How Microsoft Defender Experts and partners like Quorum Cyber are redefining cybersecurity teamwork
In today’s rapidly evolving threat landscape, cybersecurity demands more than just great technology—it requires great teamwork. That’s the story behind the collaboration between Microsoft Defender Experts and MXDR partner, Quorum Cyber, joining forces to deliver end-to-end threat protection for organizations worldwide. Microsoft-verified MXDR partner Microsoft Defender Experts recognized the need for partner-led managed services to complement their first-party MDR (Managed Detection and Response) service. Quorum Cyber is a trusted Microsoft solutions partner and MSSP of the Year. They are also a Microsoft-verified MDR partner, which means they passed Microsoft’s validation process to deliver services using Microsoft’s security technologies. Quorum Cyber complements Microsoft Defender Experts, MDR services with additional security operations center (SOC) capabilities, extended coverage, non-Microsoft telemetry, and 3rd party domain expertise. “Quorum Cyber’s reputation for customer focus and security expertise made them the ideal Microsoft-verified MDR partner.” – Vivek Kumar, Microsoft “We saw Defender Experts as a way to extend our reach and deliver even more value to customers. It wasn’t about replacing—it was about enhancing.” – Ricky Simpson, Quorum Cyber Why teamwork matters The Microsoft-verified MDR partner program was born out of a shared mission: to provide holistic, customer-led security solutions to address the growing security needs of organizations worldwide. Today, cyber security needs to be a team sport. Organizations that provide security services, like Microsoft’s Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber, need to join together with customers to defend an ever-expanding attack surface against today’s sophisticated threats. Facing the modern threat landscape together From skill shortages to complex attacks, organizations need security providers who can adapt and collaborate. “Hackers only need to get it right once while SecOps needs to get it right every time. Customers need an end-to-end security solution to eliminate gaps and strengthen vulnerabilities. No single provider can address the needs of every organization—everywhere. Only teamwork can get the job done.” – Vivek Kumar, Microsoft How MDR providers working together is important for CISOs and other security leaders Meeting real-world challenges Modern SecOps must navigate an increasingly complex and multifaceted threat landscape. One of the most pressing challenges is the global shortage of cybersecurity professionals. Although the security workforce has grown by 9%, the gap has widened even further, with nearly 4.8 million additional professionals needed to adequately protect organizations last year. ¹ Meanwhile, adversaries are becoming more sophisticated and agile. They work in groups, using many individuals who process deep domain expertise is executing various attack techniques and tactics. In May 2024 alone, Microsoft Defender XDR detected over 176,000 incidents involving tampering with security settings, impacting more than 5,600 organizations. ² That surge in threat activity coincides with a pivotal moment in technological evolution as organizations rapidly scale cloud operations and explore the transformative potential of generative AI. These innovations, while powerful, also expand the attack surface and the likelihood of gaps and vulnerabilities. Comprehensive coverage across security domains Microsoft Defender Experts brings deep integration across Microsoft’s ecosystem and manages incidents across Microsoft Defender products (Endpoint, Office 365, Identity, Cloud Apps, and Defender for Cloud/Servers). Quorum Cyber, a Microsoft-verified partner, offers flexibility and specialized coverage to extend beyond Microsoft Defender Experts. “What is so exciting about this approach, is that together, we created a layered defense strategy that’s greater than the sum of its parts and provides coverage for nearly all of the customers’ environment. Microsoft SDM/SecDeliveryExperts worked together with Quorum Cyber to create a nearly seamless, unified defense strategy. They not only help to eliminate the skills gap but are designed to scale easily to address nearly any volume of sophisticated threats.” – Sebastien Molendijk, Microsoft With shared tooling, real-time communication, and complementary expertise, this teamwork eliminates blind spots and delivers coverage across an environment that includes non-Defender Experts supported technology such as 3rd party and legacy systems, custom applications, IoT, firewalls, network gear, and more. Additionally, the combined telemetry for all covered systems, Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber, enriches incident context and improves detection accuracy and hunting. Real-world impact – Customer success stories Proactive threat hunting is a core component of Defender Experts. Experts are not just cross-checking Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) against the environment or only validating them against known tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). The hunting approach is differentiated by the 78T signals and hundreds of tracked threat actors. The intelligence informing Microsoft hunts spans across nation state, criminal activity, evolving vulnerabilities, and newly observed behaviors. That is something Defender Experts can uniquely provide customers. One of many customer examples of this teamwork involved an organization already engaged with Quorum Cyber MDR for Microsoft E5 services. When Defender Experts engaged with the customer, the two teams co-created a solution tailored to meet the CISOs needs by combining Quorum Cyber’s analytics and monitoring with Defender Expert’s proactive threat hunting. That not only expanded coverage but provided the customer with both proactive and reactive services across nearly their entire environment. Another example is adversary in the middle alerts, Defender Experts performs the investigation of malicious QR codes and then escalates to Quorum Cyber if malicious activity is observed. Quorum Cyber then takes delegated authority to reset the user's password, revokes their sessions, and takes other actions as needed. Unique services Collaboration is more than Quorum Cyber and Microsoft working as one. Quorum Cyber develops unique services including their data security service – Clarity Data. This service handles incidents generated via Microsoft Purview - DLP and IRM. It includes Quorum Cyber’s 24/7 365 SOC services to address those incidents without interfering with security signals being addressed by other analysts. Operational flexibility Customers have the option to divide responsibilities. For example, Microsoft manages Defender-specific alerts and Quorum Cyber manages alerts from all the other tools. Guided response playbooks allow Microsoft Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber teams to work as one to perform containment and remediation across workstreams. “We built solutions from scratch, keeping customer outcomes at the center. The results are frictionless, powerful security models that address unique customer needs.” – Ricky Simpson, Quorum Cyber Overcoming challenges, building trust, working as one Like building any team, there were hurdles. From workflow alignment to incident handoffs, mutual respect and a shared commitment to customer satisfaction paved the way to building frictionless workstreams. Teamwork thrived on technical integration. Because Defender Experts is built atop the Microsoft Defender portal and Microsoft Graph, the service is inherently designed for seamless collaboration. When Defender Experts assigns incidents, initiates proactive threat hunts, publishes investigation notes, or executes one-click remediation actions, those activities are fully integrated into both the Defender user experience and the Graph API. That integration enables Quorum Cyber to synchronize directly with those workflows, allowing their teams to operate within their existing toolsets while customers receive real-time updates and final resolutions through platforms such as Microsoft Defender, Sentinel, or their ITSM systems. A notable example is the ‘real-time chat’ feature within Defender Experts, which is architected to support joint participation from both customers and partners like Quorum Cyber—ensuring transparency and responsiveness throughout the incident lifecycle. That level of tooling integration is essential to delivering a unified experience. Customers benefit from the deep expertise of Defender Experts, the broad coverage of a trusted partner like Quorum Cyber, and the operational efficiency of a tightly connected security services ecosystem. It truly represents the best of both worlds. “Defender Experts’ use of Microsoft Graph and Defender Portal enabled seamless incident sharing, real-time chat, and synchronized updates across platforms. Live dashboards from Defender Experts offer a clear, prioritized view of incidents. That allowed Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber to work as one team to keep customers secure and do that quickly and efficiently.” – Ricky Simpson, Quorum Cyber The bigger picture – innovation and growth This partnership isn’t just about solving today’s problems—it’s about shaping the future. It has opened doors for Quorum Cyber to expand into new service areas, like managed data security, while reinforcing Microsoft’s commitment to flexible, scalable security solutions. Customers don’t have to choose between Microsoft and their trusted MDR provider like Quorum Cyber—they can have both. By combining Microsoft Defender Experts with MDR providers like Quorum Cyber, organizations gain a flexible, scalable, and deeply integrated security strategy that adapts to their unique needs and can grow as they grow. Whether you're augmenting your SOC, expanding global coverage, or navigating a transition, this “better together” model ensures your security operations are resilient, responsive, and ready for what’s next. “We’ve proven, and our customer agree, that first-party and partner-led services can coexist and thrive together.” – Ricky Simpson, Quorum Cyber “Customers get the best of both worlds—expertise from Defender Experts and coverage from Quorum Cyber, all delivered as it should be—in a timely and seamless way.” – Vivek Kumar, Microsoft In summary – Microsoft Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber – the benefits are clear End-to-End Threat Protection – Combines Microsoft Defender capabilities with Quorum Cyber extended SOC services and third-party telemetry. Comprehensive Coverage –Protects both Microsoft and non-Microsoft environments, including legacy systems, IoT, and custom applications. Proactive and Reactive Security –Integrates threat hunting with incident response for full-spectrum defense. Operational Flexibility –Allows tailored division of responsibilities and coordinated remediation through guided playbooks. Real-Time Collaboration –Enables seamless communication and incident management via shared tooling, dashboards, and chat features. Advanced Threat Intelligence –Leverages Microsoft’s 78T signals and threat actor tracking, with partner TI, to enrich incident context and improve detection. Complementary Services –For example, Quorum Cyber’s Clarity Data service handles Microsoft Purview incidents without disrupting other security workflows. Unified Customer Experience –Delivers frictionless, scalable, and resilient security operations through deep integration and mutual trust. Learn more If you like this blog, and would like to learn more, see this insightful webinar for more details The Better Together Story of Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber - Quorum Cyber And listen to what these experts from Quorum Cyber and Microsoft have to say about the benefits of ‘Better Together.’ Ricky Simpson | LinkedIn Paul Caiazzo | LinkedIn Scott McManus | LinkedIn Raae Wolfram | LinkedIn Sebastien Molendijk | LinkedIn Henry Yan | LinkedIn Vivek Kumar | LinkedIn Next Steps For organizations considering a multi-provider strategy, the message is clear: collaboration works. Microsoft Defender Experts and Quorum Cyber show that when service providers align around customer needs, the results are transformative. “Microsoft Security has got you covered—whether through Defender Experts, partners like Quorum Cyber, or both.” – Vivek Kumar, Microsoft Ready to strengthen your cyber resilience, Join the conversation through Microsoft’s public webinar series Explore the CTI community Reach out to learn more about how this partnership can support your organization. Sources ¹ ISC2-2024-Cybersecurity-Workforce-Study ² Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2024
