November 27, 2023

Detecting PurpleFox Rootkit with Darktrace AI

The PurpleFox rootkit poses significant risks. Discover how Darktrace leveraged advanced techniques to combat this persistent cyber threat.

Written by

Piramol Krishnan

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Piramol Krishnan

Cyber Security Analyst

Nov 2023

Versatile Malware: PurpleFox

As organizations and security teams across the world move to bolster their digital defenses against cyber threats, threats actors, in turn, are forced to adopt more sophisticated tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to circumvent them. Rather than being static and predictable, malware strains are becoming increasingly versatile and therefore elusive to traditional security tools.

One such example is PurpleFox. First observed in 2018, PurpleFox is a combined fileless rootkit and backdoor trojan known to target Windows machines. PurpleFox is known for consistently adapting its functionalities over time, utilizing different infection vectors including known vulnerabilities (CVEs), fake Telegram installers, and phishing. It is also leveraged by other campaigns to deliver ransomware tools, spyware, and cryptocurrency mining malware. It is also widely known for using Microsoft Software Installer (MSI) files masquerading as other file types.

The Evolution of PurpleFox

The Original Strain

First reported in March 2018, PurpleFox was identified to be a trojan that drops itself onto Windows machines using an MSI installation package that alters registry values to replace a legitimate Windows system file [1]. The initial stage of infection relied on the third-party toolkit RIG Exploit Kit (EK). RIG EK is hosted on compromised or malicious websites and is dropped onto the unsuspecting system when they visit browse that site. The built-in Windows installer (MSIEXEC) is leveraged to run the installation package retrieved from the website. This, in turn, drops two files into the Windows directory – namely a malicious dynamic-link library (DLL) that acts as a loader, and the payload of the malware. After infection, PurpleFox is often used to retrieve and deploy other types of malware.

Subsequent Variants

Since its initial discovery, PurpleFox has also been observed leveraging PowerShell to enable fileless infection and additional privilege escalation vulnerabilities to increase the likelihood of successful infection [2]. The PowerShell script had also been reported to be masquerading as a .jpg image file. PowerSploit modules are utilized to gain elevated privileges if the current user lacks administrator privileges. Once obtained, the script proceeds to retrieve and execute a malicious MSI package, also masquerading as an image file. As of 2020, PurpleFox no longer relied on the RIG EK for its delivery phase, instead spreading via the exploitation of the SMB protocol [3]. The malware would leverage the compromised systems as hosts for the PurpleFox payloads to facilitate its spread to other systems. This mode of infection can occur without any user action, akin to a worm.

The current iteration of PurpleFox reportedly uses brute-forcing of vulnerable services, such as SMB, to facilitate its spread over the network and escalate privileges. By scanning internet-facing Windows computers, PurpleFox exploits weak passwords for Windows user accounts through SMB, including administrative credentials to facilitate further privilege escalation.

Darktrace detection of PurpleFox

In July 2023, Darktrace observed an example of a PurpleFox infection on the network of a customer in the healthcare sector. This observation was a slightly different method of downloading the PurpleFox payload. An affected device was observed initiating a series of service control requests using DCE-RPC, instructing the device to make connections to a host of servers to download a malicious .PNG file, later confirmed to be the PurpleFox rootkit. The device was then observed carrying out worm-like activity to other external internet-facing servers, as well as scanning related subnets.

Darktrace DETECT™ was able to successfully identify and track this compromise across the cyber kill chain and ensure the customer was able to take swift remedial action to prevent the attack from escalating further.

While the customer in question did have Darktrace RESPOND™, it was configured in human confirmation mode, meaning any mitigative actions had to be manually applied by the customer’s security team. If RESPOND had been enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack, it would have been able to take swift action against the compromise to contain it at the earliest instance.

Attack Overview

Figure 1: Timeline of PurpleFox malware kill chain.

