Monday, January 22, 2024

Lists of Images

There're a lot of discussions out there on social media regarding how to get started or improve yourself or set yourself apart in cybersecurity, and lot of the advice centers around doing things yourself; setting up a home lab, using various tools, etc. A lot of this advice is also centered around pen testing and red teaming; while it's not discussed as much, there is a lot you can do if you're interested in digital forensics, and the cool thing is that you don't have to "set up a home lab" to fully engage in most of it. All you need is a way to download the images and any tools you want, to a system to do the work on.

Fortunately, there are a number of sites where you can find these images, to practice doing analysis, or to engage in tool testing. Also, many of these sites are on lists...I've developed a list of my own, for example. Amongst the various available lists, there's most assuredly going to be duplication, so just be aware of that going in. That being said, let's take a look at some of the lists...

The folks at ArsenalRecon posted a list of publicly available images, and Brett Shavers followed up by sharing a DFIR Training link of "test" images.

Dr. Ali Hadi has a list of challenge images (he graciously allowed me to use one of them in Investigating Windows Systems), as well as a blog with some very valuable posts.

While "test" and CTF images are a great way to practice using various tools, and even developing new techniques, they lack the fossilization of user and system activity seen in real-world images. There's not a great deal that can be done about that; suffice to say that this is just something that folks need to be aware of when working with the images. It's also possible within the limited scope of the "incident" to develop not just threat intel, but also discern insights into the threat actor; that is, to observe human behavior rendered from digital forensics.

Many of the CTF images will be accompanied by a list of questions that need to be answered (i.e., the flags), few of which are ever actually asked for by customers, IRL. I've seen CTFs with 37 or even 51 questions, and across 25 yrs of DFIR experience, I've never had customers ask more than 5 questions, with one or two of them being duplicates. 

The point is that CTF images are a great place to start, particularly if you take more "real world" approach to the situation and define your own goals. "Is this system infected with malware? If so, how did this happen, what did the malware do, and was any data stolen as a result?"

It's also a great idea to do more than just answer the questions, but to also go beyond. For example, in the write up of your findings, did you consider control efficacy? What controls were in place, did they work or not, and what controls would you recommend?

I once worked a case where the endpoint was infected due to a phishing email and the customer responded that this couldn't be the case, because they had a package specifically designed to address such things on their email gateway. However, the phishing email had gotten on the system because the user accessed their personal email via a browser, bypassing the email gateway all together.

Can you recommend controls or system configuration changes that may have inhibited or even obviated the attack/infection? What controls either on the network, or on the endpoint itself may have had an impact on the attack?

What about detections? How would you detect this malware or activity on future cases? Can you write a Yara or Sigma rule that would address the attack at any point? Is there one data source that proved to be more valuable than others, something you can clearly delineate as, "...if you see this, then the attack succeeded..."?

What can you tell about the "attacker", as a person? Was this a human operated attack, and if so, what insights can you develop about the attacker from your DF analysis? Hours of operations, capabilities, situational awareness are all aspects you can look at. Were there failed attempts to log in, run commands, or install applications, or did the attacker seem to be prepared and good to go when they got on the box? What insights can be rendered from your analysis, and are there any gaps that would shed more light on what was happening?

Finally, set up a Github site or blog, and share your experience and findings. Write up a blog post, a series of blog posts, or upload a document to a Github repo, and invite others to review, and ask questions, make comments, etc.

Monday, January 15, 2024


There's been a good bit of discussion in the cybersecurity community regarding "EDR bypasses", and most of these discussions have been centered around technical means a threat actor can use to "bypass" EDR. Many of these discussions do not seem to take the logistics of such thing into account; that is, you can't suddenly "bypass EDR" on an endpoint without first accessing the endpoint, setting up a beachhead and then bringing your tools over. Even then, where is the guarantee that it will actually work? I've seen ransomware threat actors fail to get their file encryption software to run on some endpoints.

Going unnoticed on an endpoint when we believe or feel that EDR is prevalent can be a challenge, and this could be the reason why these discussions have taken hold. However, the fact of the matter is that the "feeling" that EDR is prevalent is just that...a feeling, and not supported by data, nor situational awareness. If you look at other aspects of EDR and SOC operations, there are plenty of opportunities using minimal/native tools to achieve the same effect; to have your actions not generate alerts that a SOC analyst investigates.