Cloud forensics: Why enabling Microsoft Azure Storage Account logs matters
Co-authors - Christoph Dreymann - Shiva P Introduction Azure Storage Accounts are frequently targeted by threat actors. Their goal is to exfiltrate sensitive data to an external infrastructure under their control. Because diagnostic logging is not always fully enabled by default, valuable evidence of their malicious actions may be lost. With this blog, we will explore realistic attack scenarios and demonstrate the types of artifacts those activities generate. By properly enabling Microsoft Azure Storage Account logs investigators gain a better understanding of the scope of the incident. The information can also provide guidance for remediating the environment and on preventing data theft from occurring again. Storage Account A Storage Account provides scalable, secure, and highly available storage for storing and managing data objects. Due to the variety of sensitive data that can be stored, it is another highly valued target by a threat actor. Threat actors exploit misconfigurations, weak access controls, and leaked credentials to gain unauthorized access. Key risks include Shared Access Signature token (SAS) misuse that allows threat actors to access or modify exposed blob storages. Storage Account key exposure could grant privileged access to the data plane. Investigating storage-related security incidents requires familiarity with Azure activity logs and Diagnostic logs. Diagnostic log types for Storage accounts are StorageBlob, StorageFile, StorageQueue, and StorageTable. These logs can help identify unusual access patterns, role changes, and unauthorized SAS token generation. This blog is centered around StorageBlob activity logs. Storage Account logging The logs for a Storage Account aren’t enabled by default. These logs capture operations, requests, and use such as read, write, and delete actions/requests on storage objects like blobs, queues, files, or tables. NOTE: There are no license requirements to enable Storage Account logging, but Log Analytics charges based on ingestion and retention (Pricing - Azure Monitor | Microsoft Azure) For more information on enabling logging for a Storage Account can be found here. Notable fields The log entries contain various fields which are of use not only during or after an incident, but for general monitoring of a storage account during normal operations (for a full list, see what data is available in the Storage Logs). Once the storage log is enabled, one of the key tables within Log Analytics is StorageBlobLogs, which provides details about blob storage operations, including read, write, and delete actions. Key columns such as OperationName, AuthenticationType, StatusText, and UserAgentHeader capture essential information about these activities. The OperationName field identifies operations on a storage account, such as “PutBlob” for uploads or “DeleteBlob” and “DeleteFile” for deletions. The UserAgentHeader fields offer valuable insights into the tools used to access a Blob storage. Accessing blob storages through the Azure portal is typically logged with a generic user agent, which indicates the application used to perform the access, such as a web browser like Mozilla Firefox. In contrast, tools like AzCopy or Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer are explicitly identified in the logs. Analyzing the UserAgentHeader provides crucial details about the access method, helping determine how the blob storage was accessed. The following table includes additional investigation fields, Field name Description TimeGenerated [UTC] The date and time of the operation request. AccountName Name of the Storage account. OperationName Name of the operation. A detailed list of for StorageBlob operation can be found here. AuthenticationType The type of authentication that was used to make this request. StatusCode The HTTP status code for the request. If the request is interrupted, this value might be set to Unknown. StatusText The status of the requested operation. Uri Uniform resource identifier that is requested. CallerIpAddress The IP address of the requester, including the port number. UserAgentHeader The User-Agent header value. ObjectKey Provides the path of the object requested. RequesterUpn User Principal Name of the requester. AuthenticationHash Hash of the authentication token used during a request. Request authenticated with SAS token includes a SAS signature specifying the hash derived from the signature part of the SAS token. For a full list, see what data is available in the Storage Logs. How a threat actor can access a Storage Account Threat actors can access the Storage Account through Azure-assigned RBAC, a SAS token (including User delegated SAS token), Azure Storage Account Keys and Anonymous Access (if configured). Storage Account Access Keys Azure Storage Account Access Keys are shared secrets that enable full access to Azure storage resources. When creating a storage account, Azure generates two access keys, both can be used for authentication with the storage account. These keys are permanent and do not have an expiration date. Both Storage Account Owners and roles such as Contributor or any other role with the assigned action of Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/listKeys/action can retrieve and use these credentials to access the storage account. Account Access Keys can be rotated/regenerated but if done unintentionally, it could disrupt applications or services dependent on the key for authentication. Additionally, this action invalidates any SAS tokens derived from that key, potentially revoking access to dependent workflows. Monitoring key rotations can help detect unexpected changes and mitigate disruptions. Query: This query can help identify instances of account key rotations in the logs AzureActivity | where OperationNameValue has "MICROSOFT.STORAGE/STORAGEACCOUNTS/REGENERATEKEY/ACTION" | where ActivityStatusValue has "Start" | extend resource = parse_json(todynamic(Properties).resource) | extend requestBody = parse_json(todynamic(Properties).requestbody) | project TimeGenerated, OperationNameValue, resource, requestBody, Caller, CallerIpAddress Shared Access Signature SAS tokens offer a granular method for controlling access to Azure storage resources. SAS tokens enable specific permitted actions on a resource and their duration. They can be generated for blobs, queues, tables, and file shares within a storage account, providing precise control over data access. A SAS token allows access via a signed URL. A Storage Account Owner can generate a SAS token and connection strings for various resources within the storage account (e.g., blobs, containers, tables) without restrictions. Additionally, roles with Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/listKeys/action rights can also generate SAS tokens. SAS tokens enable access to storage resources using tools such as Azure Storage Explorer, Azure CLI, or PowerShell. It is important to note that the logs do not indicate when a SAS token was generated [How a shared access signature works]. However, their usage can be inferred by tracking configuration changes that enable the use of storage account keys option which is disabled by default. Figure 1: Configuration setting to enable account key access Query: This query is designed to detect configuration changes made to enable access via storage account keys AzureActivity | where OperationNameValue has "MICROSOFT.STORAGE/STORAGEACCOUNTS/WRITE" | where ActivityStatusValue has "Success" | extend allowSharedKeyAccess = parse_json(tostring(parse_json(tostring(parse_json(Properties).responseBody)).properties)).allowSharedKeyAccess | where allowSharedKeyAccess == "true" User delegated Shared Access Signature A User Delegation SAS is a type of SAS token that is secured using Microsoft Entra ID credentials rather than the storage account key. For more details see Authorize a user delegation SAS. To request a SAS token using the user delegation key, the identity must possess the Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/blobServices/generateUserDelegationKey action (see Assign permissions with RBAC). Azure Role-Based Access Control A threat actor must identify a target (an identity) that can assign roles or already holds specific RBAC roles. To assign Azure RBAC roles, an identity must have Microsoft.Authorization/roleAssignments/write, which allows the assignment of roles necessary for accessing storage accounts. Some examples of roles that provide permissions to access data within Storage Account (see Azure built-in roles for blob): Storage Account Contributor (Read, Write, Manage Access) Storage Blob Data Contributor (Read, Write) Storage Blob Data Owner (Read, Write, Manage Access) Storage Blob Data Reader (Read Only) Additionally, to access blob data in the Azure portal, a user must also be assigned the Reader role (see Assign an Azure role). More information about Azure built-in roles for a Storage Account can be found here Azure built-in roles for Storage. Anonymous Access If the storage account configuration 'Allow Blob anonymous access' is set to enabled and a container is created with anonymous read access, a threat actor could access the storage contents from the internet without any authorization. Figure 2: Configuration settings for Blob anonymous access and container-level anonymous access. Query: This query helps identify successful configuration changes to enable anonymous access AzureActivity | join kind=rightouter (AzureActivity | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where OperationNameValue has "MICROSOFT.STORAGE/STORAGEACCOUNTS/WRITE" | where Properties has "allowBlobPublicAccess" | extend ProperTies = parse_json(Properties) | evaluate bag_unpack(ProperTies) | extend allowBlobPublicAccess = todynamic(requestbody).properties["allowBlobPublicAccess"] | where allowBlobPublicAccess has "true" | summarize by CorrelationId) on CorrelationId | extend ProperTies = parse_json(Properties) | evaluate bag_unpack(ProperTies) | extend allowBlobPublicAccess_req = todynamic(requestbody).properties["allowBlobPublicAccess"] | extend allowBlobPublicAccess_res = todynamic(responseBody).properties["allowBlobPublicAccess"] | extend allowBlobPublicAccess = case (allowBlobPublicAccess_req!="", allowBlobPublicAccess_req, allowBlobPublicAccess_res!="", allowBlobPublicAccess_res, "") | project OperationNameValue, ActivityStatusValue, ResourceGroup, allowBlobPublicAccess, Caller, CallerIpAddress, ResourceProviderValue Key notes regarding the authentication methods When a user accesses Azure Blob Storage via the Azure portal, the interaction is authenticated using OAuth and is authorized by the Azure RBAC roles configuration for the given user. In contrast, authentication using Azure Storage Explorer and AzCopy depends on the method used: If a user interactively signs in via the Azure portal or utilizes the Device code flow, authentication appears as OAuth based. When using a SAS token, authentication is recorded as SAS-based for both tools. Access via Azure RBAC is logged in Entra ID Sign-in Logs, however, activity related to SAS token usage does not appear in the sign-in logs, as it provides pre-authorized access. Log analysis should consider all operations, since initial actions can reveal the true authentication method even OAuth-based access may show as SAS in logs. The screenshot below illustrates three distinct cases, each showcasing different patterns of authentication types used when accessing storage resources. A SAS token is consistently used across various operations, where the SAS token is the primary access method. The example below highlighted as ‘2’ demonstrates a similar pattern, with OAuth (using assigned Azure RBAC role) serving as the primary authentication method for all listed operations. Lastly, example number ‘3’, Operations start with OAuth authentication (using an assigned Azure RBAC role for authorization) and then uses a SAS token, indicating mixed authentication types. Figure 3: Different patterns of authentication types Additionally, when using certain applications such as Azure Storage Explorer with Account Access Keys authentication, the initial operations such as ListContainers and ListBlob