Initial Scanning over SMB

On July 14, 2023, Darktrace detected the affected device scanning other internal devices on the customer’s network via port 445. The numerous connections were consistent with the aforementioned worm-like activity that has been reported from PurpleFox behavior as it appears to be targeting SMB services looking for open or vulnerable channels to exploit.

This initial scanning activity was detected by Darktrace DETECT, specifically through the model breach ‘Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity’. Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ then launched an autonomous investigation into these internal connections and tied them into one larger-scale network reconnaissance incident, rather than a series of isolated connections.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst technical details summarizing the initial scanning activity seen with the internal network scan over port 445.

As Darktrace RESPOND was configured in human confirmation mode, it was unable to autonomously block these internal connections. However, it did suggest blocking connections on port 445, which could have been manually applied by the customer’s security team.

Figure 3: The affected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the initial scanning activity observed by Darktrace DETECT and the corresponding suggested RESPOND action.

Privilege Escalation

The device successfully logged in via NTLM with the credential, ‘administrator’. Darktrace recognized that the endpoint was external to the customer’s environment, indicating that the affected device was now being used to propagate the malware to other networks. Considering the lack of observed brute-force activity up to this point, the credentials for ‘administrator’ had likely been compromised prior to Darktrace’s deployment on the network, or outside of Darktrace’s purview via a phishing attack.

Exploitation

Darktrace then detected a series of service control requests over DCE-RPC using the credential ‘admin’ to make SVCCTL Create Service W Requests. A script was then observed where the controlled device is instructed to launch mshta.exe, a Windows-native binary designed to execute Microsoft HTML Application (HTA) files. This enables the execution of arbitrary script code, VBScript in this case.

Figure 4: PurpleFox remote service control activity captured by a Darktrace DETECT model breach.

Figure 5: The infected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the anomalous service control activity being picked up by DETECT.

There are a few MSIEXEC flags to note:

/i : installs or configures a product
/Q : sets the user interface level. In this case, it is set to ‘No UI’, which is used for “quiet” execution, so no user interaction is required

Evidently, this was an attempt to evade detection by endpoint users as it is surreptitiously installed onto the system. This corresponds to the download of the rootkit that has previously been associated with PurpleFox. At this stage, the infected device continues to be leveraged as an attack device and scans SMB services over external endpoints. The device also appeared to attempt brute-forcing over NTLM using the same ‘administrator’ credential to these endpoints. This activity was identified by Darktrace DETECT which, if enabled in autonomous response mode would have instantly blocked similar outbound connections, thus preventing the spread of PurpleFox.

Figure 6: The infected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the outbound activity corresponding to PurpleFox’s wormlike spread. This was caught by DETECT and the corresponding suggested RESPOND action.

Installation

On August 9, Darktrace observed the device making initial attempts to download a malicious .PNG file. This was a notable change in tactics from previously reported PurpleFox campaigns which had been observed utilizing .MOE files for their payloads [3]. The .MOE payloads are binary files that are more easily detected and blocked by traditional signatured-based security measures as they are not associated with known software. The ubiquity of .PNG files, especially on the web, make identifying and blacklisting the files significantly more difficult.

The first connection was made with the URI ‘/test.png’. It was noted that the HTTP method here was HEAD, a method similar to GET requests except the server must not return a message-body in the response.

The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request should be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request. This method is often used to test hypertext links for validity and recent modification. This is likely a way of checking if the server hosting the payload is still active. Avoiding connections that could possibly be detected by antivirus solutions can help keep this activity under-the-radar.

Figure 7: Packet Capture from an affected customer device showing the initial HTTP requests to the payload server.

Figure 8: Packet Capture showing the HTTP requests to download the payloads.

The server responds with a status code of 200 before the download begins. The HEAD request could be part of the attacker’s verification that the server is still running, and that the payload is available for download. The ‘/test.png’ HEAD request was sent twice, likely for double confirmation to begin the file transfer.

Figure 9: PCAP from the affected customer device showing the Windows Installer user-agent associated with the .PNG file download.

