协议隧道

协议隧道技术指攻击者将恶意网络通信封装在合法协议中,以规避安全检测并突破网络访问控制的攻击手段。传统协议隧道通常利用SSH、DNS等协议实现数据封装,防御方可通过深度包检测(DPI)、协议一致性校验及异常流量分析等手段进行识别。ATT&CK建议监控非常用端口的协议使用、分析网络流量的语法结构合规性,以及检测客户端与服务端数据量失衡等异常模式。

为应对日益增强的流量检测能力,攻击者发展出深度协议混淆、云服务寄生、动态负载调节等新型隧道技术,通过协议栈重构、业务场景融合及行为特征模仿等手段,将恶意通信完全嵌入合法业务流,形成"协议即服务"的隐蔽通道体系。

现有协议隧道匿迹技术的演进呈现三大特征:协议栈操作维度扩展、网络上下文深度适配及通信行为动态优化。多协议嵌套隧道通过洋葱式封装突破单层协议检测,利用各层协议的合法性相互印证;云存储寄生隧道将恶意流量溶解于云服务海量API调用中,借助云平台信任背书实现通信白名单化;DNS隐蔽隧道结合DoH加密与查询模式动态调节,使检测方难以区分正常域名解析与隧道通信;元数据隐写隧道则创造性利用协议规范模糊地带,在确保协议完整性的前提下实现数据渗漏。这些技术的共同本质是将协议合规性作为核心防御突破点,通过协议标准的内生特性对抗外部检测机制。

匿迹技术的发展导致传统基于协议指纹识别和流量统计分析的防御手段逐渐失效,防御方需构建协议语义级解析能力,结合上下文行为建模和跨协议关联分析,同时引入云服务商的安全协同机制,方能有效应对新型隐蔽隧道威胁。

ID: T1572
Sub-techniques:  T1572.001, T1572.002, T1572.003, T1572.004
Tactic: 命令控制
Platforms: Linux, Windows, macOS
Version: 1.0
Created: 15 March 2020
Last Modified: 27 March 2020

匿迹效应

效应类型 是否存在
特征伪装
行为透明
数据遮蔽
时空释痕

特征伪装

攻击者通过协议封装和元数据隐写,使隧道流量在协议类型、交互模式等表层特征上与合法流量完全一致。例如将C2通信封装为视频流协议,或利用HTTP扩展头传输指令,使得流量在协议解析层呈现合法业务特征,规避基于协议指纹的检测规则。

数据遮蔽

采用TLS/SSL加密、协议嵌套封装等手段,对隧道流量进行多层加密保护。如通过DoH实现DNS查询加密,或在云存储API调用中使用平台原生HTTPS加密,使防御方无法通过流量解密获取有效载荷内容。

时空释痕

通过动态负载均衡和分布式隧道节点,将集中式通信拆解为低频次、多节点的离散交互。例如DNS隧道采用全球分布的权威服务器轮询机制,云存储隧道利用多区域存储桶同步数据,使通信特征在时间和空间维度被稀释,难以通过短期局部流量分析发现异常。

Procedure Examples

ID Name Description
C0034 2022 Ukraine Electric Power Attack

During the 2022 Ukraine Electric Power Attack, Sandworm Team deployed the GOGETTER tunneler software to establish a "Yamux" TLS-based C2 channel with an external server(s).[1]

S1063 Brute Ratel C4

Brute Ratel C4 can use DNS over HTTPS for C2.[2][3]

C0027 C0027

During C0027, Scattered Spider used SSH tunneling in targeted environments.[4]

C0032 C0032

During the C0032 campaign, TEMP.Veles used encrypted SSH-based PLINK tunnels to transfer tools and enable RDP connections throughout the environment.[5]

G0114 Chimera

Chimera has encapsulated Cobalt Strike's C2 protocol in DNS and HTTPS.[6]

G1021 Cinnamon Tempest

Cinnamon Tempest has used the Iox and NPS proxy and tunneling tools in combination create multiple connections through a single tunnel.[7]

G0080 Cobalt Group

Cobalt Group has used the Plink utility to create SSH tunnels.[8][9][10]

S0154 Cobalt Strike

Cobalt Strike uses a custom command and control protocol that is encapsulated in HTTP, HTTPS, or DNS. In addition, it conducts peer-to-peer communication over Windows named pipes encapsulated in the SMB protocol. All protocols use their standard assigned ports.[11][12]

C0004 CostaRicto

During CostaRicto, the threat actors set up remote SSH tunneling into the victim's environment from a malicious domain.[13]

C0029 Cutting Edge

During Cutting Edge, threat actors used Iodine to tunnel IPv4 traffic over DNS.[14]

S0687 Cyclops Blink

Cyclops Blink can use DNS over HTTPS (DoH) to resolve C2 nodes.[15]