Situational Awareness
Not all threat actors have the same level of situational awareness. I've seen threat actors where EDR has blocked their process from executing, and they respond by attempting to uninstall AV that isn't installed on the endpoint. Yep, that's right...this was not preceded by a query attempting to determine which AV product was installed; rather, the threat actor when right to uninstalling ESET. In another instance, the threat actor attempted to uninstall Carbon Black; the monitored endpoint was running <EDR>. Again, no attempt was made to determine what was installed.

However, I did see one instance where the threat actor, before doing anything else or being blocked/inhibited, ran queries looking for <EDR> running on 15 other endpoints. From our dashboard, we knew that only 4 of those endpoints had <EDR> running; the threat actor moved to one of the 11 that didn't.

The take-away from this is that even beyond "shadow IT", there are likely endpoints within an infrastructure that don't have EDR installed; 100% coverage, while preferred, is not guaranteed. I remember an organization several years ago that was impacted by a breach, and after discovering the breach, installed EDR on only about 200 endpoints, out of almost 15,000. They also installed the EDR in "learning mode", and several of the installed endpoints were heavily used by the threat actors. As such, the EDR "learned" that the threat actor was "normal" activity.

Another aspect of EDR is that for the tool to be effective, most need to communicate to "the cloud"; that is, send data off of the endpoint and outside of the network, were it will be processed. Yes, I know that Carbon Black started out with an on-prem approach, and that Sysmon writes to a local Windows Event Log file, but most EDR frameworks send data to "the cloud", in part so that users with laptops will still have coverage. 

EDRSilencer takes advantage of this, not by stopping, altering or "blinding" EDR, but by preventing it from communicating off of the endpoint. See p1k4chu's write up here; EDRSilencer works by creating a WFP rule to block the EDR EXE from communicating off of the host, which, to be honest, is a great idea. 

Why a "great idea"? For one, it's neither easy nor productive to create a rule to alert when the EDR is no longer communicating. Some organizations will have hundreds or thousands of endpoints with EDR installed, and there's no real "heartbeat" function in many of them. Employees will disconnect laptops, offices (including WFH) may have power interruptions, etc., so there are LOT of reasons why an EDR agent may cease communicating. 

In 2000, I worked for an organization that had a rule that would detect significant time changes (more than a few minutes) on all of their Windows endpoints. The senior sysadmin and IT director would not do anything about the rules, and simply accepted that twice a year, we'd be inundated with these alerts for every endpoint. My point is that when you're talking about global/international infrastructures, or MDRs, having a means of detecting when an agent is not communicating is a tough nut to crack; do it wrong and don't plan well for edge cases, and you're going to crush your SOC. 

If you read the EDRSilencer Github page and p1k4chu's write-up closely, you'll see that EDRSilencer uses a hard-coded list of EDR executables, which doesn't include all possible EDR tools.

Fortunately, p1k4chu's write up provides some excellent insights as to how to detect the use of EDRSilencer, even pointing out specific audit configuration changes to ensure that the appropriate events are written to the Security Event Log.

As a bit of a side note, audtipol.exe is, in fact, natively available on Windows platforms.

Once the change is made, the two main events of interest are Security-Auditing/5441 and Security-Auditing/5157. P1k4chu's write-up also includes a Yara rule to detect the EDRSilencer executable, which is based in part on a list of the hard-coded EDR tools.

EDRNoiseMaker detects the use of EDRSilencer, by looking for filters blocking those communications.

Other "Opportunities"
There's another, perhaps more subtle way to inhibit communications off of an endpoint; modify the hosts file.  Credit goes to Dray (LinkedIn, X) for reminding me of this sneaky way to inhibiting off-system communications. The difference is that rather than blocking by executable, you need to know to where the communications are going, and add an entry so that the returned IP address is localhost.