Subsequent analysis using a Packet Capture (PCAP) tool revealed that this connection used the Windows Installer user agent that has previously been associated with PurpleFox. The device then began to download a payload that was masquerading as a Microsoft Word document. The device was thus able to download the payload twice, from two separate endpoints.

By masquerading as a Microsoft Word file, the threat actor was likely attempting to evade the detection of the endpoint user and traditional security tools by passing off as an innocuous text document. Likewise, using a Windows Installer user agent would enable threat actors to bypass antivirus measures and disguise the malicious installation as legitimate download activity.

Darktrace DETECT identified that these were masqueraded file downloads by correctly identifying the mismatch between the file extension and the true file type. Subsequently, AI Analyst was able to correctly identify the file type and deduced that this download was indicative of the device having been compromised.

In this case, the device attempted to download the payload from several different endpoints, many of which had low antivirus detection rates or open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags, highlighting the need to move beyond traditional signature-base detections.

Figure 10: Cyber AI Analyst technical details summarizing the downloads of the PurpleFox payload.

Figure 11 (a): The Model Breach generated by the masqueraded file transfer associated with the PurpleFox payload.

Figure 11 (b): The Model Breach generated by the masqueraded file transfer associated with the PurpleFox payload.

If Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack it would have acted by blocking connections to these suspicious endpoints, thus preventing the download of malicious files. However, as RESPOND was in human confirmation mode, RESPOND actions required manual application by the customer’s security team which unfortunately did not happen, as such the device was able to download the payloads.

Conclusion

The PurpleFox malware is a particularly dynamic strain known to continually evolve over time, utilizing a blend of old and new approaches to achieve its goals which is likely to muddy expectations on its behavior. By frequently employing new methods of attack, malicious actors are able to bypass traditional security tools that rely on signature-based detections and static lists of indicators of compromise (IoCs), necessitating a more sophisticated approach to threat detection.

Darktrace DETECT’s Self-Learning AI enables it to confront adaptable and elusive threats like PurpleFox. By learning and understanding customer networks, it is able to discern normal network behavior and patterns of life, distinguishing expected activity from potential deviations. This anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows Darktrace to detect cyber threats as soon as they emerge.

By combining DETECT with the autonomous response capabilities of RESPOND, Darktrace customers are able to effectively safeguard their digital environments and ensure that emerging threats can be identified and shut down at the earliest stage of the kill chain, regardless of the tactics employed by would-be attackers.

Credit to Piramol Krishnan, Cyber Analyst, Qing Hong Kwa, Senior Cyber Analyst & Deputy Team Lead, Singapore

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Device / Increased External Connectivity
Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints
Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)
Compliance / External Windows Communications
Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
Compromise / Unusual SVCCTL Activity
Compromise / Rare Domain Pointing to Internal IP
Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer

RESPOND Models

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block
Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block
Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block
Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block
Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block
Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

/C558B828.Png - URI - URI for Purple Fox Rootkit [4]

5b1de649f2bc4eb08f1d83f7ea052de5b8fe141f - File Hash - SHA1 hash of C558B828.Png file (Malware payload)

190.4.210[.]242 - IP - Purple Fox C2 Servers

218.4.170[.]236 - IP - IP for download of .PNG file (Malware payload)

180.169.1[.]220 - IP - IP for download of .PNG file (Malware payload)

103.94.108[.]114:10837 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

221.199.171[.]174:16543 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

61.222.155[.]49:14098 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

178.128.103[.]246:17880 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

222.134.99[.]132:12539 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

164.90.152[.]252:18075 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

198.199.80[.]121:11490 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

‍Tactic - Technique

Reconnaissance - Active Scanning T1595, Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks T1595.001, Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning T1595.002

Resource Development - Obtain Capabilities: Malware T1588.001

Initial Access, Defense Evasion, Persistence, Privilege Escalation - Valid Accounts: Default Accounts T1078.001