are logged with the authentication type reported as “AccountKey”. However, for subsequent actions like file uploads or downloads, the authentication type switches to SAS in the logs. To accurately determine whether an Account Access Keys or SAS was used, it's important to correlate these actions with the earlier enumeration or sync activity within the logs. With this understanding, let’s proceed to analyze specific attack scenarios by utilizing the log analytics, such as the StorageBlobLogs table. Attack scenario This section will examine the typical steps that a threat actor might take when targeting a Storage Account. We will specifically focus on the Azure Resource Manager layer, where Azure RBAC initially dictates what a threat actor can discover. Enumeration During enumeration, a threat actor’s goal is to map out the available storage accounts. The range of this discovery is decided by the access privileges of a compromised identity. If that identity holds at least a minimum level of access (similar to a Reader) at the subscription level, it can view storage account resources without making any modifications. Importantly, this permission level does not grant access to the actual data stored within the Azure Storage itself. Hence, a threat actor is limited to interacting only with those storage accounts that are visible to them. To access and download files from Blob Storage, a threat actor must be aware of the names of containers (Operation: ListContainers) and the files within those containers (Operation: ListBlobs). All interactions with these storage elements are recorded in the StorageBlobLogs table. Containers or blobs in a container can be listed by a threat actor with the appropriate access rights. If access is not authorized, attempts to do so will result in error codes shown in the StatusCode field. A high number of unauthorized attempts resulting in errors would be a key indicator of suspicious activity or misconfiguration. Figure 4: Failure attempts to list blobs/containers Query: This query serves as a starting point for detecting a spike in unauthorized attempts to enumerate containers, blobs, files, or queues union Storage* | extend StatusCodeLong = tolong(StatusCode) | where OperationName has_any ("ListBlobs", "ListContainers", "ListFiles", "ListQueues") | summarize MinTime = min(TimeGenerated), MaxTime = max(TimeGenerated), OperationCount = count(), UnauthorizedAccess = countif(StatusCodeLong >= 400), OperationNames = make_set(OperationName), ErrorStatusCodes = make_set_if(StatusCode, StatusCodeLong >= 400), StorageAccountName = make_set(AccountName) by CallerIpAddress | where UnauthorizedAccess > 0 Note: The UnauthorizedAccess filter attribute must be adjusted based on your environment. Data exfiltration Let’s use the StorageBlobLogs to analyze two different attack scenarios. Scenario 1: Compromised user has access to a storage account In this scenario, the threat actor either compromises a user account with access to one or more storage accounts or alternatively, obtains a leaked Account Access Key or SAS token. With a compromised identity, the threat actor can either enumerate all storage accounts the user has permissions to (as covered in enumeration) or directly access a specific blob or container if the leaked key grants scoped access. Account Access Keys (AccountKey)/SAS tokens The threat actor might either use the storage account’s access keys or SAS token retrieved through the compromised user account provided they have the appropriate permissions or the leaked key itself may already be either an Account access key or SAS token. Access keys grant complete control while SAS key can generate a time-bound access, to authorize data transfers enabling them to view, upload, or download data at will. Figure 5: Account key used to download/view data Figure 6: SAS token used to download/view data Query: This query helps identify cases where an AccountKey/SAS was used to download/view data from a storage account StorageBlobLogs | where OperationName has "GetBlob" | where AuthenticationType in~ ("AccountKey", "SAS") | where StatusText in~ ("Success", "AnonymousSuccess", "SASSuccess") | project TimeGenerated, AccountName, OperationName, RequesterUpn, AuthenticationType, Uri, ObjectKey, StatusText, UserAgentHeader, CallerIpAddress, AuthenticationHash User Delegation SAS Available for Blob Storage only, a User Delegation SAS functions similar to a SAS but is protected with Microsoft Entra ID credentials rather than the storage account key. The creation of a User Delegation SAS is tracked as a corresponding "GetUserDelegationKey" log entry in StorageBlobLogs table. Figure 7: User-Delegation Key created Query: This query helps identify creation of a User-Delegation Key. The RequesterUpn provides the identity of the user account creating this key. StorageBlobLogs | where OperationName has "GetUserDelegationKey" | where StatusText in~ ("Success", "AnonymousSuccess", "SASSuccess") | project TimeGenerated, AccountName, OperationName, RequesterUpn, Uri, CallerIpAddress, ObjectKey, AuthenticationType, StatusCode, StatusText Figure 8: User-Delegation activity to download/read Query: This query helps identify cases where a download/read action was initiated while authenticated via a User delegation key StorageBlobLogs | where AuthenticationType has "DelegationSas" | where OperationName has "GetBlob" | where StatusText in~ ("Success", "AnonymousSuccess", "SASSuccess") | project Type, TimeGenerated, OperationName, AccountName, UserAgentHeader, ObjectKey, AuthenticationType, StatusCode, CallerIpAddress, Uri The operation "GetUserDelegationKey" within the StorageBlobLogs captures the identity responsible for generating a User Delegation SAS token. The AuthenticationHash field shows the Key used to sign the SAS token. When the SAS token is used, any operations will include the same SAS signature hash enabling you to correlate various actions performed using this token even if the originating IP addresses differ. Query: The following query extracts a SAS signature hash from the AuthenticationHash field. This helps to track the token's usage, providing an audit trail to identify potentially malicious activity. StorageBlobLogs | where AuthenticationType has "DelegationSas" | extend SasSHASignature = extract(@"SasSignature\((.*?)\)", 1, AuthenticationHash) | project Type, TimeGenerated, OperationName, AccountName, UserAgentHeader, ObjectKey, AuthenticationType, StatusCode, CallerIpAddress In the next scenario, we examine how a threat actor already in control of a compromised identity uses Azure RBAC to assign permissions. With administrative privileges over a storage account, the threat actor can grant access to additional accounts and establish long-term access to the storage accounts. Scenario 2: A user account is controlled by the threat actor and has elevated access to the Storage Account An identity named Bob was identified as compromised due to an unauthorized IP login. The investigation triggers when Azure Sign-in logs reveal logins originating from an unexpected location. This account has owner permissions for a resource group, allowing full access and role assignments in Azure RBAC. The threat actor grants access to another account they control, as shown in the AzureActivity logs. The AzureActivity logs in the figure below show that Reader, Data Access, and Storage Account Contributor roles were assigned to Hacker2 for a Storage Account within Azure: Figure 9: Assigning a role to a user Query: This query helps identify if a role has been assigned to a user AzureActivity | where Caller has "Bob" | where OperationNameValue has "MICROSOFT.AUTHORIZATION/ROLEASSIGNMENTS/WRITE" | extend RoleDefintionIDProperties = parse_json(Properties) | evaluate bag_unpack(RoleDefintionIDProperties) | extend RoleDefinitionIdExtracted = tostring(todynamic(requestbody).Properties.RoleDefinitionId) | extend RoleDefinitionIdExtracted = extract(@"roleDefinitions/([a-f0-9-]+)", 1, RoleDefinitionIdExtracted) | extend RequestedRole = case( RoleDefinitionIdExtracted == "ba92f5b4-2d11-453d-a403-e96b0029c9fe", "Storage Blob Data Contributor", RoleDefinitionIdExtracted == "b7e6dc6d-f1e8-4753-8033-0f276bb0955b", "Storage Blob Data Owner", RoleDefinitionIdExtracted == "2a2b9908-6ea1-4ae2-8e65-a410df84e7d1", "Storage Blob Data Reader", RoleDefinitionIdExtracted == "db58b8e5-c6ad-4a2a-8342-4190687cbf4a", "Storage Blob Delegator", RoleDefinitionIdExtracted == "c12c1c16-33a1-487b-954d-41c89c60f349", "Reader and Data Access", RoleDefinitionIdExtracted == "17d1049b-9a84-46fb-8f53-869881c3d3ab","Storage Account Contributor", "") | extend roleAssignmentScope = tostring(todynamic(Authorization_d).evidence.roleAssignmentScope) | extend AuthorizedFor = tostring(todynamic(requestbody).Properties.PrincipalId) | extend AuthorizedType = tostring(todynamic(requestbody).Properties.PrincipalType) | project TimeGenerated, RequestedRole, roleAssignmentScope, ActivityStatusValue, Caller, CallerIpAddress, CategoryValue, ResourceProviderValue, AuthorizedFor, AuthorizedType Note: Refer to this resource for additional Azure in-built role IDs that can be used in this query. The Sign-in logs indicate that Hacker2 successfully accessed Azure from the same malicious IP address. We can examine StorageBlobLogs to determine if the user accessed data of the blob storage since specific roles related to the Storage Account were assigned to them. The activities within the blob storage indicate several entries attributed to the Hacker2 user, as shown in the figure below. Figure 10: User access to blob storage Query: This query helps identify access to blob storage from a malicious IP StorageBlobLogs | where TimeGenerated > ago (30d) | where CallerIpAddress has {{IPv4}} | extend ObjectName= ObjectKey | project TimeGenerated, AccountName, OperationName, AuthenticationType, StatusCode, StatusText, RequesterUpn, CallerIpAddress, UserAgentHeader, ObjectName, Category An analysis of the StorageBlobLogs, as shown in the figure below, reveals that Hacker2 performed a "StorageRead" operation on three files. This indicates that data was accessed or downloaded from blob storage. Figure 11: Blob Storage Read/Download activities The UserAgentHeader suggests that the storage account was accessed through the Azure portal. Consequently, the SignInLogs can offer further detailed information. Query: This query checks for read, write, or delete operations in blob storage and their access methods, StorageBlobLogs | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where CallerIpAddress has {{IPv4}} | where OperationName has_any ("PutBlob", "GetBlob", "DeleteBlob") and StatusText == "Success" | extend Notes = case( OperationName == "PutBlob" and Category == "StorageWrite" and UserAgentHeader has "Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer", "Blob was written through Azure Storage Explorer", OperationName == "PutBlob" and Category == "StorageWrite" and UserAgentHeader has "AzCopy", "Blob was written through AzCopy Command", OperationName == "PutBlob" and Category == "StorageWrite" and not(UserAgentHeader has_any("AzCopy","Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer")), "Blob was written through Azure portal", OperationName == "GetBlob" and Category == "StorageRead" and UserAgentHeader has "Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer", "Blob was Read/Download through Azure Storage Explorer", OperationName == "GetBlob" and Category == "StorageRead" and UserAgentHeader has "AzCopy", "Blob was Read/Download through AzCopy Command", OperationName == "GetBlob" and Category == "StorageRead" and not(UserAgentHeader has_any("AzCopy","Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer")), "Blob was Read/Download through Azure portal", OperationName == "DeleteBlob" and Category == "StorageDelete" and UserAgentHeader has "Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer", "Blob was deleted through Azure Storage Explorer", OperationName == "DeleteBlob" and Category == "StorageDelete" and UserAgentHeader has "AzCopy", "Blob was deleted through AzCopy Command", OperationName == "DeleteBlob" and Category == "StorageDelete" and not(UserAgentHeader has_any("AzCopy","Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer")), "Blob was deleted through Azure portal","") | project TimeGenerated, AccountName, OperationName, AuthenticationType, StatusCode, CallerIpAddress, ObjectName=ObjectKey, Category, RequesterUpn, Notes The log analysis confirms that the threat actor successfully extracted data from a storage account. Storage Account summary Detecting misuse within a Storage Account can be challenging, as routine operations may hide malicious activities. However, enabling logging is essential for investigation to help track accesses, especially when compromised identities or misused SAS tokens or keys are involved. Unusual changes in user permissions and irregularities in role assignments which are documented in the Azure Activity Logs, can signal unauthorized access, while Microsoft Entra ID sign-in logs can help identify compromised UPNs and suspicious IP addresses that ties into OAuth-based storage account access. By thoroughly analyzing Storage Account logs which details operation types and access methods, investigators can identify abuse and determine the scope of compromise. That not only helps when remediating the environment but can also provide guidance on preventing unauthorized data theft from occurring again.Post-breach browser abuse: a new frontier for threat actors
