Talos analyzed six months of PowerShell network telemetry and found that rare domains are over three times more likely to be malicious compared to frequently contacted ones.

Friday, May 23, 2025 06:00

_By Darin Smith and John Arneson_

*   Cisco Talos reviewed six months of network connection telemetry logs spanning June 1, 2024 – Dec. 31, 2024, containing 3,220,829 log events and 742 unique base domains, to explore if domains that PowerShell rarely contacts are more likely to be malicious. 
*   Key findings reveal that the odds of a rare domain being malicious were 3.18 times higher than for frequently contacted domains (95% CI: 0.39–25.9), suggesting a trend towards higher risk in rare domains. 
*   Notably, the non-rare domain ‘githubusercontent.com’ was flagged as malicious due to activity from its subdomain ‘raw.githubusercontent.com’. This is an example of why subdomains should be considered when looking for malicious network traffic, especially for cloud services where the service itself is legitimate, but the content hosted on it is not guaranteed to be.  

**Research Methodology ****Hypothesis**

At a sufficiently high volume of telemetry, domain names that PowerShell rarely connects to are more likely to be malicious than domains that are frequently connected to, regardless of PowerShell module. 

**Data Collection **

Talos queried telemetry for PowerShell network connection logs from a time period of June 1, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2024. This dataset included the following processes: ‘powershell.exe’, ‘powershell studio.exe’, ‘powershell\_ise.exe’, ‘powershelltools.exe’, ‘powershelltoolsx64.exe’, ‘pwsh’, and ‘pwsh.exe’. All of these processes are different versions of PowerShell. Talos excluded non-public top-level domains (TLDs), such as internal domains, to focus on external connections.  

**Data Processing**

Using the tldextract library, Talos extracted base domains (e.g., ‘automox.com’ from ‘api.automox.com’), resulting in 742 unique base domains. Rarity was defined as an average of ≤5 average contacts per full domain, calculated by dividing the total contacts by the number of unique full domains per base domain. This threshold identified 550 rare domains (74.1% of the total).  

**Threat Intelligence and Manual Review **

Talos assessed domain reputation using ReversingLabs (RL), which flagged a domain as malicious if any third-party source indicated so. To mitigate false positives (e.g., ‘adobe.com’), 29 domains were manually reviewed and overridden as benign, and their process arguments were documented. For subdomains such as ‘raw.githubusercontent.com’ under ‘githubusercontent.com’, the process arguments in those logs were manually reviewed, flagging 5 out of 10 connections as malicious based on commands like downloading PowerSploit or executing Invoke-Mimikatz, ensuring comprehensive threat detection.

**Findings & Analysis ****Domain Contact Distribution **

The distribution of contacts was heavily skewed: 

*   **Percentiles**: 60th percentile at 5.0 contacts, 90th at 82.0, 95th at 321.55, and 99th at 7,925.87 
*   **Top Domains**: ‘automox.com’ (2,282,308 contacts), ‘launchdarkly.com’ (493,812), and ‘amazonaws.com’ (166,536) accounted for most activity.
    *   Automox is a service for automated endpoint configuration and patch management.
    *   LaunchDarkly is a software development platform for managing feature flags and context-aware targeting of features.
    *   Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the largest cloud service provider. 
*   **Rare Domains**: 550 of 742 domains fell into the rare category.

Figure 1. Cumulative distribution of domain contact frequencies. 

**Malicious Domain Statistics **

*   **Rare Domains**: 9 malicious out of 550 (1.64%, 95% CI: 0.86%–3.08%)
*   **Non-Rare Domains**: 1 malicious out of 192 (0.52%, 95% CI: 0.09%–2.89%), notably ‘githubusercontent.com’
*   **Odds Ratio**: 3.18 (95% CI: 0.39–25.9), indicating a trend towards higher risk in rare domains, though not statistically significant (chi-square p=0.4291, Fisher’s exact p=0.4668), likely due to small sample sizes (9 rare, 1 non-rare) 

Figure 2. Malicious rates by domain rarity.

**Case Study: githubusercontent.com **

The non-rare domain ‘githubusercontent.com’ (38 contacts, 2 full domains: ‘raw.githubusercontent.com’ and ‘objects.githubusercontent.com’, average 19.00 contacts per full domain) was flagged as malicious due to 5 manually identified malicious contacts from ‘raw.githubusercontent.com’. These contacts involved potentially malicious PowerShell commands, such as downloading and executing scripts like PowerSploit or Invoke-Mimikatz. The other subdomain, ‘objects.githubusercontent.com’ (28 contacts), showed no malicious activity. This finding illustrates that even frequently contacted domains can host malicious subdomains, emphasizing the need for subdomain-level analysis in threat detection.

**Comparison to other Processes **

Another research question investigated was how the domains contacted by other similar processes would compare to those contacted by PowerShell. For the purposes of this research, Talos chose the following processes for analysis: 

*   ‘rundll32.exe’ 
*   Python (including macOS and Windows versions) 
*   ‘cmd.exe’ 
*   ‘cscript.exe’ 
*   ‘wscript.exe’ 
*   ‘bash’ 
*   ‘zsh’

These processes are primarily other command line or script interpreters, as well as ‘rundll32.exe’, which allows executing Dynamically Linked Libraries (DLLs) from the command line.

When the same heuristics as were utilized for PowerShell were applied to the domains contacted by these processes, the results varied somewhat. Across 156,203 total connection records for ‘rundll32.exe’, 940 unique domains were contacted. Of these, 722 of these domains were “rare,” using the same heuristic applied to PowerShell (i.e., they were contacted at most five times). Only one of the domains contacted was found to be malicious, either among the rare domains or the non-rare domains.

Similarly, among 795,346 total connection records for Python, 825 unique domains were contacted and 616 were rare using the same criteria. None of the rare domains were malicious, while 1 of the non-rare domains was. The processes cscript, cmd, zsh and csh had similar results, with no or single digit numbers of malicious domains contacted. However, wscript was much more interesting. It had a much smaller amount of total utilization in the dataset investigated, with just 6,936 connection events and 82 unique domains contacted. Of these, 58 domains were rare (or roughly 71%), and 5 were found to be malicious.