S0038 Duqu

Duqu uses a custom command and control protocol that communicates over commonly used ports, and is frequently encapsulated by application layer protocols.[16]

G1003 Ember Bear

Ember Bear has used ProxyChains to tunnel protocols to internal networks.[17]

G1016 FIN13

FIN13 has utilized web shells and Java tools for tunneling capabilities to and from compromised assets.[18]

G0037 FIN6

FIN6 used the Plink command-line utility to create SSH tunnels to C2 servers.[19]

S0173 FLIPSIDE

FLIPSIDE uses RDP to tunnel traffic from a victim environment.[20]

G0117 Fox Kitten

Fox Kitten has used protocol tunneling for communication and RDP activity on compromised hosts through the use of open source tools such as ngrok and custom tool SSHMinion.[21][22][23]

S1144 FRP

FRP can tunnel SSH and Unix Domain Socket communications over TCP between external nodes and exposed resources behind firewalls or NAT.[24]

S1044 FunnyDream

FunnyDream can connect to HTTP proxies via TCP to create a tunnel to C2.[25]

S1027 Heyoka Backdoor

Heyoka Backdoor can use spoofed DNS requests to create a bidirectional tunnel between a compromised host and its C2 servers.[26]

S0604 Industroyer

Industroyer attempts to perform an HTTP CONNECT via an internal proxy to establish a tunnel.[27]

S1020 Kevin

Kevin can use a custom protocol tunneled through DNS or HTTP.[28]

G0065 Leviathan

Leviathan has used protocol tunneling to further conceal C2 communications and infrastructure.[29]

S1141 LunarWeb

LunarWeb can run a custom binary protocol under HTTPS for C2.[30]

G0059 Magic Hound

Magic Hound has used Plink to tunnel RDP over SSH.[31]

S1015 Milan

Milan can use a custom protocol tunneled through DNS or HTTP.[28]

S0699 Mythic

Mythic can use SOCKS proxies to tunnel traffic through another protocol.[32]

S0508 ngrok

ngrok can tunnel RDP and other services securely over internet connections.[33][34][35][36]

G0049 OilRig

OilRig has used the Plink utility and other tools to create tunnels to C2 servers.[37][38][39]

S0650 QakBot

The QakBot proxy module can encapsulate SOCKS5 protocol within its own proxy protocol.[40]

S0022 Uroburos

Uroburos has the ability to communicate over custom communications methodologies that ride over common network protocols including raw TCP and UDP sockets, HTTP, SMTP, and DNS.[41]

Mitigations

ID Mitigation Description
M1037 Filter Network Traffic

Consider filtering network traffic to untrusted or known bad domains and resources.

M1031 Network Intrusion Prevention

Network intrusion detection and prevention systems that use network signatures to identify traffic for specific adversary malware can be used to mitigate activity at the network level.

Detection

ID Data Source Data Component Detects
DS0029 Network Traffic Network Connection Creation

Monitor for newly constructed network connections that are sent or received by untrusted hosts.

Network Traffic Content

Monitor and analyze traffic patterns and packet inspection associated to protocol(s) that do not follow the expected protocol standards and traffic flows (e.g extraneous packets that do not belong to established flows, gratuitous or anomalous traffic patterns, anomalous syntax, or structure). Consider correlation with process monitoring and command line to detect anomalous processes execution and command line arguments associated to traffic patterns (e.g. monitor anomalies in use of files that do not normally initiate connections for respective protocol(s)).

Network Traffic Flow

Monitor network data for uncommon data flows. Processes utilizing the network that do not normally have network communication or have never been seen before are suspicious.

