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

Microsoft Azure

product · product:microsoft-azure single-source

Coverage
1
first 2026-09-28 → last 2026-09-30
Latest activity
2026-09-28
Microsoft ties JADEPUFFER's cloud operations to two Azure service principals: one enumerated a tenant for 15+…
Peak priority
high
1 high
Targets
public-sector
sectors: public-sector, technology
Sources cited
1
1 hosts

Action items (1)

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

  • Revoke or rotate every Azure service-principal client secret, storage key or connection string that has ever appeared in a public GitHub issue, PR, commit or gist, including ones since edited or deleted, and investigate each credential's historical use, as Microsoft advises.
    2026-09-28Microsoft ties JADEPUFFER's cloud operations to two…

Defender insights

What each entry about Microsoft Azure tells a defender to do, newest first.

2026-09-28HIGHMicrosoft ties JADEPUFFER's cloud operations to two Azure service principals: one enumerated a tenant for 15+ hours, the other destroyed resources in minutes

Triage · detection

Story timeline

  1. 2026-09-28Storm-3168 (JADEPUFFER): compromised Azure service principals enumerate a tenant for hours, then an automated burst destroys storage, Key Vault and app resources in about seven minutes
    active-threatsMicrosoft ties JADEPUFFER's cloud operations to two Azure service principals: one enumerated a tenant for 15+ hours, the other destroyed resources in minutes

Hunting pivots

Releases covered
Microsoft Azure
ATT&CK techniques (5 across 6 tactics)

5 techniques observed across 1 entry about this entity, 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)

  • Initial AccessValid Accounts: Cloud Accounts · Exploit Public-Facing Application
  • PersistenceValid Accounts: Cloud Accounts
  • Privilege EscalationValid Accounts: Cloud Accounts
  • StealthValid Accounts: Cloud Accounts
  • DiscoveryCloud Service Discovery
  • ImpactData Destruction · Inhibit System Recovery

Initial Access TA0001

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×1

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: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · 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: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · ATT&CK page ↗

Persistence TA0003

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×1

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: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · ATT&CK page ↗

Privilege Escalation TA0004

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×1

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: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · ATT&CK page ↗

Stealth TA0005

T1078.004Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts×1

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: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · ATT&CK page ↗

Discovery TA0007

T1526Cloud Service Discovery×1

An adversary may attempt to enumerate the cloud services running on a system after gaining access. These methods can differ from platform-as-a-service (PaaS), to infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS), or software-as-a-service (SaaS). Many services exist throughout the various cloud providers and can include Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD), Lambda Functions, Entra ID, etc. They may also include security services, such as AWS GuardDuty and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, and logging services, such as AWS CloudTrail and Google Cloud Audit Logs.

Evidence: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · ATT&CK page ↗

Impact TA0040

T1485Data Destruction×1

Adversaries may destroy data and files on specific systems or in large numbers on a network to interrupt availability to systems, services, and network resources. Data destruction is likely to render stored data irrecoverable by forensic techniques through overwriting files or data on local and remote drives. Common operating system file deletion commands such as <code>del</code> and <code>rm</code> often only remove pointers to files without wiping the contents of the files themselves, making the files recoverable by proper forensic methodology. This behavior is distinct from Disk Content Wipe and Disk Structure Wipe because individual files are destroyed rather than sections of a storage disk or the disk's logical structure.

Evidence: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · 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: 2026-09-28/storm-3168-jadepuffer-azure-destructive-service-principal · ATT&CK page ↗

Entries about Microsoft Azure (1)

2026-09-28 · view entry permalink →

HIGHupdatedNATOB2

Storm-3168 (JADEPUFFER): compromised Azure service principals enumerate a tenant for hours, then an automated burst destroys storage, Key Vault and app resources in about seven minutes

Microsoft Security Research has identified Azure resource-destruction activity it associates with JADEPUFFER, the threat actor Sysdig disclosed in July 2026 as the first documented agentic-ransomware operation, giving the first detailed view into the actor's cloud-native operations under Microsoft's own tracking designation Storm-3168 (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25). Two compromised service principals belonging to one tenant divided the work: the first spent roughly 15.5 hours running 300+ read-only enumeration calls across virtual machines, subscriptions and resource groups; the second, activated 90 minutes later, ran rapid parallel enumeration across two subscriptions in five seconds, then 16 hours later probed Azure App Service configuration stores and Azure OpenSearch resources, apparently hunting for exposed credentials. Within one second of a failed key-retrieval attempt against a non-existent storage account, the same service principal began a roughly seven-minute destructive sequence: 100+ storage-account deletion attempts, mostly successful, though Azure resource locks and storage-account-level deletion protection blocked deletion for a subset, plus deletion of a Key Vault, Function App and App Service plan belonging to the same resource group. Parallel attempts to delete Azure SQL databases failed only because the actor used an unsupported API version for that resource type. The actor also made repeated, unsuccessful attempts against Azure Site Recovery locks and Azure Backup protection locks, which Microsoft assesses as potentially intending to impair recovery, before pivoting roughly 30 minutes later to 30+ successful Storage-Account ListKeys credential-collection calls, including against Site-Recovery-related accounts, for possible future exfiltration.