**Recommendations **

*   **Prioritize Rare Domains**: Security teams should focus investigations on rare domains due to their higher likelihood of being malicious, despite statistical non-significance. This finding applies primarily to PowerShell and wscript among the processes considered in this research.  
*   **Subdomain Analysis**: For frequently contacted domains, analyze subdomains and process arguments to detect malicious activity, as demonstrated with ‘githubusercontent.com’. 
*   **Integrate Manual Review**: Combine automated threat intelligence with manual reviews to reduce false positives and identify nuanced threats, particularly in high-contact domains. 
*   **Investigate Anomalous Utilization of ‘wscript.exe’:** Some environments may still commonly utilize wscript. However, this research suggests that in environments where it is rare, it has the highest likelihood to be used to connect to malicious domains of the processes researched.

**Future Work **

This research presents several opportunities for future research. One opportunity is temporal analysis to determine if there were time-based patterns for contacting domains, and if so, determining if these patterns could be used to identify malicious activity. This could potentially include seeing increased contacts of malicious domains during weekends or off-hours. Time-series analysis could be applied to the data to test this hypothesis.

Another opportunity is the behavioral analysis of process arguments, focusing on identifying recurring patterns tied to malicious activity, such as downloading PowerShell scripts from a remote host, or exfiltration of data. This could be used to refine the current rarity to malicious correlation of 1.64% for rare domains versus 0.52% for non-rare domains. This may spotlight behavioral red flags and give actionable insights for more precision detection logic.

Finally, future research can develop a risk scoring system that integrates multiple factors such as contact frequency, malicious rate, TLDs and even ReversingLabs’ network threat intelligence. This can provide a scalable and practical tool for security teams to prioritize high-risk domains, whether rare or non-rare like ‘githubusercontent.com’. This builds on the current analysis but also paves the way for more robust, data-driven strategies to combat threats, ensuring this research delivers lasting value to the security community.

Scarcity signals: Are rare activities red flags?

Hazel observes that cybercriminals often fumble teamwork, with fragile alliances crumbling over missed messages. Plus, how UAT-6382 is exploiting Cityworks and what you can do to stay secure.

Thursday, May 22, 2025 14:00

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. 

Talos recently published research into how threat actors are increasingly teaming up across the attack chain. Each group handles a slice of the operation, passing the breach along like a relay baton. 

It’s a concerning trend — one that we believe calls for rethinking traditional threat modeling. But one thing stood out to me while reading: cybercriminals are often terrible at teamwork. 

What if the ransomware affiliate is waiting on credentials that never arrive? The access broker sells a foothold, but the tooling meant to exploit it isn’t ready, doesn’t work in the target environment or never shows up at all? 

Ghosting isn’t limited to dating apps or job interviews (and if you’ve been through six interview rounds and still heard nothing, I see you). Cybercriminals flake too — whether it’s bad timing, better targets, internal drama… or maybe they just went to get a haircut (an actual complaint that a Conti member made about a fellow actor not showing up). 

In this compartmentalized model, the threat chain becomes a fragile supply line, stitched together in real time. Efficient, yes — but brittle. If one actor drops out, the whole operation can unravel. And let’s not pretend there’s honour among cybercriminals. They're opportunists. What’s to stop a broker from selling the same credentials to multiple buyers? Or backing out entirely if a better offer lands? 

Of course, this ecosystem isn’t monolithic. Some groups run like structured businesses — access brokers, malware builders, “customer” (aka victim) services, the works. Others are looser, relying on whoever turns up in their DMs with access for sale. It’s the latter where ghosting seems more likely. In organised crews, a flaky broker risks reputational damage. In the freelance underworld, it’s just Tuesday.  

Oof, I didn’t mean to knock freelancers there. Just, you know, _those_ ones… 

History suggests fallouts are inevitable. Conti's collapse, as Wired reported, started with a single angry post and spiraled into a full on leak about poor performance records: 

> _“I have 100 people here, half of them, even 10 percent, do not do what they need.”_  

> _\- Stern (or Demon), former Conti CEO_ 

LAPSUS$ imploded under its own infighting. One REvil affiliate even ranted on a cybercrime forum like a scammed eBay buyer. 

To twist a familiar phrase: compartmentalized threats are only as strong as their weakest link. What if that link has poor communication skills, no follow-through and a serious case of commitment issues?

**The one big thing **

In Talos’ most recent blog post, we shared that UAT-6382, Chinese-speaking threat actors, have exploited Cityworks, a widely-used asset management system, through a remote code execution vulnerability (CVE-2025-0994). The actors are deploying advanced malware for long-term persistence and control. 

**Why do I care? **

UAT-6382 is not only exploiting this vulnerability, but they're also employing sophisticated tools like web shells, Rust-based malware loaders, and frameworks like Cobalt Strike to burrow deep into systems. This could lead to data breaches and operational downtime. 

**So now what? **

While the intrusions we mentioned in the blog have been contained, exploitation may be continuing in the wild. Use the indicators of compromise (IOCs) listed in the blog to scan your environment.

**Top security headlines of the week **

**NATO-Flagged Vulnerability Tops Latest VMware Security Patch Batch**   
VMware patches flaws that expose users to data leakage, command execution and denial-of-service attacks. No temporary workarounds available.  (SecurityWeek) 

**NIST's 'LEV' Equation to Determine Likelihood a Bug Was Exploited**   
The new equation, introduced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), aims to offer a mathematical likelihood index that could be a game-changer for SecOps teams and vulnerability patch prioritization. (Dark Reading) 

**Kettering Health hit by system-wide outage after ransomware attack**   
Kettering Health, a healthcare network that operates 14 medical centers in Ohio, was forced to cancel inpatient and outpatient procedures following a cyberattack that caused a system-wide technology outage. (BleepingComputer)

**Can’t get enough Talos? **

*   Duping Cloud Functions: An emerging serverless attack vector 
*   Talos Takes: Inside the Kill Chain: Compartmentalized Threat Modeling Explained 

**Upcoming events where you can find Talos **

*   BotConf (May 20 – 23) Angers, France  
*   Cisco Live U.S. (June 8 – 12) San Diego, CA 
*   NIRMA (July 28 – 30) St. Augustine, FL 
*   Black Hat USA (August 2 - 7) Las Vegas, NV

**Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week **

**SHA 256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507**   
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f   
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507   
Typical Filename: VID001.exe   
Claimed Product: N/A   
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201 