References

  1. Ken Proska, John Wolfram, Jared Wilson, Dan Black, Keith Lunden, Daniel Kapellmann Zafra, Nathan Brubaker, Tyler Mclellan, Chris Sistrunk. (2023, November 9). Sandworm Disrupts Power in Ukraine Using a Novel Attack Against Operational Technology. Retrieved March 28, 2024.
  2. Harbison, M. and Renals, P. (2022, July 5). When Pentest Tools Go Brutal: Red-Teaming Tool Being Abused by Malicious Actors. Retrieved February 1, 2023.
  3. Kenefick, I. et al. (2022, October 12). Black Basta Ransomware Gang Infiltrates Networks via QAKBOT, Brute Ratel, and Cobalt Strike. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  4. Parisi, T. (2022, December 2). Not a SIMulation: CrowdStrike Investigations Reveal Intrusion Campaign Targeting Telco and BPO Companies. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  5. Miller, S, et al. (2019, April 10). TRITON Actor TTP Profile, Custom Attack Tools, Detections, and ATT&CK Mapping. Retrieved April 16, 2019.
  6. Jansen, W . (2021, January 12). Abusing cloud services to fly under the radar. Retrieved September 12, 2024.
  7. Biderman, O. et al. (2022, October 3). REVEALING EMPEROR DRAGONFLY: NIGHT SKY AND CHEERSCRYPT - A SINGLE RANSOMWARE GROUP. Retrieved December 6, 2023.
  8. Svajcer, V. (2018, July 31). Multiple Cobalt Personality Disorder. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
  9. Positive Technologies. (2016, December 16). Cobalt Snatch. Retrieved October 9, 2018.
  10. Matveeva, V. (2017, August 15). Secrets of Cobalt. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
  11. Strategic Cyber LLC. (2017, March 14). Cobalt Strike Manual. Retrieved May 24, 2017.
  12. Strategic Cyber LLC. (2020, November 5). Cobalt Strike: Advanced Threat Tactics for Penetration Testers. Retrieved April 13, 2021.
  13. The BlackBerry Research and Intelligence Team. (2020, November 12). The CostaRicto Campaign: Cyber-Espionage Outsourced. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  14. Lin, M. et al. (2024, January 31). Cutting Edge, Part 2: Investigating Ivanti Connect Secure VPN Zero-Day Exploitation. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  15. Haquebord, F. et al. (2022, March 17). Cyclops Blink Sets Sights on Asus Routers. Retrieved March 17, 2022.
  16. Symantec Security Response. (2011, November). W32.Duqu: The precursor to the next Stuxnet. Retrieved September 17, 2015.
  17. US Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency et al. (2024, September 5). Russian Military Cyber Actors Target U.S. and Global Critical Infrastructure. Retrieved September 6, 2024.
  18. Sygnia Incident Response Team. (2022, January 5). TG2003: ELEPHANT BEETLE UNCOVERING AN ORGANIZED FINANCIAL-THEFT OPERATION. Retrieved February 9, 2023.
  19. FireEye Threat Intelligence. (2016, April). Follow the Money: Dissecting the Operations of the Cyber Crime Group FIN6. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  20. Bromiley, M. and Lewis, P. (2016, October 7). Attacking the Hospitality and Gaming Industries: Tracking an Attacker Around the World in 7 Years. Retrieved October 6, 2017.
  21. Orleans, A. (2020, August 31). Who Is PIONEER KITTEN?. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  1. CISA. (2020, September 15). Iran-Based Threat Actor Exploits VPN Vulnerabilities. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  2. ClearSky. (2020, December 17). Pay2Key Ransomware – A New Campaign by Fox Kitten. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  3. fatedier. (n.d.). What is frp?. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  4. Vrabie, V. (2020, November). Dissecting a Chinese APT Targeting South Eastern Asian Government Institutions. Retrieved September 19, 2022.
  5. Chen, Joey. (2022, June 9). Aoqin Dragon | Newly-Discovered Chinese-linked APT Has Been Quietly Spying On Organizations For 10 Years. Retrieved July 14, 2022.
  6. Dragos Inc.. (2017, June 13). CRASHOVERRIDE Analysis of the Threat to Electric Grid Operations. Retrieved December 18, 2020.
  7. Kayal, A. et al. (2021, October). LYCEUM REBORN: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Retrieved June 14, 2022.
  8. CISA. (2021, July 19). (AA21-200A) Joint Cybersecurity Advisory – Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures of Indicted APT40 Actors Associated with China’s MSS Hainan State Security Department. Retrieved August 12, 2021.
  9. Jurčacko, F. (2024, May 15). To the Moon and back(doors): Lunar landing in diplomatic missions. Retrieved June 26, 2024.
  10. DFIR Report. (2021, November 15). Exchange Exploit Leads to Domain Wide Ransomware. Retrieved January 5, 2023.
  11. Thomas, C. (n.d.). Mythc Documentation. Retrieved March 25, 2022.
  12. Kennelly, J., Goody, K., Shilko, J. (2020, May 7). Navigating the MAZE: Tactics, Techniques and Procedures Associated With MAZE Ransomware Incidents. Retrieved May 18, 2020.
  13. Cyware. (2019, May 29). Cyber attackers leverage tunneling service to drop Lokibot onto victims’ systems. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  14. Segura, J. (2020, February 26). Fraudsters cloak credit card skimmer with fake content delivery network, ngrok server. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  15. Borja, A. Camba, A. et al (2020, September 14). Analysis of a Convoluted Attack Chain Involving Ngrok. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  16. Unit42. (2016, May 1). Evasive Serpens Unit 42 Playbook Viewer. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  17. Davis, S. and Caban, D. (2017, December 19). APT34 - New Targeted Attack in the Middle East. Retrieved December 20, 2017.
  18. Bromiley, M., et al.. (2019, July 18). Hard Pass: Declining APT34’s Invite to Join Their Professional Network. Retrieved August 26, 2019.
  19. Kuzmenko, A. et al. (2021, September 2). QakBot technical analysis. Retrieved September 27, 2021.
  20. FBI et al. (2023, May 9). Hunting Russian Intelligence “Snake” Malware. Retrieved June 8, 2023.