Initial Access - Drive-by Compromise T1189

Defense Evasion - Masquerading T1036

Credential Access - Brute Force T1110

Discovery - Network Service Discovery T1046

Command and Control - Proxy: External Proxy T1090.002

References

https://blog.360totalsecurity.com/en/purple-fox-trojan-burst-out-globally-and-infected-more-than-30000-users/
https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/19/i/purple-fox-fileless-malware-with-rookit-component-delivered-by-rig-exploit-kit-now-abuses-powershell.html
https://www.akamai.com/blog/security/purple-fox-rootkit-now-propagates-as-a-worm ‍
https://www.foregenix.com/blog/an-overview-on-purple-fox ‍
https://www.trendmicro.com/en_sg/research/21/j/purplefox-adds-new-backdoor-that-uses-websockets.html

Written by

Piramol Krishnan

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Piramol Krishnan

Cyber Security Analyst

•

May 8, 2025

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

May 6, 2025

Pallavi Singh

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

May 8, 2025

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

What is threat hunting?

Threat hunting in cybersecurity involves proactively and iteratively searching through networks and datasets to detect threats that evade existing automated security solutions. It is an important component of a strong cybersecurity posture.

There are several frameworks that Darktrace analysts use to guide how threat hunting is carried out, some of which are:

MITRE Attack
Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs)
Diamond Model for Intrusion Analysis
Adversary, Infrastructure, Victims, Capabilities
Threat Hunt Model – Six Steps
Purpose, Scope, Equip, Plan, Execute, Feedback
Pyramid of Pain

These frameworks are important in baselining how to run a threat hunt. There are also a combination of different methods that allow defenders diversity– regardless of whether it is a proactive or reactive threat hunt. Some of these are:

Hypothesis-based threat hunting
Analytics-driven threat hunting
Automated/machine learning hunting
Indicator of Compromise (IoC) hunting
Victim-based threat hunting

Threat hunting with Darktrace

At its core, Darktrace relies on anomaly-based detection methods. It combines various machine learning types that allows it to characterize what constitutes ‘normal’, based on the analysis of many different measures of a device or actor’s behavior. Those types of learning are then curated into what are called models.

Darktrace models leverage anomaly detection and integrate outputs from Darktrace Deep Packet Inspection, telemetry inputs, and additional modules, creating tailored activity detection.

This dynamic understanding allows Darktrace to identify, with a high degree of precision, events or behaviors that are both anomalous and unlikely to be benign. On top of machine learning models for detection, there is also the ability to change and create models showcasing the tool’s diversity. The Model Editor allows security teams to specify values, priorities, thresholds, and actions they want to detect. That means a team can create custom detection models based on specific use cases or business requirements. Teams can also increase the priority of existing detections based on their own risk assessments to their environment.

This level of dexterity is particularly useful when conducting a threat hunt. As described above, and in previous ‘Inside the SOC’ blogs such a threat hunt can be on a specific threat actor, specific sector, or a hypothesis-based threat hunt combined with ‘experimenting’ with some of Darktrace’s models.

Conducting a threat hunt in the energy sector with experimental models

In Darktrace’s recent Threat Research report “AI & Cybersecurity: The state of cyber in UK and US energy sectors” Darktrace’s Threat Research team crafted hypothesis-driven threat hunts, building experimental models and investigating existing models to test them and detect malicious activity across Darktrace customers in the energy sector.

For one of the hunts, which hypothesised utilization of PerfectData software and multi-factor authentication (MFA) bypass to compromise user accounts and destruct data, an experimental model was created to detect a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) user performing activity relating to 'PerfectData Software’, known to allow a threat actor to exfiltrate whole mailboxes as a PST file. Experimental model alerts caused by this anomalous activity were analyzed, in conjunction with existing SaaS and email-related models that would indicate a multi-stage attack in line with the hypothesis.

Whilst hunting, Darktrace researchers found multiple model alerts for this experimental model associated with PerfectData software usage, within energy sector customers, including an oil and gas investment company, as well as other sectors. Upon further investigation, it was also found that in June 2024, a malicious actor had targeted a renewable energy infrastructure provider via a PerfectData Software attack and demonstrated intent to conduct an Operational Technology (OT) attack.