**SHA 256: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91**     
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376     
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91/details    
Typical Filename: IMG001.exe    
Detection Name: Simple\_Custom\_Detection 

**SHA256: 47ecaab5cd6b26fe18d9759a9392bce81ba379817c53a3a468fe9060a076f8ca**    
MD5: 71fea034b422e4a17ebb06022532fdde    
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/47ecaab5cd6b26fe18d9759a9392bce81ba379817c53a3a468fe9060a076f8ca/details    
Typical Filename: VID001.exe    
Claimed Product: N/A    
Detection Name: Coinminer:MBT.26mw.in14.Talos 

**SHA 256: c67b03c0a91eaefffd2f2c79b5c26a2648b8d3c19a22cadf35453455ff08ead0**   
MD5: 8c69830a50fb85d8a794fa46643493b2    
Typical Filename: AAct.exe    
Claimed Product: N/A    
Detection Name: PUA.Win.Dropper.Generic::1201

Ghosted by a cybercriminal

Talos has observed exploitation of CVE-2025-0994 in the wild by UAT-6382, a Chinese-speaking threat actor, who then deployed malware payloads via TetraLoader.

UAT-6382 exploits Cityworks zero-day vulnerability to deliver malware

Cisco Talos built on Tenable’s discovery of a Google Cloud Platform vulnerability to uncover how attackers could exploit similar techniques across AWS and Azure.

Tuesday, May 20, 2025 06:00

**Summary and background**

Google Cloud Platform (GCP) Cloud Functions are event-triggered, serverless functions that automatically scale and execute code in response to specific events like Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests or data changes. Tenable Research published an article discussing a vulnerability they discovered within GCP’s Cloud Functions serverless compute service and its Cloud Build continuous integration and continuous delivery or deployment (CI/CD) pipeline service.

“When a GCP user creates or updates a Cloud Function, a multi-step backend process is triggered,” Tenable author Liv Matan writes. “This process, among other things, attaches a default Cloud Build service account to the Cloud Build instance that is created as part of the function’s deployment.” This default Cloud Build Service Account (SA) previously gave users excessive Cloud Function permissions. An attacker who has gained the ability to create or update a cloud function could utilize the function’s deployment process to escalate privileges to the default Cloud Build service account or assign a higher privileged SA. Google has since partially addressed Tenable’s discovery to ensure the default Cloud Build service account no longer provides users with excessive permissions.

Based on Tenable’s research, Cisco Talos conducted a series of offensive tests within Cisco’s Google Cloud Platform (GCP) to identify additional threats that may affect customer environments.

During its research, Talos discovered that the technique Tenable identified could be adapted to perform other malicious activities. By implementing different malicious console commands into the Node Package Manager (NPM) ‘package.json’ file used in this technique, threat actors could execute behaviors such as environment enumeration.

Talos furthered this research by attempting to replicate similar behaviors in Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure to determine if these techniques could be employed to perform similar malicious activities in other cloud-based environments.

**Research****Prerequisites**

To utilize this attack vector, certain prerequisites must be met. Talos set up a Debian Linux server within the GCP environment with Node Package Manager (NPM) and Ngrok installed. However, the virtual machine for this research can be created in any cloud environment.

After installing NPM and Ngrok, Talos configured both tools to function as intended.

Once NPM and Ngrok were configured, a Python server was created to output the data received from the cloud function.

With NPM, Ngrok, and the Python server set up and configured, the next step was to create and modify the NPM package.

Talos then replaced the content of the package.json file with the following code:

Finally, once all the necessary files are created and configured, Talos set up the environment to visually display the data output from deploying the functions. To achieve this, Talos activated both the Ngrok server and the Python server created earlier.

To replicate the GCP behavior discussed in Tenable’s article, Talos created/updated an SA with function build and cloud build permissions. This SA was then assigned to the GCP Cloud Run Function to allow the code to be executed with privileged access.

Once the servers and service accounts were online and configured to receive and output data, the emulation of the behavior could begin.

**Emulation**

With the package.json file configured to be utilized by the build function, Talos began emulating the technique described in Tenable’s research article.

The first step in Talos’ replication involved the utilizing a misconfigured GCP function to extract the default Cloud Build service account token. To initiate this process, the "malicious" package.json was updated on the virtual machine, ensuring that it contains code similar to that used by Tenable.

Once the package.json file was modified as desired, it needed to be published to the public NPM registry. To do this, Talos executed the following command:

With the package.json file uploaded to the NPM public registry, it was time to deploy the GCP Cloud Run Function so that the package.json can execute the provided code. To do this, the user must to navigate to their GCP Cloud Run Functions page and select or create a Cloud Run Function, ensuring it is assigned a service account with Cloud Build permissions.

Figure 1. Google Cloud Run Function displaying the assigned service account.

As Talos created or selected our existing GCP Cloud Run Function, we navigated to the source page of the cloud function. Here, Talos modified the package.json file to install the malicious package uploaded to NPM.

Figure 2. Google Cloud Run Function’s Source page.

Once Talos updated the package.json file with the correct name and version of the NPM package, we selected "Deploy" or "Save and Redeploy" to initiate the build process. During this process, the function sends the requested data to the Ngrok server, which was then output on the Python server.

Talos confirmed that the exfiltration of GCP service account access tokens can no longer be achieved using this method, due to Google's response and patching of the issue. We further verified this by executing the same command provided to our NPM-uploaded package.json from a separate virtual machine. The command executed successfully, confirming our suspicion that this specific technique for obtaining privileged service account tokens has been patched out.

**Original Research**

Cisco Talos' research extended Tenable’s original behavior concept by applying it to other cloud environments through modifications to their respective cloud services. AWS Lambda and Azure Functions are serverless compute services that allow users to run code without provisioning or managing servers. By creating a Lambda function or an Azure function with a Node.js 20.x runtime, a package.json file can be created with dependencies set to execute a malicious package uploaded to NPM’s public repository. These malicious packages may contain harmful console commands that provide a threat actor with valuable enumeration information.

Although this specific vector of threat actor behavior is no longer possible, other commands have proven useful in providing adversaries with valuable enumeration capabilities. These commands can be used on cloud platforms beyond GCP Cloud Build Function, such as AWS Lambda and Azure Functions.