I thought Dray's suggestion was both funny and timely; I used to do this for/to my daughter's computer when she was younger...I'd modify her hosts file right around 10pm, so that her favorites sites (MySpace, Facebook, whatever) resolved to localhost, but other sites, like Google, were still accessible.  

One of the side effects would likely be the difficulty in investigating an issue like this; how many current or relatively new SOC/DFIR analysts are familiar with the hosts file? How many understand or know the host name resolution process followed by Windows? I think that the first time I became aware of MS's documentation of the host name resolution process was 1995, when I was attempting to troubleshoot an issue; how often is this taught in networking classes these days?

Many of us have seen the use of offensive security tools (OSTs) by pen tester and threat actors alike, so how long do you think it will be before EDRSilencer, or something like it, makes its way into either toolkit? The question becomes, how capable is your team of detecting and responding to the use of such tools, particularly when used in combination with other techniques ("silence" EDR, then clear all Windows Event Logs)? Tools and techniques like this (EDRSilencer, or the technique it uses) shed a whole new light on initial recon  (process/service listing, query the Registry for installed applications, etc.) activities, particularly when they're intentionally and purposefully used to create situational awareness.

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Human Behavior In Digital Forensics, pt III

So far, parts I and II of this series have been published, and at this point, there's something that we really haven't talked about.

That is, the "So, what?". Who cares? What are the benefits of understanding human behavior rendered via digital forensics? Why does it even matter?

Digital forensics can provide us insight into a threat actor's sophistication and situational awareness, which can, in turn, help us understand their intent. Are they new to the environment, and trying to get the "lay of the land", or are their actions extremely efficient, and do they appear to be going directly to the data they're looking for, as if they have been here before or had detailed prior knowledge?

Observing the threat actor's actions (or the impacts thereof) helps us understand not just their intent, but what else we should be looking for. For example, observing the Samas ransomware threat actors in 2016 revealed no apparent interest in data collection or theft; there was no searching or discovery, no data staging, etc. This is in contrast to the Non-PCI Case from my previous blog post; the threat actor was apparently interested in data, but did not appear to have an understanding of the infrastructure they'd accessed (searching for "banking" in a healthcare environment).

Carrying this forward, we can then use what we learn about the threat actor, by observing their actions and impacts, to better understand our own control efficacy; what worked, what didn't, and what can work better at preventing, or detection and responding to, the threat actor?

Per the graphic to the left, understanding human behavior rendered via digital forensics is thought to provide insight into future attacks...but can it really? And if this is the case, how so?

Well, we've known for some time that there's really no single actor or group that focuses solely on one type of target. Consider this blog post from 2015, making it almost 9 yrs old at the time of this writing. The findings presented in the blog post remain true, and are repeated, even today. 

So, "profiling" a threat actor may not allow you to anticipate who (what target infrastructure) they're going to attack next, but within a limited window, it will provide a great deal of insight into how you can expect them to conduct the follow-on stages of an attack. The target may not be known, but the actions taken, particularly in the near term, will be illuminated by what was observed on a previous attack.

In 2016, the team I was with responded to about half a dozen Samas ransomware attacks, across a wide range of verticals; they were targeting vulnerable JBoss CMS systems, regardless of the underlying business. What we learned by looking across those multiple attacks allowed us to identify other potential targets, as well as respond to and shut down some attacks that were underway; we saw that the threat actors took an average of 4 months to go from initial access to deploying the ransomware. During this time, there was no apparent interest in data staging or theft; the intent appeared to be to identify "critical" systems within the infrastructure, and obtain the necessary privileges to deploy ransomware to those systems.

Reacting to Stimulus
Additional insight can be found by observing how a threat actor reacts to "stimulus". There may be times when a threat actor's activities are unfettered; they proceed about their actions without being inhibited or blocked in anyway. They aren't blocked by EDR tools, nor AV. From these incidents, we can learn a good deal about the threat actor's playbook, and we may see how it evolves over time. However, there may be times where the threat actor encounters issues, either with security tooling blocking their efforts, or tools they bring in from the outside crashing and not executing on the endpoint. It's during these incidents that we get a more expansive view of the threat actor, as we observe their actions in response to stimulus.