The actor logged into Azure AD from a rare US IP address. They then granted Consent to ‘eM Client’ from the same IP. Shortly after, the actor granted ‘AddServicePrincipal’ via Azure to PerfectData Software. Two days later, the actor created a new email rule from a London IP to move emails to an RSS Feed Folder, stop processing rules, and mark emails as read. They then accessed mail items in the “\Sent” folder from a malicious IP belonging to anonymization network, Private Internet Access Virtual Private Network (PIA VPN) [1]. The actor then conducted mass email deletions, deleting multiple instances of emails with subject “[Name] shared "[Company Name] Proposal" With You” from the “\Sent folder”. The emails’ subject suggests the email likely contains a link to file storage for phishing purposes. The mass deletion likely represented an attempt to obfuscate a potential outbound phishing email campaign.

Figure 1: The Darktrace Model Alert that triggered for the mass deletes of the likely phishing email containing a file storage link.

A month later, the same user was observed downloading mass mLog CSV files related to proprietary and Operational Technology information. In September, three months after the initial attack, another mass download of operational files occurred by this actor, pertaining to operating instructions and measurements, The observed patience and specific file downloads seemingly demonstrated an intent to conduct or research possible OT attack vectors. An attack on OT could have significant impacts including operational downtime, reputational damage, and harm to everyday operations. Darktrace alerted the impacted customer once findings were verified, and subsequent actions were taken by the internal security team to prevent further malicious activity.

Conclusion

Harnessing the power of different tools in a security stack is a key element to cyber defense. The above hypothesis-based threat hunt and custom demonstrated intent to conduct an experimental model creation demonstrates different threat hunting approaches, how Darktrace’s approach can be operationalized, and that proactive threat hunting can be a valuable complement to traditional security controls and is essential for organizations facing increasingly complex threat landscapes.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO at Darktrace) and Zoe Tilsiter (EMEA Consultancy Lead)

‍

References

https://spur.us/context/191.96.106.219

‍

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

May 6, 2025

Combatting the Top Three Sources of Risk in the Cloud

With cloud computing, organizations are storing data like intellectual property, trade secrets, Personally Identifiable Information (PII), proprietary code and statistics, and other sensitive information in the cloud. If this data were to be accessed by malicious actors, it could incur financial loss, reputational damage, legal liabilities, and business disruption.

Last year data breaches in solely public cloud deployments were the most expensive type of data breach, with an average of $5.17 million USD, a 13.1% increase from the year before.

So, as cloud usage continues to grow, the teams in charge of protecting these deployments must understand the associated cybersecurity risks.

What are cloud risks?

Cloud threats come in many forms, with one of the key types consisting of cloud risks. These arise from challenges in implementing and maintaining cloud infrastructure, which can expose the organization to potential damage, loss, and attacks.

There are three major types of cloud risks:

1. Misconfigurations

As organizations struggle with complex cloud environments, misconfiguration is one of the leading causes of cloud security incidents. These risks occur when cloud settings leave gaps between cloud security solutions and expose data and services to unauthorized access. If discovered by a threat actor, a misconfiguration can be exploited to allow infiltration, lateral movement, escalation, and damage.

With the scale and dynamism of cloud infrastructure and the complexity of hybrid and multi-cloud deployments, security teams face a major challenge in exerting the required visibility and control to identify misconfigurations before they are exploited.

Common causes of misconfiguration come from skill shortages, outdated practices, and manual workflows. For example, potential misconfigurations can occur around firewall zones, isolated file systems, and mount systems, which all require specialized skill to set up and diligent monitoring to maintain

2. Identity and Access Management (IAM) failures

IAM has only increased in importance with the rise of cloud computing and remote working. It allows security teams to control which users can and cannot access sensitive data, applications, and other resources.