Co-authors - Raae Wolfram | Sam Gardener Once an attacker has gained access to a system, the browser becomes a rich source of credentials, a platform for persistence, and a stealthy channel for data exfiltration. This blog outlines key abuse techniques and provides actionable detection strategies using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Microsoft Defender XDR. Why browsers matter after the breach Post-compromise, browsers offer attackers: Access to credentials (cookies, tokens, autofill data) Control over peripherals (camera, microphone, location) A trusted execution environment for evasion A platform for persistence via extensions or debugging interfaces These capabilities make browsers a high-value target even after initial access has been achieved. Key abuse techniques and detection strategies 1. Credential theft via memory scraping Attackers can extract sensitive data directly from browser memory using tools like Mimikittenz. Security team members can proactively hunt for threats with advanced hunting in Microsoft Defender. Advanced hunting detection query: let PROCESS_VM_READ=0x0010; DeviceEvents | where ActionType == "OpenProcessApiCall" and FileName in~ ("chrome.exe", "msedge.exe", "firefox.exe", "brave.exe", "opera.exe") | project FileName, InitiatingProcessFileName, DesiredAccess=tolong(parse_json(AdditionalFields).DesiredAccess) | where binary_and(DesiredAccess, PROCESS_VM_READ) != 0 Learn more at about hunting queries: Overview - Advanced hunting - Microsoft Defender XDR | Microsoft Learn 2. TLS key logging for passive credential capture Setting the SSLKEYLOGFILE environment variable allows attackers to dump TLS pre-master secrets, enabling decryption of HTTPS traffic. Detection query: DeviceRegistryEvents | where RegistryKey =~ @"SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Environment" and RegistryValueName =~ "SSLKEYLOGFILE" 3. Remote debugging port abuse Chromium-based browsers support remote debugging via WebSocket. Attackers can launch browsers with flags like --remote-debugging-port and control them programmatically. Detection queries: DeviceProcessEvents | where FileName in~ ("chrome.exe", "msedge.exe", "brave.exe", "opera.exe") and ProcessCommandLine contains "--remote" DeviceNetworkEvents | where RemotePort in (9222, 9223, 9229) | where RemoteIP == "127.0.0.1" | where InitiatingProcessFileName !in~ ("chrome.exe", "msedge.exe", "brave.exe", "opera.exe") DeviceProcessEvents | where FileName has_any ("chrome", "msedge", "brave", "opera") and ProcessCommandLine contains "--remote" 4. Persistence via malicious extensions Attackers can sideload or auto-update malicious extensions using enterprise policies or developer mode. Detection queries: DeviceProcessEvents | where ProcessCommandLine has "--load-extension" | where FileName in~ ("chrome.exe", "msedge.exe") DeviceRegistryEvents | where RegistryKey has "ExtensionInstallForcelist" | where RegistryValueData has_any ("http", "crx") 5. Anomalous child process spawning Unexpected child processes from browsers may indicate injection, persistence, or evasion. Detection query: DeviceProcessEvents | where InitiatingProcessFileName in~ ("chrome.exe", "msedge.exe", "firefox.exe", “brave.exe”, “opera.exe”) | where FileName !in~ ("chrome.exe", "msedge.exe", "firefox.exe") Recommendations for defenders: Monitor for debugging flags in browser launch commands. Alert on unexpected registry or file modifications related to extensions. Track environment variable usage that affects browser behavior. Investigate RWX memory pages in browser processes. Use Defender for Endpoint to correlate these signals with broader attack chains. Conclusion Post-breach browser abuse is a growing concern that blends stealth, persistence, and credential access into a single threat vector. By understanding these techniques and implementing the detection strategies outlined above, defenders can close a critical visibility gap and better protect their environments. See what our experts have to say. Watch the recorded webinar, download the presentation - and learn more about - Post-Breach Browsers: The Hidden Threat You’re Overlooking.Elevate your protection with expanded Microsoft Defender Experts coverage
Co-authors: Henry Yan, Sr. Product Marketing Manager and Sylvie Liu, Principal Product Manager Security Operations Centers (SOCs) are under extreme pressure due to a rapidly evolving threat landscape, an increase in volume and frequency of attacks driven by AI, and a widening skills gap. To address these challenges, organizations across industries are relying on Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR and Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting to bolster their SOC and stay ahead of emerging threats. We are committed to continuously enhancing Microsoft Defender Experts services to help our customers safeguard their organizations and focus on what matters most. We are excited to announce the general availability of expanded Defender Experts coverage. With this update, Defender Experts for XDR and Defender Experts for Hunting now deliver around the clock protection and proactive threat hunting for your cloud workloads, starting with hybrid and multicloud servers in Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Additionally, third-party network signals from Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler, and Fortinet can now be used for incident enrichment in Defender Experts for XDR, enabling faster and more accurate detection and response. Extend 24/7, expert-led defense and threat hunting to your hybrid and multicloud servers As cloud adoption accelerates, the sophistication and frequency of cloud attacks are on the rise. According to IDC, in 2024, organizations experienced an average of more than nine cloud security incidents, with 89% reporting an increase year over year. Furthermore, cloud security is the leading skills gap with almost 40% of respondents in the O’Reilly 2024 State of Security Survey identifying it as the top area in need of skilled professionals. Virtual machines (VMs) are the backbone of cloud infrastructure, used to run critical applications with sensitive data while offering flexibility, efficiency, and scalability. This makes them attractive targets for attackers as compromised VMs can be used to potentially carry out malicious activities such as data exfiltration, lateral movement, and resource exploitation. Defender Experts for XDR now delivers 24/7, expert-led managed extended detection and response (MXDR) for your hybrid and multicloud servers in Defender for Cloud. Our security analysts will investigate, triage, and respond to alerts on your on-premises and cloud VMs across Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, and Google Cloud Platform. With Defender Experts for Hunting, which is included in Defender Experts for XDR and also available as a standalone service, our expert threat hunters will now be able to hunt across hybrid and multicloud servers in addition to endpoints, identities, emails, and cloud apps, reducing blind spots and uncovering emerging cloud threats. Figure 1: Incidents from servers in Defender for Cloud investigated by Defender Experts Incident enrichment for improved detection accuracy and faster response By enriching Defender incidents with third-party network signals from Palo Alto Networks (PAN-OS Firewall), Zscaler (Zscaler Internet Access and Zscaler Private Access), and Fortinet (FortiGate Next-Generation Firewall), our security analysts gain deeper insights into attack paths. The additional context helps Defender Experts for XDR identify patterns and connections across domains, enabling more accurate detection and faster response to threats. Figure 2: Third-party enrichment data in Defender Experts for XDR report In this hypothetical scenario, we explore how incident enrichment with third-party network signals helped Defender Experts for XDR uncover lateral movement and potential data exfiltration attempts. Detection: Microsoft Defender for Identity flagged an "Atypical Travel" alert for User A, showing sign-ins from India and Germany within a short timeframe using different devices and IPs, suggesting possible credential compromise or session hijacking. However, initial identity and cloud reviews showed no signs of malicious activity. Correlation: From incident enrichment with third-party network signals, Palo Alto firewall logs revealed attempts to access unauthorized remote tools, while Zscaler proxy data showed encrypted traffic to an unprotected legacy SharePoint server. Investigation: Our security analysts uncovered that the attacker authenticated from a managed mobile device in Germany. Due to token reuse and a misconfigured Mobile Device Management profile, the device passed posture checks and bypassed Conditional Access, enabling access to internal SharePoint. Insights from third-party network signals helped Defender Experts for XDR confirm lateral movement and potential data exfiltration. Response: Once malicious access was confirmed, Defender Experts for XDR initiated a coordinated response, revoking active tokens, isolating affected devices, and hardening mobile policies to enforce Conditional Access. Flexible, cost-effective pricing Defender Experts coverage of servers in Defender for Cloud is priced per server per month, with charges based on the total number of server hours each month. You have the flexibility to scale your servers as needed while ensuring cost effectiveness as you only pay for Defender Experts coverage based on resources you use. For example, if you have a total of 4000 hours across all servers protected by Defender for Cloud in June (June has a total of 720 hours), you will be charged for a total of 5.56 servers in June (4000/720 = 5.56). There is no additional charge for third-party network signal enrichment beyond the data ingestion charge through Microsoft Sentinel. Please contact your Microsoft account representative for more information on pricing. Get started today Defender Experts coverage of servers in Defender for Cloud will be available as an add-on to Defender Experts for XDR and Defender Experts for Hunting. To enable coverage, you must have the following: Defender Experts for XDR or Defender Experts for Hunting license Defender for Servers Plan 1 or Plan 2 in Defender for Cloud You only need a minimum of 1 Defender Experts for XDR or Defender Experts for Hunting license to enable coverage of all your servers in Defender for Cloud. If you are interested in purchasing Defender Experts for XDR or the add-on for Defender Experts coverage of servers in Defender for Cloud, please complete this interest form. Third-party network signals for enrichment are available only for Defender Experts for XDR customers. To enable third-party network signals for enrichment, you must have the following: Microsoft Sentinel instance deployed Microsoft Sentinel onboarded to Microsoft Defender portal At least one of the supported network signals ingested through Sentinel built-in connectors: Palo Alto Networks (PAN-OS Firewall) Zscaler (Zscaler Internet Access and Zscaler Private Access) Fortinet (FortiGate Next-Generation Firewall) If you are an existing Defender Experts for XDR customer and are interested in enabling third-party network signals for enrichment, please reach out to your Service Delivery Manager. Learn more Technical Documentation Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting Third-party network signals for enrichment Plan Defender for Servers deployment Defender Experts Ninja TrainingWelcome to the Microsoft Defender Experts Ninja Hub!