Some examples of the types of enumeration a threat actor can perform using this method include the following.

**ICMP Discovery**

Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Discovery is utilized to gather information about network devices and their configurations. By analyzing ICMP responses, adversaries can infer the network's structure, including the presence of routers, gateways, and the pathways between devices. This information can be crucial for planning attacks.

**Existence of .dockerenv**

Identifying the presence of a .dockerenv file indicates that a process is running inside a Docker container. By checking for this file, threat actors can confirm whether they are operating within a Docker environment. This information can influence their selection of tools and techniques, as containers often possess different security boundaries compared to host systems.

**CPU Scheduling**

Enumerating CPU Scheduling provides detailed scheduling and status information about the process with process identifier (PID) 1, which is typically the init system or main process in a containerized environment. Threat actors can determine the init system in use, such as systemd or sysvinit. This information helps them understand the system's configuration and identify potential vulnerabilities associated with the specific init system.

CPU Scheduling Data Output Plain Text

**Control Group Container ID**

Enumerating Control Group Container ID provides detailed information about current mount points. Threat actors can use this information to identify critical or sensitive filesystems that might be targeted for data exfiltration. By examining mount options, they can look for insecure configurations, such as filesystems mounted with exec permissions in directories where malicious binaries could be introduced. In containerized environments, understanding mount namespaces can aid in developing container escape techniques, enabling attackers to break out of the container and access the host system.

Control Group Container ID Plain Text 1 & Control Group Container ID Plain Text 2

**Initial Server Overview**

For Initial Server Overview enumeration, combining the following commands provides comprehensive details about the system's kernel, architecture and distribution, which are critical for understanding the environment and planning potential exploits. Knowing the exact OS and kernel version enables threat actors to choose the most effective exploits, as many vulnerabilities are version-specific.

**User and Permission Enumeration**

The following User and Permission commands provides insights into user accounts, privileges and group memberships, which are crucial for planning privilege escalation and lateral movement within a system.

**Network Discovery**

The following Network and Discovery commands help gather detailed insights into the system's operating environment and network setup, which can be used to identify vulnerabilities and plan attacks.

**Detailed System Commands**

The ‘cat /etc/os-release’ command reveals the operating system distribution and version. Knowing the exact OS helps attackers identify specific vulnerabilities and tailor their exploits to the target's environment.

**User Related Commands**

The ‘/etc/shadow’ file contains hashed passwords for user accounts, which, if accessed, can be used to crack passwords and gain elevated access to the system.

User Related Commands Data Output Plain Text

**AWS Lambda Functions**

The following example demonstrates Talos using the same commands previously mentioned within a Google Cloud Platform (GCP) environment, now applied in an Amazon Web Services (AWS) environment using Lambda functions. This illustrates that the method utilized by the Tenable lab can be adapted for other cloud-based environments, such as AWS.

**Azure Functions**

The following example demonstrates the same process performed with an AWS Lambda function, but instead utilizing Azure Functions within the Azure environment. This further proves that the method can be employed across various cloud-based environments.

**Conclusion and Defense Summary****Google’s Response**

As described in Tenable’s article, Google responded to their research by creating a remediation patch. This update altered the default behavior of Cloud Build and the default Cloud Build SA. Additionally, new organization policies were released to give organizations full control over which SA Cloud Build uses by default. While Google has implemented this remediation, Cloud Build services can still be used to execute non-privileged commands as a means of enumerating an environment.

**Mitigation Summary**

The most effective mitigation strategy to protect your environment from similar threat actor behavior is to ensure that all SAs within your cloud environment adhere to the principle of least privilege and that no legacy cloud SAs are still in use. Ensure that all cloud services and dependencies are up to date with the latest security patches. If legacy SAs are present, replace them with least-privilege SAs. 

Additionally, users with access to Cloud Functions should not have IAM permissions to the services included in the function’s orchestration.

**Threat Hunting Recommendations**

1.  **Audit and monitor SA permissions**: Regularly audit and monitor SA permissions, with a particular focus on the default Cloud Build SA. Adhere to the principle of least privilege by removing any excessive permissions that are not essential for the SA’s operations.
2.  **Alert setup for Cloud Functions**: Establish alerts for any unusual or unauthorized creation or modification of Cloud Functions. Identify potentially malicious activities where an attacker may be attempting to exploit function deployments for privilege escalation.
3.  **Inspect network traffic**: Analyze network traffic for unusual patterns or connections that might indicate data exfiltration attempts. Pay attention to data being sent to unknown or unauthorized external endpoints, such as those using Ngrok or similar tunneling services.
4.  **Verify NPM package integrity**: Ensure the integrity and authenticity of NPM packages used within Cloud Functions. Prevent the execution of malicious scripts embedded in package.json files that could facilitate environment enumeration or other malicious activities.
5.  **Detect environment enumeration**: Detect and respond to signs of environment enumeration, such as ICMP discovery or system information gathering.

Duping Cloud Functions: An emerging serverless attack vector

In this week’s newsletter, Thor inspects the LockBit leak, finding $10,000 “security tips,” ransom negotiations gone wrong and a rare glimpse into the human side of cybercrime.

Thursday, May 15, 2025 14:01

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. 

I haven’t been to Prague in a while, which is a pity. It’s a wonderful city — great people, amazing food. I’ve visited customers there, held team meetings at the local office (shoutout to Petr!) and spent some memorable summer days off. But none of those are why I’m sending my greetings this time. 

Last week, anyone trying to access LockBit’s dark web affiliate panels was greeted by a defaced page with the message: 

> "Don't do crime CRIME IS BAD xoxo from Prague” 

Alongside the message was a download link for a compressed archive called “paneldb\_dump.zip” —  a 7.5MB file that extracts to a 26MB clear-text SQL dump containing 20 tables. The breach exposed a rare, unfiltered look into LockBit’s operations. 

While most articles focused on the nearly 60,000 Bitcoin addresses or the credentials for 75 admins and affiliates (all with plaintext passwords), I have to admit that I was mesmerized by the “chats” table. 4,423 messages distributed across 208 victims, spanning from Dec. 2024 to April 2025, these chats reveal the raw tactics, ransom demands and negotiation strategies of both affiliates and victims. Sometimes there was just a single unanswered message; in other cases, over 300 messages included “technical support” for unrecoverable files, and even requests for refunds.  