Cybersecurity professionals ranked IAM skills as the second most important security skill to have, just behind general cloud and application security.

There are four parts to IAM: authentication, authorization, administration, and auditing and reporting. Within these, there are a lot of subcomponents as well, including but not limited to Single Sign-On (SSO), Two-Factor Authentication (2FA), Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), and Role-Based Access Control (RBAC).

Security teams are faced with the challenge of allowing enough access for employees, contractors, vendors, and partners to complete their jobs while restricting enough to maintain security. They may struggle to track what users are doing across the cloud, apps, and on-premises servers.

When IAM is misconfigured, it increases the attack surface and can leave accounts with access to resources they do not need to perform their intended roles. This type of risk creates the possibility for threat actors or compromised accounts to gain access to sensitive company data and escalate privileges in cloud environments. It can also allow malicious insiders and users who accidentally violate data protection regulations to cause greater damage.

3. Cross-domain threats

The complexity of hybrid and cloud environments can be exploited by attacks that cross multiple domains, such as traditional network environments, identity systems, SaaS platforms, and cloud environments. These attacks are difficult to detect and mitigate, especially when a security posture is siloed or fragmented.

Some attack types inherently involve multiple domains, like lateral movement and supply chain attacks, which target both on-premises and cloud networks.

Challenges in securing against cross-domain threats often come from a lack of unified visibility. If a security team does not have unified visibility across the organization’s domains, gaps between various infrastructures and the teams that manage them can leave organizations vulnerable.

Adopting AI cybersecurity tools to reduce cloud risk

For security teams to defend against misconfigurations, IAM failures, and insecure APIs, they require a combination of enhanced visibility into cloud assets and architectures, better automation, and more advanced analytics. These capabilities can be achieved with AI-powered cybersecurity tools.

Such tools use AI and automation to help teams maintain a clear view of all their assets and activities and consistently enforce security policies.

Darktrace / CLOUD is a Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solution that makes cloud security accessible to all security teams and SOCs by using AI to identify and correct misconfigurations and other cloud risks in public, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments.

It provides real-time, dynamic architectural modeling, which gives SecOps and DevOps teams a unified view of cloud infrastructures to enhance collaboration and reveal possible misconfigurations and other cloud risks. It continuously evaluates architecture changes and monitors real-time activity, providing audit-ready traceability and proactive risk management.

Figure 1: Real-time visibility into cloud assets and architectures built from network, configuration, and identity and access roles. In this unified view, Darktrace / CLOUD reveals possible misconfigurations and risk paths.

Darktrace / CLOUD also offers attack path modeling for the cloud. It can identify exposed assets and highlight internal attack paths to get a dynamic view of the riskiest paths across cloud environments, network environments, and between – enabling security teams to prioritize based on unique business risk and address gaps to prevent future attacks.

Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI ensures continuous cloud resilience, helping teams move from reactive to proactive defense.

[related-resource]

About the author

Pallavi Singh

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Detecting PurpleFox Rootkit with Darktrace AI

Detecting PurpleFox Rootkit with Darktrace AI

Versatile Malware: PurpleFox

The Evolution of PurpleFox

The Original Strain

Subsequent Variants

Darktrace detection of PurpleFox

Attack Overview

Initial Scanning over SMB

Privilege Escalation

Exploitation

Installation

Conclusion

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

RESPOND Models

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

Combatting the Top Three Sources of Risk in the Cloud

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

SocGholish: From loader and C2 activity to RansomHub deployment

Your Vendors, Your Risk: Rethinking Third-Party Security in the Age of Supply Chain Attacks

Blog

May 8, 2025

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

What is threat hunting?

Threat hunting with Darktrace

Conducting a threat hunt in the energy sector with experimental models

Conclusion

References

Blog

May 6, 2025

Combatting the Top Three Sources of Risk in the Cloud

What are cloud risks?

1. Misconfigurations

2. Identity and Access Management (IAM) failures

3. Cross-domain threats

Adopting AI cybersecurity tools to reduce cloud risk