Updated August 11, 2025 Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR is a managed extended detection and response (MXDR) service that triages, investigates, and responds to incidents for you to help stop cyberattackers and prevent future compromise. Defender Experts for XDR delivers human expertise to security teams quickly to help address coverage gaps and augment their overall security operations. The documentation links below provide more information on the service, requirements, and FAQs: What is Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR offering | Microsoft Learn Before you begin using Defender Experts for XDR | Microsoft Learn Get started with Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR | Microsoft Learn How to use the Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR service | Microsoft Learn Communicating with Microsoft Defender Experts | Microsoft Learn How to search the audit logs for actions performed by Defender Experts | Microsoft Learn Additional information related to Defender Experts for XDR | Microsoft Learn FAQs related to Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR | Microsoft Learn What is third-party network signal enrichment in Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR?| Microsoft Learn Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting , which is included with Defender Experts for XDR or offered separately, proactively looks for threats 24/7/365 using unparalleled visibility of cross-domain telemetry and leading threat intelligence to extend your team’s threat hunting capabilities and improve overall SOC response. The documentation links below provide more information on the service, requirements, and reporting: What is Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting offering | Microsoft Learn Key infrastructure requirements for Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting | Microsoft Learn How to subscribe to Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting | Microsoft Learn Understand the Defender Experts for Hunting report in Microsoft Defender XDR | Microsoft Learn Ninja Show episodes featuring Defender Experts Season 7, Episode 8: Day in the life of a SOC analyst Season 5, Episode 5: Improve your security posture with Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Season 3, Episode 4: Defender Experts for Hunting Overview On-demand event sessions and webinars featuring Defender Experts RSAC 2025 (NEW): Bolser your SOC with Microsoft's Managed Extended Detection and Response (MXDR) Webinar: MDR and Generative AI: Better Together - A conversation with guest speaker Jeff Pollard Defender Experts videos Explainer Video: Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Explainer Video (NEW): Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting Video: Adversary in the Middle Hunting Story Video: Get started with onboarding | Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Video: Get started with managed response | Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Video: Get started with reporting | Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR Deep dives from the Microsoft Security blog featuring Defender Experts Microsoft Copilot for Security provides immediate impact for the Microsoft Defender Experts team Detecting and mitigating a multi-stage AiTM phishing and BEC campaign Looking for the ‘Sliver’ lining: Hunting for emerging command-and-control frameworks One way Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting prioritizes customer defense Phish, Click, Breach: Hunting for a Sophisticated Cyber Attack Podcasts Microsoft Security Insights Show Episode 218: Michael Melone Microsoft Security insights Show Episode 198: Raae Wolfram Microsoft Security Insights Show Episode 181: Brian Hooper and Phoebe Rogers: A day in the life of a Defender Experts for XDR analyst Microsoft Security Insights Show Episode 168: Steve Lee, Defender Experts To learn more about Defender Experts, click here.
How Microsoft Defender Experts uses AI to cut through the noise
Microsoft Defender Experts manages and investigates incidents for some of the world’s largest organizations. We understand the challenges facing our customers and are always looking for ways to respond quicker and scale our services to meet their needs. Teaching AI to think like a security expert We're leveraging AI to help Defender Experts expand our services and respond even faster to threats facing our customers. AI-based incident classification allows us to filter noise up front without compromising on detecting real threats. This AI-based capability is trained by security experts, built for precision, and designed to scale and act at speed. Our approach doesn't just rely on static rules or traditional filtering. Instead, our AI is powered by insights from hundreds of thousands of real investigations conducted by Defender Experts security analysts. These investigations form a goldmine of expert knowledge—how analysts think, what signals they trust, and how they separate benign and false positives from true threats. We use historical intelligence to evaluate each new incident. AI-based incident classification looks at various signals, such as evidence, tenant details, context from IOCs, and TI information. It assigns a similarity score based on those signals. By using a similarity algorithm, the AI-based system compares each new incident to known outcomes from the past—deciding whether it closely resembles true positives, false positives, or is benign. At a certain threshold, it confidently assigns the grade. If the pattern matches past false positives, the system de-grades the incident as noise. If the pattern looks similar to a known higher-risk threat, it escalates it faster. This helps us focus first on what matters most— true, actionable threats, which results in quicker response times for our customers. Human-centric and safe We know that trust is everything in cybersecurity. So even though AI helps us filter noise, we've built guardrails to make sure no real threats are missed: Tiered decisioning: Incidents that are classified as noise are reviewed by Defender Expert analysts to ensure they match the classification and other criteria for noise. Feedback loops: For continuous learning, anything classified as noise is sent to an analyst for validation so that there are no accidental misses of true threats. The feedback from them continuously improves the system. Transparency: classification decisions are visible, helping analysts understand why something is marked as noise or not. This approach strikes the right balance. AI does the heavy lifting up front, and our human security experts remain firmly in control of what is investigated. Quicker response for our customers AI-based incident classification in Defender Experts: 50% of noise is automatically triaged by AI-based incident classification with 100% precision Our experts respond faster to meaningful threats to our customer’s environment. “We no longer waste time chasing dead ends. The system helps us focus on what truly matters and our customers appreciate how quickly we can respond.” — Defender Experts Tier2 Analyst What’s next? We’re continuing to refine this system with more granular risk scoring per entity, deeper tenant-based similarity correlation, IOC based weightage, and additional real-time feedback from Defender Experts analysts. Final thoughts AI alone isn’t the answer—but AI guided by experts is a force multiplier. With AI-based incident classification, Defender Experts is showing what the future of SOCs can look like: faster, smarter, safer, and scalable. AI-based classification has helped reduce 50% of the noise from the analyst queue with 100% accuracy, saving analyst time so they can focus on what matters most. If you're a Defender Experts customer, you’re already seeing the benefit of quicker response times to true security threats. If you're a security leader struggling with alert overload, Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR, Microsoft’s MXDR (managed extended detection and response) service, can deliver around the clock, expert-led protection. For more information, please visit Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR | Microsoft Security
Cloud forensics: Why enabling Microsoft Azure Key Vault logs matters
Co-authors - Christoph Dreymann - Abul Azed - Shiva P. Introduction As organizations increase their cloud adoption to accelerate AI readiness, Microsoft Incident Response has observed the rise of cloud-based threats as attackers seek to access sensitive data and exploit vulnerabilities stemming from misconfigurations often caused by rapid deployments. In this blog series, Cloud Forensics, we share insights from our frontline investigations to help organizations better understand the evolving threat landscape and implement effective strategies to protect their cloud environments. This blog post explores the importance of enabling and analyzing Microsoft Azure Key Vault logs in the context of security investigations. Microsoft Incident Response has observed cases where threat actors specifically targeted Key Vault instances. In the absence of proper logging, conducting thorough investigations becomes significantly more difficult. Given the highly sensitive nature of the data stored in Key Vault, it is a common target for malicious activity. Moreover, attacks against this service often leave minimal forensic evidence when verbose logging is not properly configured during deployment. We will walk through realistic attack scenarios, illustrating how these threats manifest in log data and highlighting the value of enabling comprehensive logging for detection. Key Vault Key Vault is a cloud service designed for secure storage and retrieval of critical secrets such as passwords or database connection strings. In addition to secrets, it can store other information such as certificates and cryptographic keys. To ensure effective monitoring of activities performed on a specific instance of Key Vault, it is essential to enable logging. When audit logging is not enabled, and there is a security breach, it is often difficult to ascertain which secrets were accessed without comprehensive logs. Given the importance of the assets protected by Key Vault, it is imperative to enable logging during the deployment phase. How to enable logging Logging must be enabled separately for each Key Vault instance either in the Microsoft Azure portal, Azure command-line interface (CLI) or Azure PowerShell. How to enable logging can be found here. Alternatively, it can be configured within the default log analytics workspace as an Azure Policy. How to use this method can be found here. By directing these logs to a Log Analytics workspace, storage account, or event hub for security information and event management (SIEM) ingestion, they can be utilized for threat detection and, more importantly, to ascertain when an identity was compromised and which type of sensitive information was accessed through that compromised identity. Without this logging, it is difficult to confirm whether any material has been accessed and therefore may need to be treated as compromised. NOTE: There are no license requirements to enable logging within Key Vault, but Log Analytics charges based on ingestion and retention for usage of that service (Pricing - Azure Monitor | Microsoft Azure) Next, we will review the structure of the Audit Logs originating from the Key Vault instance. These logs are located in the AzureDiagnostics table. Interesting fields Below is a good starting query to begin investigating activity performed against a Key Vault instance: AzureDiagnostics | where ResourceType == 'VAULTS' The "operationName" field is of particular significance as it indicates the type of operation that took place. An overview of Key Vault operations can be found here. The "Identity" field includes details about the identity responsible for an activity, such as the object identifier and UPN. Lastly, the “callerIpAddress” shows which IP address