Ransom demands varied widely, from just a few thousand dollars to as much as $2 million in one notable case. There were also several instances of confusion — some mistakenly thought the demand was "100,000 bitcoins" when it was actually "100,000 dollars in bitcoin.” Additionally, there was a case involving a hosting company breach, where it was the company’s customers who ultimately suffered the consequences. The chat exposed that LockBit encrypted all the data with the same key; even though not all victims were willing or able to pay the ransom, LockBit insisted the hoster pay the full amount, making it difficult to collect the asked ransom. 

Negotiations were often pressured by tight deadlines, but European bank holidays on Good Friday, Easter Monday and May 1st further complicated the situation. Multiple times there were situations where the ransom demand increased after a specific deadline. I even found messages from victims asking for more time so they could gather funds in smaller amounts to avoid detection under local anti-money laundering laws. 

In another chat, a victim tried to negotiate by pleading inability to pay a $100k ransom, only to be told, “Seven directors at 14k can’t chime in?” This clearly shows that the “Analytics Department” of LockBit did their homework. 

The level of “trust” placed in affiliates was also striking. Messages included:

Interestingly, that last service was offered for an extra fee. Let me share some of their $10,000 “tips” for free:

With these $10,000 tips, I personally think it would be better to get advice before an incident from Talos Incident Response. They can also provide guidance and proactive support as part of the Talos IR Retainer.

The LockBit leak is a rare window into the mechanics of cybercrime and the human stories behind the headlines. And, for now, xoxo to Prague.

**The one big thing **

Cisco Talos has observed a growing trend of attack kill chains being split into two stages — initial compromise and subsequent exploitation — executed by separate threat actors. In response to these evolving threats, we have refined the definitions of initial access brokers (IABs) to include subcategories such as financially-motivated initial access (FIA), state-sponsored initial access (SIA), and opportunistic initial access (OIA).   

**Why do I care? **

This trend complicates traditional threat modeling and actor profiling, as it requires understanding the intricate relationships and interactions between various groups. For example, hunting and containment strategies that may defend against one type of IAB may not be suitable for another. 

**So now what? **

We have identified several methods for analyzing compartmentalized attacks and propose an extended Diamond Model, which adds a “Relationship Layer” to enrich the context of the relationships between the four features. Familiarize yourself with the new taxonomy we propose, and incorporate this new methodology for modeling and tracking compartmentalized threats into your toolkit. 

**Top security headlines of the week **

**Operation Moonlander**    
A criminal proxy network that has been around for more than 20 years and was built on thousands of infected IOT and end-of-life (EoL) devices was dismantled in an international operation. (U.S. Attorney’s Office) 

**Supply Chain Compromise**    
A deprecated node.js package with more than 40k downloads per week, ‘rand-user-agent' has been compromised with a malicious payload dubbed “RATatouille”. This is a clear case of a supply chain attack. (Aikido) 

**Ascension Health Data Breach Impacts Over 430,000**   
Healthcare provider Ascension has disclosed a data breach affecting over 430,000 patients.  (Bleeping Computer) 

**Germany Shuts Down eXch Over $1.9B Laundering**   
German authorities have shut down the cryptocurrency mixer eXch due to its alleged involvement in laundering approximately $1.9 billion in illicit funds, seizing a large amount of cryptocurrency and data. (BKA, German language)

**Can’t get enough Talos? **

**Talos Takes**  
Follow the motive: Rethinking defense against Initial Access Groups. Listen here.

**Talos in the news**  
Initial Access Brokers Target Brazil Execs via NF-e Spam and Legit RMM Trials (The Hacker News) 

Why MFA is getting easier to bypass and what to do about it (Ars Tecnnica)

**Upcoming events where you can find Talos **

*   Cisco Connect UK & Ireland (May 20) London, UK  
*   BotConf (May 20 – 23) Angers, France  
*   Cisco Live U.S. (June 8 – 12) San Diego, CA

**Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week  **

**SHA 256: e00aa8146cf1202d8ba4fffbcf86da3c6d8148a80bb6503d89b0db2aa9cc0997**   
MD5: eae884415e5fd403e4f1bf46f90df0be   
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/e00aa8146cf1202d8ba4fffbcf86da3c6d8148a80bb6503d89b0db2aa9cc0997    
Typical Filename: paneldb\_dump.zip 

**SHA 256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507**   
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f   
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507   
Typical Filename: VID001.exe   
Claimed Product: N/A   
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201 

**SHA 256: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91**   
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376   
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91    
Typical Filename: c0dwjdi6a.dll   
Claimed Product: N/A   
Detection Name: Trojan.GenericKD.33515991

Xoxo to Prague

Microsoft has released its monthly security update for May of 2025 which includes 78 vulnerabilities affecting a range of products, including 11 that Microsoft marked as “critical”.  
Microsoft noted five vulnerabilities that have been observed to be exploited in the wild. CVE-2025-30397 is a remote code

Tuesday, May 13, 2025 16:38

Microsoft has released its monthly security update for May of 2025 which includes 78 vulnerabilities affecting a range of products, including 11 that Microsoft marked as “critical”.  

Microsoft noted five vulnerabilities that have been observed to be exploited in the wild. CVE-2025-30397 is a remote code execution vulnerability in the Microsoft Scripting Engine. There were also four elevation of privilege vulnerabilities being actively exploited, CVE-2025-32709, CVE-2025-30400, CVE-2025-32701 and CVE-2025-32706 affecting the Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock, the DWM Core Library and the Windows Common Log File System Driver.  

The eleven "critical” entries consist of five remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities, four elevation of privilege vulnerabilities, one information disclosure vulnerability and one spoofing vulnerability. Three of the critical vulnerabilities have been marked as "Exploitation more likely": CVE-2025-30386 --a Microsoft Office RCE vulnerability, CVE-2025-30390 --an Azure ML Compute elevation of privilege vulnerability, and CVE-2025-30398 – a Nuance PowerScribe 360 information disclosure vulnerability.  