While I was with Crowdstrike, we'd regularly "see", via the EDR telemetry, the actions taken by various threat actors when the Crowdstrike product blocked their processes from executing. In one instance, the Crowdstrike agent stopped the threat actor's process, and their reaction was to attempt to disable and remove Windows Defender. They then moved to another endpoint, and when they encountered the same issue, they attempted to remove an AV product that was not installed anywhere within the infrastructure. They finally moved to a third endpoint, and when their attempts continued to be blocked, they ran a batch file intended to remove several AV products, none of which were installed on the endpoint. Interestingly, they left the infrastructure without ever running a command to see what processes were running, nor what applications were installed.

We saw threat actors on endpoints monitored by the Crowdstrike agent doing queries to see if Carbon Black was installed. To be clear, the commands were not general, "...give me a list of processes..." commands, but were specific to identifying Carbon Black.

In another instance, we observed the threat actor land on a monitored endpoint, and begin querying other endpoints within the infrastructure to see if they were running the Falcon agent. They reached out to 15 endpoints, and while we could not see the responses, we knew from our dashboard that the agent was only on 4 of the queried endpoints. The threat actor then moved to one of the endpoints that did not have an agent installed. The interesting thing about this was that when they landed on the monitored endpoint, we saw no commands run nor any other indication of the threat actor checking that endpoint for the agent; it was as if they already knew. 

Even without EDR or AV blocking the threat actor's attempts, we may still be able to observe how the threat actor responds to stimulus. I've seen more than a few times where a threat actor will attempt to run something, and Windows Error Reporting kicks off because their EXE crashes. What do they do? I've seen ransomware threat actors unable to encrypt files on an endpoint, and running their tool with the "--debug" command switch, multiple times. They may also attempt to download newer or different copies of their tools, and try running them again. 

In other instances, I've seen commands fail, and the threat actor try something else. I've also seen tools crash, and the threat actor take no action. Seeing how a threat actor responds to the issues they encounter, watching their behavior and whether they encounter any issues, provides significant insight into their intent.

Other Aspects of the Attack
There are other aspects of an attack that we can look to to better understand the threat actor. For example, when the threat actor initially accesses an endpoint, how do they do so? RDP? MSSQL? Some other application, like TeamViewer?

Is the access preceded by failed login attempts, or does the source IP address for the threat actors successful access to the system not appear on the list of IP addresses for failed login attempts?

Once they have access, what do they do, how soon/fast do they do it, and how do they go about their activities? If they access the endpoint via RDP, do they use all GUI tools, do they go to PowerShell, do they use cmd.exe, etc.? Do they use WSL, if it's installed? Do they use native utilities/LOLBins? Do they use batch files? 

Did they create any additional persistence? If so, what do they do? Create user accounts? Add services or Scheduled Tasks? Do they lay any "booby traps", akin to the Targeted Threat Actor from my previous blog post?

During their time on the endpoint, do they seem prepared, or do they "muck about", as if they're wandering around a dark room, getting the lay of the land? Do they make mistakes, and if so, how do they overcome them? 

Do they use LOLBins? Do they bring tools with them, and if so, are the tools readily available? When the Samas ransomware actors were attacking JBoss CMS systems in 2016, they used the JexBoss exploit, which was readily available. 

When they disconnect their access, how do they go about it? Do they simply break the connection and log out, or do they "salt the earth", clearing Windows Event Logs, deleting files, etc.?

An important caveat to these aspects is we have to be very careful about how we view and understand the actions we observe. There have been more than a few times where I've worked with analysts with red team experience, and have heard them say, "...if I were the attacker, I would have...". This sort of bias can be detrimental to understanding what's actually going on, and can lead to resources being deployed in the wrong direction. 

As Blade stated during the first movie (quote 3), "...when you understand the nature of thing, you know what it's capable of." Understanding a threat actor's nature provides insight into what they're capable of, and what we should be looking for on endpoints and within the infrastructure.

This also helps us understand control efficacy; what controls did we have in place for prevention, detection, and response? Did they work, or did they fail? How could those controls be improved, or better implemented? 