Timing evidence drives Microsoft's automation assessment: five distinct OAuth tokens were issued for the destructive and collection work, with two active during the same 70-second window performing different resource-type deletions in parallel: "the timing between the different operations and the division of work using multiple service principals and overlapping token streams from the same service principal strongly indicates automated or scripted execution" (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25). No ransom note or confirmed data exfiltration was observed in this specific activity, but Microsoft assesses the destruction, recovery-mechanism targeting and credential harvesting together as consistent with a ransomware/extortion-aligned objective. Microsoft separately notes ongoing probing from Storm-3168-linked infrastructure since the start of the year against multiple Azure App Service customers, targeting WordPress-administration, PHP-CGI and LangFlow code-validation endpoints, but found no App-Service-to-ARM credential path connecting that probing to the tenant affected in this campaign.

Initial access to the compromised service principal is not confirmed: it is "unclear how the service principal was initially compromised," but its client ID, client secret and tenant ID had previously been posted in plaintext in a public GitHub issue by an employee of the affected organization. The issue was later edited to remove the visible secret, but the value remained retrievable through the issue's public edit history; Microsoft states plainly that "removing or redacting an exposed secret does not invalidate it," while also stating it "could not confirm whether this secret was used for the activity described here" (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25).

Detection and hunting. In Azure Resource Manager audit-log telemetry, the signal is volume and sequencing rather than any single call: dozens to hundreds of deletion or ListKeys operations against storage accounts, Key Vaults and Function Apps within minutes, especially when preceded by hours of broad read-only enumeration from the same or a paired service principal, and when it includes attempts against Site Recovery or Backup protection locks specifically, a combination with essentially no legitimate operational counterpart. The python-requests user agent Microsoft observed on both compromised principals (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25) is a further, if weak, signal worth correlating with the rest of the sequence rather than alerting on alone.

Triage: legitimate infrastructure-as-code teardown and disaster-recovery testing can also delete storage accounts and Key Vaults in bulk, so the discriminators are the attempt against recovery-protection locks specifically (a step with no purpose in routine teardown), the credential-harvesting ListKeys sweep that follows the destructive burst rather than preceding it, and multiple overlapping OAuth tokens performing different destructive operations in parallel from principals with no prior operational history of this pattern.

The issue was later edited to remove the secret, but the secret remained accessible through the issue's public edit history. Removing or redacting an exposed secret does not invalidate it; credentials exposed in any public internet location should be treated as compromised and promptly revoked or rotated. We could not confirm whether this secret was used for the activity described here.

The timing between the different operations and the division of work using multiple service principals and overlapping token streams from the same service principal strongly indicates automated or scripted execution.

However, we did not observe a ransom note or confirm successful data exfiltration in the activity described here.

Microsoft Security Blog
Correctionrun 2026-09-30T0639Z-audittitlesummarybodyactionsheadline

Microsoft does not tie the campaign to the GitHub-exposed secret. It lists the secret under possible initial access, says it is unclear how the service principal was initially compromised, and states it could not confirm whether the secret was used (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25). Resource locks and storage-account deletion protection blocked deletion for a few storage accounts, and the Azure SQL database deletions failed because the actor used an unsupported API version (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25), so the locks were not the only control that stopped deletions. The headline said one service principal enumerated the tenant and then destroyed resources. Microsoft reports two: one performed reconnaissance and resource discovery, and the other performed discovery, destructive operations and credential collection (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25). The summary said the actor attempted to disable the Azure Site Recovery and Backup protection locks, and the main text said Microsoft attributes the activity to JADEPUFFER. Microsoft reports multiple unsuccessful deletion attempts against those locks and describes the activity as associated with JADEPUFFER (Microsoft Security Blog, 2026-09-25).

threat28 Sep 04:04Zsingle-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

  • Threats1

Source distribution

  • microsoft.com1 (100%)