The most notable of the “critical” vulnerabilities listed affect Microsoft Office. CVE-2025-30386 is a RCE vulnerability with base CVSS 3.1 score of 8.3. To successfully exploit CVE-2025-30386, an attacker could send a victim an email, and without the victim clicking the link, viewing or interacting with the email, trigger a use-after-free scenario, allowing arbitrary code to be executed. Microsoft has assessed that the attack complexity is “Low”, and exploitation is “More likely”. Another RCE vulnerability affecting Microsoft Office, CVE-2025-30377, has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.4, and has been assessed an attack complexity of “Low”, but exploitation is considered “Less Likely”. 

Two RCE vulnerabilities affect the Remote Desktop Client. CVE-2025-29966 and CVE-2025-29967 are both Heap-cased Buffer Overflow vulnerabilities with CVSS 3.1 base scores of 8.8 with “Low” attack complexity and exploitation “Less Likely”. An attacker controlling a Remote Desktop Server could trigger the buffer overflow in a vulnerable when a vulnerable Remote Desktop Client connects to the server. 

CVE-2025-29833 is a RCE affecting the Virtual Machine Bus. This is a Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition which has been assessed an attack complexity of “High” and exploitation is “Less Likely”. 

Talos would also like to highlight the following "important" vulnerabilities as Microsoft has determined that exploitation is "More likely": 

*   CVE-2025-24063 - Kernel Streaming Service Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability 
*   CVE-2025-29841 - Universal Print Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability 
*   CVE-2025-29971 - Web Threat Defense (WTD.sys) Denial of Service Vulnerability 
*   CVE-2025-29976 - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability 
*   CVE-2025-30382 - Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability 
*   CVE-2025-30385 - Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability 
*   CVE-2025-30388 - Windows Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

  
A complete list of all the other vulnerabilities Microsoft disclosed this month is available on its update page.  

In response to these vulnerability disclosures, Talos is releasing a new Snort rule set that detects attempts to exploit some of them. Please note that additional rules may be released at a future date and current rules are subject to change pending additional information. Cisco Security Firewall customers should use the latest update to their ruleset by updating their SRU. Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org. 

The rules included in this release that protect against the exploitation of many of these vulnerabilities are 64848-64867. There are also these Snort 3 rules: 64852-64853, 301192-301200, and 301203

Microsoft Patch Tuesday for May 2025 — Snort rules and prominent vulnerabilities

How do you profile actors and defend your systems when multiple threat actors are working together? In Part 2, Cisco Talos proposes an extended Diamond Model to analyze complex relationships between attackers.

Defining a new methodology for modeling and tracking compartmentalized threats

Threat actors are teaming up, splitting attacks into stages and making defense harder than ever. In Part 1, Cisco Talos examines their tactics and defines their motivations.

Redefining IABs: Impacts of compartmentalization on threat tracking and modeling

How do attackers exploit authority bias to manipulate victims? Martin shares proactive strategies to protect yourself and others in this must-read edition of the Threat Source newsletter.

Thursday, May 8, 2025 14:01

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. 

Authority bias is one of the many things that shape how we think. Taking the advice of someone with recognized authority is often far easier (and usually leads to a better outcome) than spending time and effort in researching the reasoning and logic behind that advice. Put simply, it’s easier to take your doctor’s advice on health matters than it is to spend years in medical school learning why the advice you received is necessary. 

This tendency to respect and follow authoritative instructions translates into our use of computers, too. If you’re reading this, you’ve likely been the recipient of many questions about computer-related matters from friends and family. However, your trust can be abused, even by someone who seems knowledgeable and respectable. 

Attackers have learned that by impersonating individuals with some form of authority, such as banking staff, tax officials or IT professionals, they can persuade victims to carry out actions against their own interests. In our most recent Incident Response Quarterly Trends update, we describe how ransomware actors masquerade as IT agents when contacting their victims, instructing them to install remote access software. This allows the threat actor to set up long-term access to the device and continue the pursuit of their malicious objectives. 

If someone contacts you out of the blue professing to be an IT or bank/tax expert with urgent or helpful instructions, end the conversation immediately. Follow up with a call to the main contact details of the team or organization that contacted you to verify if the call was genuine. Be aware of the scams that the bad guys are using and spread awareness far and wide. Expect threat actors to attempt to exploit human nature and its own vulnerabilities. 

**The one big thing **

Threat hunting is an integral part of any cyber security strategy because identifying potential incursions early allows issues to be swiftly resolved before harm is incurred. There are many different approaches to threat hunting, each of which may uncover different threats.

**Why do I care? **

As threat actors increasingly use living-off-the-land binaries (LOLBins) — i.e. using either dual-use tools or the tools that they find already in place on compromised systems — detecting the presence of an intruder is no longer a case of simply finding their malware.  

Spotting bad guys is still possible, but requires a slightly different approach: either looking for evidence of the potential techniques they use, or finding evidence that things aren’t quite as they should be. 

**So now what? **

Read about the different types of threat hunting strategies the Talos IR team uses and investigate how these can be used within your environment to improve your chances of finding incursions early.

**Top security headlines of the week **

**MySQL turns 30**    
The popular database was founded on May 23, 1995 and is at the heart of many high-traffic applications such as Facebook, Netflix, Uber, Airbnb, Shopify, and Booking.com. (Oracle) 

**Disney Slack attack wasn't Russian protesters, just a Cali dude with malware**   
A resident of California has pleaded guilty to conducting an attack in which 1.1 TB of data was stolen. The attack was conducted by releasing a trojan masquerading as an AI art generation application. (The Register) 

**Ransomware Group Claims Attacks on UK Retailers**   
The DragonForce ransomware group says it orchestrated the disruptive cyberattacks that hit UK retailers Co-op, Harrods, and Marks & Spencer (M&S). (Security Week) 

**Attackers Ramp Up Efforts Targeting Developer Secrets**   
Attackers are increasingly seeking to steal secret keys or tokens that have been inadvertently exposed in live environments or published in online code repositories. (Dark Reading)

**Can’t get enough Talos? **

**Spam campaign targeting Brazil abuses Remote Monitoring and Management tools**   
A new spam campaign is targeting Brazilian users with a clever twist — abusing the free trial period of trusted remote monitoring tools and the country’s electronic invoice system to spread malicious agents. **Read now**

**Threat Hunting with Talos IR**  
Talos recently published a **blog** on the framework behind our Threat Hunting service, featuring this handy video:

