliated with the BlackFile, Redact, Pink, Helix, and Falcon extortion brands, although other scenarios such as splintered affiliates or shared Phishing-as-a-Service infrastructure may also be plausible" (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). The evidentiary basis is infrastructure economics: rather than isolating infrastructure per victim, the operator reuses generic root domains across many targets and appends victim-name subdomains, so one root domain used against a Falcon-extorted organisation was simultaneously used against a Helix-extorted one, and the same phishing templates, identical in code and design, were served from several of those domains at once.

The lure is the important change, and it inverts the standard advice. The pretext is an urgent helpdesk mandate to enable FIDO2 passkeys or update MFA enrolment, delivered by a caller who reaches the employee on their personal mobile; GTIG records that "UNC6671 callers have continued to call targeted employees on their personal mobile numbers, circumventing corporate security controls", and that "in at least some recent cases, the threat actor has spoofed the legitimate helpdesk phone number adding an air of legitimacy" (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). Root domains pair authentication vocabulary (passkey, mfa, sso) with a verb, so the destination reads as an enrolment portal. GTIG's own hardening guidance names phishing-resistant authenticators as the durable control, because "these authenticators implement WebAuthn standard to enforce cryptographic origin binding between the authenticator and the specific domains it can authenticate to, rendering lookalike domains and AiTM proxies ineffective" (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). The operational catch is that origin binding protects an authenticator that already exists; this actor attacks the moment one is created. A defender who has deployed passkeys and considers the identity problem closed has hardened the authentication step and left the enrolment step as the way in.

Post-compromise, the chain is deliberately quiet. With session persistence established, the operator uses compromised mailboxes to trigger password resets on non-SSO enterprise applications, then blinds the victim: GTIG records that "operators systematically deleted password-reset confirmations, secondary security notifications, company-wide security alerts, and any alerts generated during modifications to account security or MFA configurations" (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). Exfiltration is scripted rather than hands-on-keyboard, pulling data from Microsoft 365 and other SaaS stores at machine rates. GTIG characterises the operation as data-theft extortion throughout and no cited source describes an encryption stage; the leverage on the evidence published is publication.

Targeting has moved deliberately upmarket. Between April and May 2026 the domains were aimed broadly at large enterprises in manufacturing, real estate, healthcare and insurance; in June the focus shifted to technology, transportation and hospitality; and "by July 2026, the target profile narrowed to focus on the financial and legal sectors, with observed infrastructure directed at private equity firms, law firms, and financial rating agencies" (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06), organisations holding merger, capital-deployment and litigation material, which is leverage rather than data. Operational tempo rose with it, to "an accelerated cadence of approximately one domain every 1.6 days" across June and July against one every 2.2 days in the preceding two months (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). BleepingComputer, relaying Reuters and Bloomberg, reports that recent targets in this financial-sector phase include several large US hedge funds and private-equity firms; GTIG names no victims itself (BleepingComputer, 2026-08-06).

The economics explain why announced retirements mean nothing. GTIG reviewed 18 BlackFile Bitcoin wallet addresses receiving 141.65 BTC (roughly $10.69 million at transaction time) between 2026-01-07 and 2026-05-12, with payments continuing past the 2026-05-11 shutdown notice and significant cash-out events in late April and early May. Initial demands run from $1 million to upwards of $3 million, negotiated down by 50% to 75%, and "in over 53% of tracked cases in this timeframe, final payments averaged $750,000 USD (~10.2 BTC)" (GTIG / Mandiant, 2026-08-06). GTIG's read is that the multi-brand structure most likely compartmentalises operations, hides total breach volume and isolates negotiation fallout, which is why brand-based tracking misleads and TTP-based tracking does not.

These overlaps support our assessment that a common group of threat actors are affiliated with the BlackFile, Redact, Pink, Helix, and Falcon extortion brands, although other scenarios such as splintered affiliates or shared Phishing-as-a-Service infrastructure may also be plausible.

UNC6671 callers have continued to call targeted employees on their personal mobile numbers, circumventing corporate security controls.

In at least some recent cases, the threat actor has spoofed the legitimate helpdesk phone number adding an air of legitimacy.

operators systematically deleted password-reset confirmations, secondary security notifications, company-wide security alerts, and any alerts generated during modifications to account security or MFA configurations.

In over 53% of tracked cases in this timeframe, final payments averaged $750,000 USD (~10.2 BTC).

These authenticators implement WebAuthn standard to enforce cryptographic origin binding between the authenticator and the specific domains it can authenticate to, rendering lookalike domains and AiTM proxies ineffective.

Google Threat Intelligence Group / Mandiant 2026-08-06
threat07 Aug 04:41Zmulti-sourceOpen finding ↗

Earlier coverage (8)