the requests originate from. The table below displays the fields highlighted and used in this article. Field name Description time Date and time in UTC. resourceId The Key Vault resource ID uniquely identifies a Key Vault in Azure and is used for various operations and configurations. callerIpAddress IP address of the client that made the request. Identity The identity structure includes various information. The identity can be a "user," a "service principal," or a combination such as "user+appId" when the request originates from an Azure PowerShell cmdlet. Different fields are available based on this. The most important ones are: identity_claim_upn_s: Specifies the upn of a user identity_claim_appid_g: Contains the appid identity_claim_idtyp_s: Shows what type of identity was used OperationName The name of the operation, for instance SecretGet Resource Key Vault Name ResourceType Always “VAULTS” requestUri_s The requested Key Vault API call contains valuable information. Each API call has its own structure. For example, the SecretGet request URI is: {vaultBaseUrl}/secrets/{secret-name}/{secret-version}?api-version=7.4. For more information, please see: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/keyvault/?view=rest-keyvault-keys-7.4 httpStatusCode_d Indicates if an API call was successful A complete list of fields can be found here. To analyze further, we need to understand how a threat actor can access a Key Vault by examining the Access Policy and Azure role-based access control (RBAC) permission model used within it. Access Policy permission model vs Azure RBAC The Access Policy Permission Model operates solely on the data plane, specifically for Azure Key Vault. The data plane is the access pathway for creating, reading, updating, and deleting assets stored within the Key Vault instance. Via a Key Vault Access Policy, you can assign individual permissions and grant access to security principals such as users, groups, service principals, and managed identities, at the Key Vault scope with appropriate Control Plane privileges. This model provides flexibility by granting access to keys, secrets, and certificates through specific permissions. However, it is considered a legacy authorization system native to Key Vault. Note: The Access Policies permission model has privilege escalation risks and lacks Privileged Identity Management support. It is not recommended for critical data and workloads. On the other hand, Azure RBAC operates on both Azure's control and data planes. It is built on Azure Resource Manager, allowing for centralized access management of Azure resources. Azure RBAC controls access by creating role assignments, which consist of a security principal, a role definition (predefined set of permissions), and a scope (a group of resources or an individual resource). RBAC offers several advantages, including a unified access control model for Azure resources and integration with Privileged Identity Management. More information regarding Azure RBAC can be found here. Now, let’s dive into how threat actors can gain access to a Key Vault. How a threat actor can access a Key Vault When a Key Vault is configured with Access Policy permission, privileges can be escalated under certain circumstances. If a threat actor gains access to an identity that has been assigned the Key Vault Contributor Azure RBAC role, Contributor role or any role that includes 'Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/write' permissions, they can escalate their privileges by setting a Key Vault access policy to grant themselves data plane access, which in turn allows them to read and modify the contents of the Key Vault. Modifying the permission model requires 'Microsoft.Authorization/roleAssignments/write' permission, which is included in the Owner and User Access Administrator roles. Therefore, a threat actor cannot change the permission model without one of these roles. Any change to the authorization mode will be logged in the Activity Logs of the subscription, as shown in the figure below: If a new Access Policy is added, it will generate the following entry within the Azure Activity Log: When Azure RBAC is the permissions model for a Key Vault, a threat actor must identify an identity within the Entra ID tenant that has access to sensitive information or one capable of assigning such permissions. Information about Azure RBAC roles for Key Vault access, specifically those who can access Secrets, can be found here. A threat actor that has compromised an identity with an Owner role is authorized to manage all operations, including resources, access policies, and roles within the Key Vault. In contrast, a threat actor with a Contributor role can handle management operations but does not have access to keys, secrets, or certificates. This restriction applies when the RBAC model is used within a Key Vault. The following section will examine the typical actions performed by a threat actor after gathering permissions. Attack scenario Let's review the common steps threat actors take after gaining initial access to Microsoft Azure. We will focus on the Azure Resource Manager layer (responsible for deploying and managing resources), as its Azure RBAC or Access Policy permissions determine what a threat actor can view or access within Key Vault(s). Enumeration Initially, threat actors aim to understand the existing organizations' attack surface. As such, all Azure resources will be enumerated. The scope of this enumeration is determined by the access rights held by the compromised identity. If the compromised identity possesses access comparable to that of a reader or a Key Vault reader at the subscription level (reader permission is included in a variety of Azure RBAC roles), it can read numerous resource groups. Conversely, if the identity's access is restricted, it may only view a specific subset of resources, such as Key Vaults. Consequently, a threat actor can only interact with those Key Vaults that are visible to them. Once the Key Vault name is identified, a threat actor can interact with the Key Vault, and these interactions will be logged within the AzureDiagnostics table. List secrets / List certificates Operation With the Key Vault Name, a threat actor could list secrets or certificates (Operation: SecretList and CertificateList) if they have the appropriate rights (while this is not the final secret, it indicates under which name the secret or certificate can be retrieved). If not, access attempts would appear as unsuccessful operations within the httpStatusCode_d field, aiding in detecting such activities. Therefore, a high number of unauthorized operations on different Key Vaults could be an indicator of suspicious activity as shown in the figure below: The following query assists in detecting potential unauthorized access patterns. Query: AzureDiagnostics | where ResourceType == 'VAULTS' and OperationName != "Authentication" | summarize MinTime = min(TimeGenerated), MaxTime = max(TimeGenerated), OperationCount=count(), UnauthorizedAccess=countif(httpStatusCode_d >= 400), OperationNames = make_set(OperationName), make_set_if(httpStatusCode_d, httpStatusCode_d >= 400), VaultName=make_set(Resource) by CallerIPAddress | where OperationNames has_any ("SecretList", "CertificateList") and UnauthorizedAccess > 0 When a threat actor uses a browser for interaction, the VaultGet operation is usually the first action when accessing a Key Vault. This operation can also be performed via direct API calls and is not limited to browser use. High-Privileged account store Next, we assume a successful attempt to access a global admin password for Entra ID. Analyzing Secret retrieval When an individual has the identifier of a Key Vault and has SecretList and SecretGet access rights, they can list all the secrets stored within the Key Vault (OperationName SecretList). In this instance, this secret includes a password. Upon identifying the secret name, the secret value can be retrieved (OperationName SecretGet). The image below illustrates what appears in the AzureDiagnostics table. The HTTP status code indicates that these actions were successful. The requestUri contains the name of the secret, such as "BreakGlassAccountTenant" for the SecretGet operation. With this information, one can ascertain what secret has been accessed. The requestUri_s format for the SecretGet operation is as follows: {vaultBaseUrl}/secrets/{secret-name}/{secret-version}?api-version=7.4 When the browser accesses the Key Vault service through the Azure portal, additional API calls are often involved due to the various views within the Key Vault services in Azure. The figure below illustrates this process. When someone accesses a specific Key Vault via a browser, the VaultGet operation is followed by SecretList. To further distinguish actions, SecretListVersion will also be used, as the Key Vault service shows different versions of a Secret, which may indicate direct browser usage. The final SecretGet Operation retrieves the actual secret. When using the Key Vault, SecretList operations can be accompanied by SecretGet operations. This is less common for emergency accounts since these accounts are infrequently used. Setting up alerts when certain secrets are retrieved can assist in identifying unusual activity. Entra ID Application certificate store In addition to storing secrets, certificates that provide access to Entra ID applications can also be managed within a Key Vault. When creating an Entra ID application with a certificate for authentication, you can automatically store that certificate within a Key Vault of your choice. Access to such certificates could allow a threat actor to leverage the access rights of the associated Entra ID application and gain access to Entra ID. For instance, if the Entra ID application possesses significant permissions, the extracted certificate could be utilized to exercise those permissions. Various Entra ID roles can be leveraged to elevate privileges; however, for this scenario, we assume the targeted application holds the "RoleManagement.ReadWrite.Directory" permission. Consequently, the Entra ID application would have the capability to assign the Global Admin role to a user account controlled by the threat actor. We have also described this scenario here. Analyzing Certificate retrieval The figure below outlines the procedure for a threat actor to download a certificate and its private key using the Key Vault API. First, the CertificateList operation displays all certificates within a Key Vault. Next, the SecretGet operation retrieves a specific certificate along with its private key (the SecretGet operation is required to obtain both the certificate and its private key). When a threat actor uses the browser through the Azure portal, the sequence of actions should resemble those in the figure below: When a Certificate object is selected within a specific Key Vault view, all certificates are displayed (Operation: CertificateList). Upon selecting a particular certificate in this view, the operations CertificateGet and CertificateListVersions are executed. Subsequently, when a specific version is selected, the CertificateGet operation will be invoked again. When "Download in PFX/PEM format" is selected, the SecretGet Operation downloads the Certificate and private key within the Browser. With the downloaded certificate, the threat actor can sign in as the Entra application and utilize the assigned permissions. Key Vault summary Detecting misuse of a Key Vault instance can be challenging, as operations like SecretGet can be legitimate. A threat actor might easily masquerade their activities among legitimate users. Nevertheless, unusual attributes, such as IP addresses or peculiar access patterns, could serve as indicators. If an identity is known to be compromised and has utilized Key Vaults, the Key Vault logs must be checked to determine what has been accessed to respond appropriately. Coming up next Stay tuned for the next blog in the Cloud Forensics series. If you haven’t already, please read our previous blog about hunting with Microsoft Graph activity logs.From social engineering to rogue VMs: The emerging tradecraft in human-directed ransomware attacks