**Upcoming events where you can find Talos **

*   CTA TIPS 2025 (May 14 – 15)  Arlington, VA  
*   Cisco Connect UK & Ireland (May 20) London, UK  
*   BotConf (May 20 – 23) Angers, France  
*   Cisco Live U.S. (June 8 – 12) San Diego, CA 

**Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week **

**SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507**     
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f     
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507/    
Typical Filename: VID001.exe    
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Bitmin-9847045-0  

**SHA256: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91**     
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376     
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91     
Typical Filename: img001.exe    
Detection Name: Simple\_Custom\_Detection  

**SHA256: 47ecaab5cd6b26fe18d9759a9392bce81ba379817c53a3a468fe9060a076f8ca**     
MD5: 71fea034b422e4a17ebb06022532fdde     
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91     
Typical Filename: VID001.exe     
Detection Name: Coinminer:MBT.26mw.in14.Talos 

**SHA256: c67b03c0a91eaefffd2f2c79b5c26a2648b8d3c19a22cadf35453455ff08ead0**     
MD5: 8c69830a50fb85d8a794fa46643493b2   
VirusTotal: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/c67b03c0a91eaefffd2f2c79b5c26a2648b8d3c19a22cadf35453455ff08ead0    
Typical Filename: AAct.exe   
Detection Name: W32.File.MalParent

The IT help desk kindly requests you read this newsletter

A new spam campaign is targeting Brazilian users with a clever twist — abusing the free trial period of trusted remote monitoring tools and the country’s electronic invoice system to spread malicious agents.

*   Cisco Talos identified a spam campaign targeting Brazilian users with commercial remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools since at least January 2025. Talos observed the use of PDQ Connect and N-able remote access tools in this campaign. 
*   The spam message uses the Brazilian electronic invoice system, NF-e, as a lure to entice users into clicking hyperlinks and accessing malicious content hosted in Dropbox. 
*   Talos has observed the threat actor abusing RMM tools in order to create and distribute malicious agents to victims. They then use the remote capabilities of these agents to download and install Screen Connect after the initial compromise.
*   Talos assesses with high confidence that the threat actor is an initial access broker (IAB) abusing the free trial periods of these RMM tools. 

Talos recently observed a spam campaign targeting Portuguese-speaking users in Brazil with the intention of installing commercial remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools. The initial infection occurs via specially crafted spam messages purporting to be from financial institutions or cell phone carriers with an overdue bill or electronic receipt of payment issued as an NF-e (see Figures 1 and 2). 

Figure 1. Spam message purporting to be from a cell phone provider. 

Figure 2. Spam message masquerading as a bill from a financial institution. 

Both messages link to a Dropbox file, which contains the malicious binary installer for the RMM tool. The file names also contain references to NF-e in their names: 

*   AGENT\_NFe\_<random>.exe 
*   Boleto\_NFe\_<random>.exe 
*   Eletronica\_NFe\_<random>.exe 
*   Nf-e<random>.exe 
*   NFE\_<random>.exe 
*   NOTA\_FISCAL\_NFe\_<random>.exe 

_Note: <random> means the filename uses a random sequence of letters and numbers in that position._ 

The victims targeted in this campaign are mostly C-level executives and financial and human resources accounts across several industries, including some educational and government institutions. This assessment is based on the most common recipients found in the messages Talos observed during this campaign. 

Figure 3. Targeted recipients.

This campaign's objective is to lure the victims into installing an RMM tool, which allows the threat actor to take complete control of the target machine. N-able RMM Remote Access is the most common tool distributed in this campaign and is developed by N-able, Inc., previously known as SolarWinds. N-able is aware of this abuse and took action to disable the affected trial accounts. Another tool Talos observed in some cases is PDQ Connect, a similar RMM application. Both provide a 15-day free trial period.

To assess whether these actors were using a trial version rather than stolen credentials to create these accounts, Talos checked samples older than 15 days and confirmed all of them returned errors that the accounts were disabled, while newer samples found in the last 15 days were all active.

Talos also examined the email accounts used to register for the service. They all use free email services such as Gmail or Proton Mail, as well as usernames following the theme of the spam campaign, with few exceptions where the threat actors used personal accounts. These exceptions are potentially compromised accounts which are being abused by the threat actors to create additional trial accounts. Talos did not find any samples in which the registered account was issued by a private company, so we can assess with high confidence these agents were created using trial accounts instead of stolen credentials.

_N-able is aware of this abuse and took action to disable the affected trial accounts._

Talos found no evidence of a common post-infection behavior for the affected machines, with most machines staying infected for days before any other malicious activity was executed by the tool. However, in some cases, we observed the threat actor installing an additional RMM tool and removing all security tools from the machine a few days after the initial compromise. This is consistent with actions of initial access broker (IAB) groups. 

An IAB's main objective is to rapidly create a network of compromised machines and then sell access to the network to third parties. Threat actors commonly use IABs when looking for specific target companies to deploy ransomware on. However, IABs have varied priorities and may sell their services to any threat actors, including state-sponsored actors.  

Adversaries’ abuse of commercial RMM tools has steadily increased in recent years. These tools are of interest to threat actors because they are usually digitally signed by recognized entities and are a fully featured backdoor. They also have little to no cost in software or infrastructure, as all of this is generally provided by the trial version application.  

Talos created a trial account to test what features were available for a trial user. In the case of the N-able remote access tool, the trial version offers a full set of features only limited by the 15-day trial period. Talos was able to confirm that by using a trial account, the threat actor has full access to the machine, including remote desktop like access, remote command execution, screen streaming, keystroke capture and remote shell access. 

Figure 4. N-able management interface showing available remote access tools. 

Figure 5. Administrative shell executed on a remote machine. 

The threat actor also has access to a fully featured file manager to easily read and write files to the remote file system. 

Figure 6. N-able file manager. 

The network traffic these tools create is also disguised as regular traffic, with many tools using communication over HTTPS and connecting to resources which are part of the infrastructure provided by the application provider. For example, N-able Remote Access uses a domain associated with its management interface, hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS): 

*   hxxps://upload1\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/ 
*   hxxps://upload2\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/ 
*   hxxps://upload3\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/ 
*   hxxps://upload4\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/ 

_**Disclaimer**: The URLs above are part of the management infrastructure for the RMM tools described in this blog and are not controlled by the threat actor. Customers must complete an assessment before enabling block signatures for these domains._ 

The domain the agent uses is the same for any customer using the tool, with only the username and API key differentiating which customer the agent belongs to, as can be seen in Figure 7. This makes it even more difficult to identify the origin of the attacks and perform threat actor attribution.