2026-08-01HIGHNATOB2CaptiveCrunch: an SVR-linked sub-cluster hijacks hotel and conference captive portals to serve fake update lures, a Go RAT and a token-stealing PowerShell module to travelling staffMicrosoft Threat Intelligence disclosed CaptiveCrunch on 2026-07-31, a campaign it attributes to Storm-2945, assessed as an operational sub-cluster of the SVR-attributed actor Midnight Blizzard. Since early May 2026 the actor has manipulated DNS and HTTP traffic on hospitality networks served by captive portals worldwide, redirecting users through its own infrastructure and answering browser connectivity checks with ClickFix-style fake browser and OS update prompts. The payloads are CornFlake, a Go Windows RAT with redundant persistence and a watchdog that restores anything defenders remove, and ChocoShell, an in-memory PowerShell stealer that takes browser cookies, saved passwords, Microsoft 365 SSO tokens and Wi-Fi credentials. Since 16 July some landing pages also drive Entra ID device-code phishing. Travelling government and diplomatic staff are named target populations.2026-07-10HIGHupdatedNATOB2Two 2026 M365 account-takeover campaigns (Railway device-code phishing, LSHIY ROPC spray) beat Conditional Access without breaking MFAHuntress published a comparative root-cause analysis of two 2026 Microsoft 365 account-takeover campaigns that both bypassed Conditional Access policies requiring MFA; not by defeating MFA but by using auth flows CA rarely covers. "Railway" (March 2026, 344 orgs incl. Germany) used device-code phishing to harvest 90-day OAuth tokens; "LSHIY" (June 2026, 78 accounts across 64 orgs) ran 81M+ ROPC login attempts against Azure CLI through the /token endpoint. Of the 78 LSHIY-compromised accounts, 55 had active CA policies requiring MFA that failed because of scoping gaps. Every M365 tenant should block the device-code flow and ensure CA covers all cloud apps and all client app types including legacy auth.2026-07-18NOTABLEupdatedNATOA3Abbott confirms a Cancer Diagnostics cyber incident; ShinyHunters claims a vished Entra SSO account and 30M+ recordsAbbott Laboratories confirmed (2026-07-16) unauthorized access to a limited number of internal systems in its Cancer Diagnostics business (the acquired Exact Sciences unit) only. Separately, the ShinyHunters extortion group claims the intrusion began with a vishing call that compromised a Microsoft Entra ID single-sign-on account, then used it to pull 30M+ records from Entra, ServiceNow, SharePoint, Databricks and Coupa; a claim Abbott has neither confirmed nor attributed. The confirmed incident plus the same vishing-to-cloud-SSO tradecraft this actor uses against SaaS-integrated enterprises makes it relevant to healthcare and any SharePoint/Entra-dependent estate.2026-07-29NOTABLENATOB2Talos IR Trends Q2 2026: ransomware operators ran their command-and-control through legitimate RMM agents, authentication abuse hit two-thirds of engagements, and missing logs stopped root-cause determination outrightCisco Talos Incident Response published its Q2 2026 quarterly report on 2026-07-28. Three named chains carry the operational value: Sinobi ransomware, in Talos IR's first engagement with the group, used a trojanized MeshAgent binary installed as a SYSTEM auto-start service for encrypted-WebSocket C2, held access for about three days, cracked a weak service-account password from ntds.dit, moved by RDP and WinRM, and deployed ransomware across the entire domain through a malicious GPO logon script with rclone staging exfiltration; Warlock (Storm-2603) was seen deploying the Zoho Assist Unattended Agent, a tool Talos had not previously attributed to it; and UAT-11764 runs a QR-code-in-PDF phishing operation that propagates through each compromised mailbox's own contact list. Two findings cut across all of it, authentication abuse appeared in 65% of engagements, and in several cases logging gaps prevented Talos from determining the initial access vector or the scope of exfiltration at all.2026-07-25NOTABLENATOB2Microsoft Email Threat Landscape Q2 2026: phishing moves off email into Teams vishing, and attachment lures drift PDF → DOCXMicrosoft's Q2 2026 email-threat report quantifies two operationally relevant shifts for M365 tenants: Teams-based voice-phishing (vishing) reached roughly ten times its mid-2025 weekly baseline by quarter-end, and phishing attachment delivery drifted from PDF toward DOC/DOCX as a detection-evasion move. Credential theft remained the objective of 94-96% of payload-based attacks. Includes two concrete campaigns: an automated BEC via Python-scripted Amazon SES and an EML/OAuth-redirect chain delivering a BAT dropper.2026-07-24NOTABLENATOA1German BKA dismantles Kratos, the Sneaky2FA-derived AiTM phishing-as-a-service platform behind ~15,000 monthly Microsoft 365 credential-theft campaignsGermany's BKA, with US and Indonesian partners, seized the infrastructure of Kratos (an adversary-in-the-middle phishing-as-a-service platform evolved from Sneaky2FA that generated deceptive Microsoft 365 login pages, including browser-in-the-browser fake windows) and arrested its administrator. Roughly 1,800 subscribers ran an estimated 15,000 campaigns a month. The tradecraft and affiliate base, not just infrastructure, are the risk.2026-07-10NOTABLENATOB2Forg365: a commercial Microsoft 365 phishing-as-a-service kit bundling device-code + AiTM phishing, in-panel AI lure drafting, and a browser extension for SSO-cookie persistenceZeroBEC documented Forg365, a Telegram-distributed, subscription-priced Microsoft 365 phishing-as-a-service platform that pairs an OAuth device-code phishing path with an adversary-in-the-middle session-theft path, an in-panel AI lure generator, and a companion browser extension (ForgCookie) that silently refreshes the stolen Microsoft SSO cookie so access persists without the victim re-authenticating. Both paths yield a valid, MFA-satisfied token because the victim completes the real Microsoft login. It is a distinct kit and operator from the Railway/EvilTokens device-code campaign covered earlier, same primitive, productized.2026-07-10HIGHNATOB2'Helix' data-extortion cluster pairs manager-impersonation vishing with device-code phishing and automated SharePoint exfiltrationReliaQuest documented a previously unreported data-extortion cluster it calls Helix, assessed as a likely continuation of the BlackFile (UNC6671) and ShinyHunters ecosystems on shared registrar and hosting infrastructure. Operators phone a target impersonating their named manager (spoofed caller-ID), walk them through an Entra ID device-code sign-in that captures a session token without a password and sidesteps Conditional Access, register a new Authenticator within minutes for persistence, then run automated SharePoint enumeration and bulk exfiltration. SharePoint + Entra ID is the default identity/collaboration stack across Swiss and EU public-sector tenants, so the playbook is directly reachable; disabling the device-code flow is the single highest-impact control.