Co-authors - Ateesh Rajak - Balaji Venkatesh Overview: What if an attacker didn’t need malware, phishing kits, or exploits to break into your environment—just a convincing voice and a tool you already trust? That’s exactly the play we’re seeing. Ransomware operators and hands-on-keyboard intruders are skipping traditional phishing lures and going straight to the human. By impersonating IT support over phone or Microsoft Teams, they convince users to launch Microsoft Quick Assist, handing over remote access under the guise of troubleshooting. There’s no payload at this point— only manipulation. Once access is established, the attacker downloads and executes a VBScript that launches a QEMU-based rogue virtual machine on the target system. This VM provides an isolated, persistent environment where the attacker can perform internal reconnaissance, collect credentials, move laterally, and lay the groundwork for ransomware deployment—all while staying outside the visibility of host-based security tools. These aren’t opportunistic intrusions. This is calculated tradecraft—a multi-stage operation that begins with trust, escalates with virtualization-based stealth, and often culminates in data exfiltration, lateral movement, or ransomware deployment. The real risk? Attackers are no longer just bypassing —they’re building infrastructure within enterprise environments. Read this blog to learn about this emerging attack technique as well as how Defender Experts can help protect your organization. Attack Flow: Social Engineering Meets Hypervisor Abuse This attack chain combines psychological manipulation with technical evasion, enabling attackers to quietly establish footholds in victim environments. Recent incidents observed by Defender Experts highlight the use of this tradecraft against organizations in the pharmaceutical and consumer goods sectors. Stage One: Distraction and Deception The intrusion begins with an email bombing campaign, flooding the target’s inbox with hundreds of nuisance messages. Shortly afterward, the user receives a Microsoft Teams message or PSTN call from someone impersonating IT support. “We noticed issues with your mailbox. Let me help you fix it.” The victim is guided to launch Microsoft Quick Assist, granting the attacker remote access to the device without raising suspicion. Stage Two: Remote Execution and Rogue VM Deployment With remote access established, the attacker executes initial reconnaissance to enumerate host, network, and domain details. They then download and execute a VBScript, often hosted on cloud storage platforms such as Google Drive, which spins up a QEMU-based virtual machine on the endpoint. This VM becomes an isolated operational enclave—fully controlled by the attacker and invisible to traditional EDR and host-based telemetry. Note: Defender Experts have observed attackers leveraging QEMU’s flexible command line options to evade detection. By frequently changing parameters like RAM size, network setup (e.g., -netdev/-device vs. -nic), and using configuration files instead of inline arguments, attackers bypass static detection rules based on command signatures. Stage Three: Persistence and Expansion Within the rogue VM, the attacker performs the following actions: Executes internal network scans Establishes command-and-control (C2) communication through the VM’s virtual NIC Initiates lateral movement Stores payloads and tools within disk images (.qcow2, .iso, .img) to maintain persistence Because all post-compromise activity takes place within the guest VM, most host monitoring solutions are unable to observe these behaviors—allowing attackers to operate undetected. Why This Technique Matters The use of rogue virtual machines in active intrusions represents a significant evolution in attacker tradecraft. This method enables: Host-level evasion: Traditional endpoint agents cannot monitor activities inside virtual machines, reducing detection coverage. Persistent access: VMs can survive reboots and maintain remote shell capabilities. Stealth infrastructure: Malicious traffic originating from within the VM often blends into normal network activity. Reduced forensic artifacts: Since activity is isolated to the guest OS, forensic artifacts on the host are minimal—making incident reconstruction difficult. Organizations lacking behavioral monitoring and layered defense strategies may miss early indicators of compromise until after significant impact. How Defender Experts Adds Defense-in-Depth Value Defender Experts goes beyond Defender detections to surface rogue VM–based intrusions, especially when attackers rely on trusted tools and human manipulation instead of malware. Defender Experts bridges this gap by delivering expert-led detection and response at every critical phase of the intrusion: Teams Phishing Detection: Defender Experts monitors for suspicious Microsoft Teams messages sent from anomalous or newly created identities—flagging potential social engineering activity early. Quick Assist Misuse Monitoring: When a Teams phishing message leads to remote access via Quick Assist, Defender Experts identifies and correlates this as part of an active intrusion, even in the absence of malware. QEMU Execution Detection: Defender Experts hunting queries spotlight scripted QEMU launches—detecting virtual machine deployment before lateral movement begins. AnyDesk and Persistence Tooling: Defender Experts observes signs of persistence via unauthorized tools like AnyDesk and correlates these with pre-compromise behavior. By connecting these discrete signals—Teams phishing, Quick Assist abuse, QEMU execution, and persistence setup—Defender Experts offers a unified picture of emerging tradecraft. Customers benefit from: Early human-led detection before ransomware or data exfiltration occurs Tailored hunting queries and response guidance mapped to real-world threats Defender Experts doesn’t just detect individual behaviors—it maps the entire intrusion kill chain and guides customers through containment and recovery. Detection Guidance Although visibility is limited inside the rogue VM, defenders can detect the setup process. The following advanced hunting query can help identify suspicious VM launches initiated via scripting engines: DeviceProcessEvents | where InitiatingProcessFileName in~ ("powershell.exe", "wscript.exe", "cscript.exe") | where ProcessVersionInfoInternalFileName has "qemu" and ProcessCommandLine !has "qemu" //Renamed execution of the QEMU emulator This query focuses on scripted invocations of QEMU with memory and network flags—signs of programmatic VM deployment via Windows scripting engines. Recommendations To reduce exposure to this emerging technique, Defender Experts recommends the following actions: User awareness training: Educate employees on recognizing vishing and social engineering tactics. Disable or control remote access tools: Block or uninstall Microsoft Quick Assist if unused. Organizations using Microsoft Intune can adopt Remote Help, which offers enhanced security and authentication controls. Enable behavioural network monitoring: Unusual internal scan activity or unexpected outbound traffic may signal VM-based operations. Proactively hunt for rogue VM activity: o Use the hunting query above to identify scripted QEMU executions o Isolate affected hosts to prevent further C2 or lateral movement o Remove VBScript files, QEMU executables, and disk images (.qcow2, .img, .iso) o Rebuild compromised systems using trusted images and rotate credentials Submit samples to Microsoft for analysis: Upload suspicious scripts and binaries to the Microsoft Defender Security Intelligence (WDSI) portal for deep inspection. Conclusion This technique represents more than just a clever evasion strategy—it marks a significant shift in adversary tradecraft. Attackers are no longer solely focused on bypassing antivirus or executing malware payloads. Instead, they are building persistent infrastructure within enterprise environments by abusing trusted tools and user workflows. By combining social engineering with virtualization-based stealth, these intrusions enable threat actors to extend dwell time, reduce detection surface, and operate below the radar of traditional response mechanisms. This activity underscores the importance of behavioural monitoring, layered defenses, and user awareness. What appears to be a routine IT interaction may, in reality, be the entry point for a full-fledged rogue virtual machine—and a persistent threat operating in plain sight. To learn more about how our human-led managed security services can help you stay ahead of similar emerging threats, please visit Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR, our managed extended detection and response (MXDR) service, and Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting (included in Defender Experts for XDR), our managed threat hunting service.Keys to the kingdom: RMM exploits enabling human-operated intrusions in 2024–25
The double-edged sword of RMM Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools are indispensable for modern IT operations. They enable administrators to remotely access, troubleshoot, update, and monitor systems—streamlining operations at scale. But these very features make RMM solutions extremely valuable to adversaries. When attackers compromise an RMM tool, they’re not just breaching a single endpoint—they’re gaining privileged, persistent, and often stealthy access to a wide array of systems. RMM abuse gives adversaries an immediate pivot for post-exploitation activities like credential harvesting, lateral movement, and data exfiltration. In 2024 and early 2025, Microsoft Defender Experts witnessed exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities across multiple RMM platforms—including ConnectWise ScreenConnect, BeyondTrust Remote Support, and SimpleHelp. These weren't isolated incidents. They were part of coordinated, hands-on-keyboard intrusions driven by threat actors—from financially motivated groups to nation-state adversaries—moving fast, weaponizing these flaws for hands-on intrusions, lateral movement, and ransomware deployment. This blog unpacks the key vulnerabilities, real-world attack flows, and detection insights gleaned from incidents tracked by Defender Experts. Why RMM exploits matter more than ever RMM is not just remote access—it’s remote privilege. By compromising an RMM tool, an attacker can instantly: Bypass multi-layered defenses Operate under trusted software context That’s why vulnerabilities in these tools—especially those exposed to the Internet—represent high-value, low-effort attack vectors. Major RMM vulnerabilities overview (2024 – Early 2025) Simple Help Vulnerability (January 2025) In early January 2025, Horizon3.ai alerted SimpleHelp to three critical vulnerabilities in its Remote Support software: CVE-2024-57727, which enabled unauthorized file access via path traversal, CVE-2024-57726, which allowed privilege escalation, and CVE-2024-57728, which permitted arbitrary file uploads potentially leading to remote code execution. Notified on January 6, SimpleHelp swiftly released patched versions between January 8 and 13, underscoring the severity of the flaws. BeyondTrust Vulnerability (December 2024) In December 2024, BeyondTrust’s Remote Support vulnerabilities came to light after anomalous behaviours were detected on their cloud platform. Reports suggest that Chinese state-sponsored hackers exploited these flaws to gain access to sensitive government and enterprise systems, including the US Treasury Department Admitted It Got Hacked by China. ConnectWise ScreenConnect (February 2024) In early 2024, ScreenConnect’s ConnectWise was hit by two major vulnerabilities — CVE-2024-1708 (a path traversal flaw) and CVE-2024-1709 (an authentication bypass). The latter, rated CVSS 10.0, allowed unauthenticated attackers