Figure 7. Example configuration file. 

By extracting the configuration files inside the agent installer files still available on Dropbox, we can see some email addresses follow the same theme of the spam emails, using names of finance-related users and domains, while others could be potentially compromised accounts being used to create trial accounts for N-able Remote Access.  

With these trial versions being limited only by time and providing full remote-control features with little to no cost to the threat actors, Talos expects these tools to become even more common in attacks. 

Cisco Secure Firewall Application control is able to detect the unintended usage of RMM tools in customer's networks. Instructions on how to set up Application control can be found at Cisco Secure Firewall documentation. 

**Coverage **

Ways our customers can detect and block this threat are listed below. 

Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly AMP for Endpoints) is ideally suited to prevent the execution of the malware detailed in this post. Try Secure Endpoint for free here. 

Cisco Secure Email (formerly Cisco Email Security) can block malicious emails sent by threat actors as part of their campaign. You can try Secure Email for free here. 

Cisco Secure Firewall (formerly Next-Generation Firewall and Firepower NGFW) appliances such as Threat Defense Virtual, Adaptive Security Appliance and Meraki MX can detect malicious activity associated with this threat. 

Cisco Secure Network/Cloud Analytics (Stealthwatch/Stealthwatch Cloud) analyzes network traffic automatically and alerts users of potentially unwanted activity on every connected device. 

Cisco Secure Malware Analytics (Threat Grid) identifies malicious binaries and builds protection into all Cisco Secure products. 

Cisco Secure Access is a modern cloud-delivered Security Service Edge (SSE) built on Zero Trust principles.  Secure Access provides seamless transparent and secure access to the internet, cloud services or private application no matter where your users work.  Please contact your Cisco account representative or authorized partner if you are interested in a free trial of Cisco Secure Access. 

Umbrella, Cisco’s secure internet gateway (SIG), blocks users from connecting to malicious domains, IPs and URLs, whether users are on or off the corporate network.  

Cisco Secure Web Appliance (formerly Web Security Appliance) automatically blocks potentially dangerous sites and tests suspicious sites before users access them.  

Additional protections with context to your specific environment and threat data are available from the Firewall Management Center. 

Cisco Duo provides multi-factor authentication for users to ensure only those authorized are accessing your network.  

Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org. 

ClamAV detections are also available for this threat:  

Txt.Backdoor.NableRemoteAccessConfig-10044370-0  
Txt.Backdoor.NableRemoteAccessConfig-10044371-0   
Txt.Backdoor.NableRemoteAccessConfig-10044372-0 

**Indicators of Compromise **

_**Disclaimer**: The URLs below are part of the management infrastructure for the RMM tools described in this blog and are not controlled by the threat actor. An assessment must be done by customers before enabling block signatures for these domains._ 

_IOCs for this threat can be found on our GitHub repository_ _here__._ 

**Network IOCs **

hxxps://upload1\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/   
hxxps://upload2\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/   
hxxps://upload3\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/   
hxxps://upload4\[.\]am\[.\]remote\[.\]management/   
198\[.\]45\[.\]54\[.\]34\[.\]bc\[.\]googleusercontent\[.\]com 

**RMM Installer - Hashes **

03b5c76ad07987cfa3236eae5f8a5d42cef228dda22b392c40236872b512684e   
0759b628512b4eaabc6c3118012dd29f880e77d2af2feca01127a6fcf2fbbf10   
080e29e52a87d0e0e39eca5591d7185ff024367ddaded3e3fd26d3dbdb096a39   
0de612ea433676f12731da515cb16df0f98817b45b5ebc9bbf121d0b9e59c412   
1182b8e97daf59ad5abd1cb4b514436249dd4d36b4f3589b939d053f1de8fe23   
14c1cb13ffc67b222b42095a2e9ec9476f101e3a57246a1c33912d8fe3297878   
2850a346ecb7aebee3320ed7160f21a744e38f2d1a76c54f44c892ffc5c4ab77   
4787df4eea91d9ceb9e25d9eb7373d79a0df4a5320411d7435f9a6621da2fd6b   
51fa1d7b95831a6263bf260df8044f77812c68a9b720dad7379ae96200b065dd   
527a40f5f73aeb663c7186db6e8236eec6f61fa04923cde560ebcd107911c9ff   
57a90105ad2023b76e357cf42ba01c5ca696d80a82f87b54aea58c4e0db8d683   
63cde9758f9209f15ee4068b11419fead501731b12777169d89ebb34063467ea   
79b041cedef44253fdda8a66b54bdd450605f01bbb77ea87da31450a9b4d2b63   
a2c17f5c7acb05af81d4554e5080f5ed40b10e3988e96b4d05c4ee3e6237c31a   
b53f9c2802a0846fc805c03798b36391c444ab5ea88dc2b36bffc908edc1f589   
c484d3394b32e3c7544414774c717ebc0ce4d04ca75a00e93f4fb04b9b48ecef   
ca11eb7b9341b88da855a536b0741ed3155e80fc1ab60d89600b58a4b80d63a5   
d1efebcca578357ea7af582d3860fa6c357d203e483e6be3d6f9592265f3b41c   
e2171735f02f212c90856e9259ff7abc699c3efb55eeb5b61e72e92bea96f99c   
e34b8c9798b92f6a0e2ca9853adce299b1bf425dedb29f1266254ac3a15c87cd   
ebdefa6f88e459555844d3d9c13a4d7908c272128f65a12df4fb82f1aeab139f   
f52b4d81c73520fd25a2cc9c6e0e364b57396e0bb782187caf7c1e49693bebbf   
f5efd939372f869750e6f929026b7b5d046c5dad2f6bd703ff1b2089738b4d9c   
F68ae2c1d42d1b95e3829f08a516fb1695f75679fcfe0046e3e14890460191cf   
a71e274fc3086de4c22e68ed1a58567ab63790cc47cd2e04367e843408b9a065

Source

TALOS