Saturday, January 06, 2024

Human Behavior In Digital Forensics, pt II

On the heels of my first post on this topic, I wanted to follow up with some additional case studies that might demonstrate how digital forensics can provide insight into human activity and behavior, as part of an investigation.

Targeted Threat Actor
I was working a targeted threat actor response, and while we were continuing to collect information for scoping, so we could move to containment, we found that on one day, from one endpoint, the threat actor pushed their RAT installer to 8 endpoints, and had the installer launched via a Scheduled Task. Then, about a week later, we saw that the threat actor had pushed out another version of their RAT to a completely separate endpoint, by dropping the installer into the StartUp folder for an admin account.

Now, when I showed up on-site for this engagement, I walked into a meeting that served as the "war room", and before I got a chance to introduce myself, or find out what was going on, one of the admins came up to me and blurted out, "we don't use communal admin accounts." Yes, I know...very odd. No, "hi, I'm Steve", nothing like that. Just this comment about accounts. So, I filed it away.

The first thing we did once we got started was roll out our EDR tech, and begin getting insight into what was going on...which accounts had been compromised, which were the nexus systems the threat actor was operating from, how they were getting in, etc. After all, we couldn't establish a perimeter and move to containment until we determined scope, etc.

So we found this RAT installer in the StartUp folder for an admin account...a communal admin account. We found it because in the course of rolling out our EDR tech, the admins used this account to push out their software management platform, as well as our agent...and the initial login to install the software management platform activated the installer. When our tech was installed, it immediately alerted on the RAT, which had been installed by that point. It had a different configuration and C2 from what we'd seen from previous RAT installations, which appeared to be intentional. We grabbed a full image of that endpoint, so we were able to get information from VSCs, including a copy of the original installer file. 

Just because an admin told me that they didn't use communal admin accounts doesn't mean that I believed him. I tend to follow the data. However, in this case, the threat actor clearly already knew the truth, regardless of what the admins stated. On top of that, they planned out far enough in advance to have multiple means of access, including leaving behind "booby traps" what would be tripped through admin activity, but not have the same configuration. That way, if admins had blocked access to their first C2 IP address at the firewall, or were monitoring for that specific IP address via some other means, having the new, second C2 IP address would mean that they would go unnoticed, at least for a while. 

What I took away from all of the totality of what we saw, largely through historical data on a few endpoints, was that the threat actor seemed to have something of a plan in place regarding their goals. We never saw any indication of search terms, wandering around looking for files, etc., and as such, it seemed that they were intent upon establishing persistence at that point. The customer didn't have EDR in place prior to our arrival, so there's a lot we likely missed out on, but from what we were able to assemble from host-based historical data, it seemed that the threat actor's plan, at the point we were brought in,  was to establish a beachhead.

Pro Bono Legal Case
A number of years ago, I did some work on a legal case. The background was that someone had taken a job at a company, and on their first day, they were given an account and password on a system for them to use, but they couldn't change the password. The reason they were given was that this company had one licensed copy of an application, and it was installed on that system, and multiple people needed access.

Jump forward about a year, and the guy who got hired grew disillusioned, and went in one Friday morning, logged into the computer, wrote out a Word document where they resigned, effective immediately. They sent the document to the printer, then signed it, handed it in, and apparently walked out. 

So, as it turns out, several files on the system were encrypted with ransomware, and this guy's now-former employer claimed that he'd done it, basically "salting the earth" on his way out the door. There were suits and countersuits, and I was asked to examine the image of the system, after exams had already been performed by law enforcement and an expert from SANS.

What I found was that on Thursday evening, the day before the guy resigned, at 9pm, someone had logged into the system locally (at the console) and surfed the web for about 6 minutes. During that time, the browser landing on a specific web site caused the ransomware executable to be downloaded to the system, with persistence written to the user account's Run key. Then, when the guy returned the following morning and logged into the account, the ransomware launched, albeit without his knowledge. Using a variety of data sources, to include the Registry, Event Log, file system metadata, etc., I was able to demonstrate when the infection activity actually took place, and in this instance, I had to leave it up to others to establish who had actually been sitting at the keyboard. I was able to articulate a clear story of human activity and what led to the files being encrypted. As part of the legal battle, the guy had witness statements and receipts from the bar he had been at the evening prior to resigning, where he'd been out with friends celebrating. Further, the employer had testified that they'd sat at the computer the evening prior, but all they'd done was a short web browser session before logging out.