to create admin accounts and take full control of the server. Both flaws were rapidly exploited in the wild, with public PoCs appearing within 48 hours of disclosure. In all, the discovery of the aforementioned RMM vulnerabilities was quickly followed by real-world attacks. In each case, attackers rapidly weaponized the bugs: Chinese APTs leveraged BeyondTrust flaws for government intrusions. Mass exploitation campaigns used ScreenConnect bugs for initial access and lateral movement. SimpleHelp chains enabled unauthenticated attackers to escalate privileges, exfiltrate data, and drop persistent backdoors. Zooming in on attack paths observed by Defender Experts across multiple cases In early 2025, threat actors began exploiting vulnerabilities in trusted remote IT tools—specifically BeyondTrust Remote Support and SimpleHelp—to breach major public sector organizations. Targets included entities supporting government operations, critical infrastructure, healthcare, higher education, and essential services such as water and sewage. Originally intended for legitimate remote access, these tools were repurposed as stealthy intrusion channels. Once inside, adversaries rapidly escalated privileges, moved laterally across networks, and staged environments for ransomware deployment. Common attack path observed across multiple cases: Step 1: Abusing trusted remote access - Exploiting Bomgar SCC (Now BeyondTrust’s), ScreenConnect and SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management Software vulnerabilities to gain initial access to target networks. Step 2: Scouting the battlefield: internal recon - Once inside, the intruders map out their new territory by running host and domain-based reconnaissance commands. In some cases, to solidify their foothold, they downloaded and executed another RMM tool for persistence. Step 3: The ghost admin: creating a hidden backdoor - They created their own stealthy admin user—a backdoor hidden in plain sight with the inconspicuous new admin accounts, they ensured long-term access and continued reconnaissance via RMM. Step 4: Defense evasion: disabling the safety nets - The attacker disables key defensive measures. By setting the LocalAccountTokenFilterPolicy to 1, they turn off remote UAC filtering, granting full administrative privileges to remote sessions. This means that any administrative activity—whether legitimate or malicious—escapes the usual checks. Additionally, they extract and deploy multiple payloads, including stealthy drivers loaded via a binary, likely to evade or bypass detection by Windows Defender and other endpoint security solutions. Step 5: Stealing Credentials - The LSASS Heist - Now, they turned their focus to credential dumping. Using taskmgr.exe, they dumped LSASS memory, extracting authentication secrets like Cached passwords, NTLM hashes & Kerberos tickets. With this data, they didn’t need to guess passwords. They could authenticate as real users. Step 6: Lateral Movement in Action - With stolen credentials, they started moving across the network using NetExec (nxc)—a stealthy network exploitation tool. then leveraged Mimikatz to perform a pass-the-hash attack using the compromised user's credentials. Step 7: Command & Control: Establishing the Covert Link - The adversary loaded Ligolo and CloudFlared—both tunneling tools—to establish a secure, outbound connection from the compromised host back to their command and control (C2) server. This tunnel lets them bypass firewall restrictions and NAT, maintain persistent remote access, and control the compromised system covertly. The following case studies showcase real-world intrusions and illustrate the evolving tradecraft used in these RMM-based attacks. Case Study 01: Pre-Ransomware Intrusion via BeyondTrust in government operations and infrastructure Microsoft Defender Experts identified a targeted intrusion against a major public sector organization supporting government operations and infrastructure. The activity was attributed to Storm-1175, a financially motivated, China-based threat actor known for deploying Medusa ransomware. Storm-1175 is known for rapidly exploiting newly disclosed vulnerabilities, particularly in remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools and virtualization platforms. In this case, the actor exploited a vulnerability in BeyondTrust’s RMM software to gain initial access. Critically, the impacted organization had inadvertently exposed an admin jump server—a high-privilege system—directly to the internet via a remote access solution. This misconfiguration created a direct path to domain admin access, enabling the attacker to bypass internal controls and initiate a hands-on-keyboard intrusion. The threat actor swiftly conducted reconnaissance, escalated privileges, and began staging for ransomware deployment. This incident highlights the urgent risk posed by trusted IT infrastructure being misconfigured or exposed externally. It reinforces the need for: Timely patching of remote access software Strict network segmentation for privileged assets Continuous monitoring of administrative systems Minimizing public exposure of high-value infrastructure Misconfigurations—especially involving privileged systems—remain one of the most exploited pathways in human-operated intrusions. Case Study 02: Pre-Ransomware intrusion via SimpleHelp in critical services sectors In this case study threat actor exploited SimpleHelp RMM vulnerabilities to breach organizations in the healthcare and water and sewage services sectors. The intrusion progressed through a coordinated, human-operated attack chain—starting with RMM exploitation, escalating to credential theft, lateral movement, and ransomware staging. Key actions included: Creation of stealthy local admin accounts for persistence Credential dumping via LSASS memory access Lateral movement using Pass-the-Hash and NetExec Defender evasion and tunnelling with Ligolo/Cloudflare for C2 This intrusion underscores the critical risk posed by vulnerable remote admin tools in essential service environments—where rapid escalation and lack of segmentation can lead directly to high-impact ransomware events. Case Study 03: Ransomware intrusion via ScreenConnect in higher education to initiate full-chain ransomware deployment In a multi-stage intrusion observed in a higher education institution, threat actors exploited ScreenConnect RMM vulnerabilities to initiate a human-operated ransomware attack that culminated in the deployment of Medusa ransomware by Day 31. Key phases of the attack: Day 1–2: Initial access and establishing foothold Exploitation of ScreenConnect allowed initial access Reconnaissance began immediately using cmd.exe for domain, host, and user enumeration Payloads downloaded via PowerShell, wget, and Bitsadmin A stealthy user account was created and added to high-privilege groups SimpleHelp RMM (via Jwrapper) was deployed for persistent remote access Day 8: persistence and deeper reconnaissance Attackers used NetScan and SimpleHelp to scan the environment Credential dumping via taskmgr.exe to extract LSASS memory C2 communication established using Ligolo tunneling Day 31: Lateral Movement & Impact Impacket & PDQ Deploy used for lateral movement. Registry tampering and config changes for Defender evasion. Human-operated signs: file masquerading, new admin via Net, WDigest changes. Medusa ransomware was deployed. Multiple indicators of ransomware-related activity were detected, including dropped payloads and malicious commands executed from compromised accounts. Key Takeaways: Initial access via misconfigured RMM software remains a high-risk vector. Credential abuse and remote tool stacking enabled stealthy, prolonged access. Delayed ransomware deployment (Day 31) reflects strategic patience and operational control. Higher education environments with exposed remote access tools and limited segmentation remain highly vulnerable to these human-operated attacks. Advance hunting queries // Identify suspicious discovery and addition to a local admin group through a RMM session DeviceProcessEvents | where InitiatingProcessParentFileName =~ "winpty-agent64.exe" | where InitiatingProcessFileName in~ ("powershell.exe", "powershell_ise.exe", "cmd.exe", "pwsh.exe") | where ( FileName in~ ("whoami.exe", "certutil.exe", "quser.exe", "bitsadmin.exe", "dsquery.exe") or (tolower(ProcessCommandLine) contains "localgroup" and tolower(ProcessCommandLine) contains "/add" and tolower(ProcessCommandLine) contains "administrators") or ProcessCommandLine has_any ("Invoke-Expression", ".DownloadString", ".DownloadFile", "FromBase64String", "iex ", "iex(", "Invoke-WebRequest", "iwr ", "irm ", "Invoke-RestMethod") or (FileName =~ "net.exe" and ProcessCommandLine has_any ("user ", " group")) ) // Identify suspicious discovery activity through RMM application let RMMBinaries = pack_array("Screenconnect", "Remote Access", "bomgar-scc", "winpty-agent64"); DeviceProcessEvents | where InitiatingProcessParentFileName has_any (RMMBinaries) | where InitiatingProcessFileName has "cmd.exe" and ProcessCommandLine has_any ("nltest", "net user", "net group", "tasklist", "iwr", "irm", "iex", "Invoke-Expression", "Invoke-RestMethod", "Invoke-WebRequest", "curl", "Add-MpPreference", "wmic ") | summarize RMMtool = tostring(make_set(InitiatingProcessParentFileName)), Commands = tostring(make_set(ProcessCommandLine)), CommandCount = array_length(make_set(ProcessCommandLine)), ProcessCount = array_length(make_set(FileName)) by DeviceId | where ProcessCount > 2 and CommandCount > 2 // Change the value based on the noise // Identify the execution of NetExec tool DeviceProcessEvents | where FileName has "nxc" | where ProcessCommandLine has_any ("smb", "ldap", "ssh", "ftp", "wmi", "winrm", "rdp", "vnc", "mssql") // Identify the execution of mstsc through mimikatz DeviceProcessEvents | where InitiatingProcessVersionInfoOriginalFileName has "mimikatz" | where ProcessVersionInfoOriginalFileName has "mstsc" Recommendations Microsoft recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of this threat. Apply patches provided by respective vendors to address these vulnerabilities. Apply mitigations listed in Microsoft’s technique profile on abuse of remote monitoring and management tools Refer to our human-operated ransomware overview for general hardening recommendations against ransomware attacks Run endpoint detection and response (EDR) in block mode so that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can block malicious artifacts, even when your non-Microsoft antivirus tool does not detect the threat or when Microsoft Defender Antivirus is running in passive mode. EDR in block mode works behind the scenes to remediate malicious artifacts that are detected post-breach. Enable investigation and remediation in full automated mode to allow Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to take immediate action on alerts to resolve breaches, significantly reducing alert volume. Turn on cloud-delivered protection in Microsoft Defender Antivirus, or the equivalent for your antivirus product, to cover rapidly evolving attacker tools and techniques. Cloud-based machine learning protections block a majority of new and unknown variants. Microsoft Defender XDR customers can turn on attack surface reduction rules to prevent common attack techniques used in ransomware attacks. Attack surface reduction rules are sweeping settings effective at stopping entire classes of threats. Block executable files from running unless they meet a prevalence, age, or trusted list criterion Block execution of potentially obfuscated scripts Use advanced protection against ransomware Reference CVE-2024-1709 and CVE-2024-1708 vulnerabilities in ConnectWise ScreenConnect: https://security.microsoft.com/intel-profiles/CVE-2024-1709 CVE-2024-57726 - Multiple vulnerabilities found in SimpleHelp Remote Support Software: https://security.microsoft.com/intel-profiles/cve-2024-57726 Appendix Here’s a concise table that summarizes the vulnerabilities along with key timeline events.