As far as the ransomware itself was concerned, it was purely opportunistic. "Damage" was limited to files on the endpoint, and no attempt was made to spread to other endpoints within the infrastructure. On the surface, what happened was clearly what the former employer described; the former employee came in, typed and printed their resignation, and launched the ransomware executable on their way out the door. However, file system metadata, Registry key LastWrite times, and browser history painted a different story all together. The interesting thing about this case was that all of the activity occurred within the same user account, and as such, the technical findings needed to be (and were) supported by external data sources.

RAT Removal
During another targeted threat actor response engagement, I worked with a customer that had sales offices in China, and was seeing sporadic traffic associated with a specific variant of a well-known RAT come across the VPN from China. As part of the engagement, we worked out a plan to have the laptop in question sent back to the states; when we received the laptop, the first thing I did was remove and image the hard drive.

The laptop had run Windows 7, which ended up being very beneficial for our analysis. We found that, yes, the RAT had been installed on the system at one point, and our analysis of the available data painted a much clearer picture. 

Apparently, the employee/user of the endpoint had been coerced to install the RAT. Using all the parts of the buffalo (file system, WEVTX, Registry, VSCs, hibernation file, etc.), we were able to determine that, at one point, the user had logged into the console, attached a USB device, and run the RAT installer. Then, after the user had been contacted to turn the system over to their employer, we could clearly see where they made attempts to remove and "clean up" the RAT. Again, as with the RAT installation, the user account that performed the various "clean up" attempts logged in locally, and performed some steps that were very clearly manual attempts to remove and "clean up" the RAT by someone who didn't fully understand what they were doing. 

Non-PCI Breach
I was investigating a breach into corporate infrastructure at a company that was part of the healthcare industry. I turned out that an employee with remote access had somehow ended up with a keystroke logger installed on their home system, which they used to remote into the corporate infrastructure via RDP. This was about 2 weeks before they were scheduled to implement MFA.

The threat actors was moving around the infrastructure via RDP, using an account that hadn't accessed the internal systems, because there was no need for the employee to do so. This meant that on all of these systems, the login initiated the creation of the user profile, so we had a really good view of the timeline across the infrastructure, and we could 'see' a lot of their activity. This was before EDR tools were in use, but that was okay, because the threat actor stuck to the GUI-based access they had via RDP. We could see documents they accessed, shares and drives they opened, and ever searches they ran. This was a healthcare organization, which the threat actor was apparently unaware of, because they were running searches for "password", as well as various misspellings of the word "banking" (i.e., "bangking", etc.). 

The organization was fully aware that they had two spreadsheets on a share that contained unencrypted PCI data. They'd been trying to get the data owner to remove them, but at the time of the incident, the files were still accessible. As such, this incident had to be reported to the PCI Council, but we did so with as complete a picture as possible, which showed that the threat actor was both unaware of the files, as well as apparently not interested in credit card, nor billing, data. 

Based on the nature of the totality of the data, we had a picture of an opportunistic breach, one that clearly wasn't planned, and I might even go so far as to describe the threat actor as "caught off guard" that they'd actually gained access to an organization. There was apparently no research conducted, the breach wasn't intentional, and had all the hallmarks of someone wandering around the systems, in shock that they'd actually accessed them. Presenting this data to the PCI Council in a clear, concise manner led to a greatly reduced fine for the customer - yes, the data should not have been there, but no, it hadn't been accessed or exposed by the intruder. 

Wednesday, January 03, 2024

Human Behavior In Digital Forensics

I've always been a fan of books or shows where someone follow clues and develops an overall picture to lead them to their end goal. I've always like the "hot on the trail" mysteries, particularly when the clues are assembled in a way to understand that the antagonist was going to do next, what their next likely move would be. Interestingly enough, a lot of the shows I've watched have been centered around the FBI, shows like "The X-Files", and "Criminal Minds". I know intellectually that these shows are contrived, but assembling a trail of technical bread crumbs to develop a profile of human behavior is a fascinating idea, and something I've tried to bring to my work in DFIR. 

Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and Behavioral Profiler Cameron Malin recently shared that his newest endeavor, Modus Cyberandi, has gone live! The main focus of his effort, cyber behavior profiling, is right there at the top of the main web page. In fact, the main web page even includes a brief history of behavioral profiling.

This seems to be similar to Len Opanashuk's endeavor, Motives Unlocked, which leads me to wonder, is this a thing

Is this something folks are interested in?

Apparently ,it is, as there's research to suggest that this is, in fact, the case. Consider this research paper describing behavioral evidence analysis as a "paradigm shift", or this paper on idiographic digital profiling from the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security, and Law, to name but a few. Further, Google lists a number of (mostly academic) resources dedicated to cyber behavioral profiling.

This topic seems to be talked about here and there, so maybe there is an interest in this sort of analysis, but the question is, is the interest more academic, is the focus more niche (law enforcement), or is this something that can be effectively leveraged in the private sector, particularly where digital forensics and intrusion intelligence intersect?

I ask the question, as this is something I've looked at for some time now, in order to not only develop a better understanding of targeted threat actors who are still active during incident response, but to also determine the difference between a threat actor's actions during the response, and those of others involved (IT staff, responders, legitimate users of endpoints, etc.). 

In a recent comment on social media, Cameron used the phrase, "...adversary analysis and how human behavior renders in digital forensics...", and it occurred to me that this really does a great job of describing going beyond just individual data points and malware analysis in DFIR, particularly when it comes to hands-on targeted threat actors. By going beyond just individual data points and looking at the multifaceted, nuanced nature of those artifacts, we can begin to discern patterns that inform us about the intent, sophistication, and situational awareness of the threat actor.

To that end, Joe Slowik has correctly stated that there's a need in CTI (and DFIR, SOC, etc.) to view indicators as composite objects, that things like hashes and IP addresses have greater value when other aspects of their nature is understood. Many times we tend to view IP addresses (and other indicators) one-dimensionally; however, there's so much more about those indicators that can provide insight to the threat actor behind them, such as when, how, and in what context that IP address was used. Was it the source of a login, and if so, what type? Was it a C2 IP address, or the source of a download or upload? If so, how...via HTTP, curl, msiexec, BITS, etc?

Here's an example of an IP address; in this case, We can get some insight on this IP address from VirusTotal, enough to know that we should probably pay attention. However, if you read the blog post, you'll see that this IP address was used as the target for data exfiltration. 

Via finger.exe.

Add to that the use of the LOLBin is identical to what was described in this 2020 advisory, and it should be easy to see that we've gone well beyond just an IP address, by this point, as we've started to unlock and reveal the composite nature of that indicator. 

The point of all this is that there's more to the data we have available than just the one-dimensional perspective that we're used to thinking in, in which we've been viewing that data. Now, if we begin to incorporate other data sources that are available to us (EDR telemetry, endpoint data and configurations, etc.), we'll being to see exactly how, as Cameron stated, human behavior renders in digital forensics. Some of the things I've pursued and been successful in demonstration during previous engagements includes things like hours of operations, preferred TTPs and approaches, enough so to separate the actions of two different threat actors on a single endpoint. 

I've also gained insight into the situational awareness of a threat actor by observing how they reacted to stimulus; during one incident, the installed EDR framework was blocking the threat actor's tools from executing on different endpoints. The threat actor never bothered to query any of the three endpoints to determine what was blocking their attempts; rather, on one endpoint, they attempted to disable Windows Defender. On the second endpoint, they attempted to delete a specific AV product, without ever first determining if it was installed on the endpoint; the batch file they ran to delete all aspects and variations of the product were not preceded by query commands. Finally, on the third endpoint, the threat actor ran a "spray-and-pray" batch file that attempted to disable or delete a variety of products, none of which were actually installed on the endpoint. When none of these succeeded in allowing them to pursue their goals, they left.

So, yes, viewed through the right lens, with the right perspective, human behavior can be discerned through digital forensics. But the question this useful? Is the insight that this approach provides valuable to anyone?