Frequently Asked Questions

Product Information & Threat Insights

What is the 'Stolen Images Campaign Ends in Conti Ransomware' incident about?

This incident details a sophisticated multi-stage attack where threat actors used IcedID malware to establish persistence, perform discovery, escalate privileges, and ultimately deploy Conti ransomware across a domain. The attackers leveraged legitimate tools for persistence, performed credential dumping, and used multiple Cobalt Strike servers before successfully executing ransomware from a domain controller, resulting in domain-wide impact. (Source)

How did the attackers maintain persistence during the Conti ransomware campaign?

The attackers created scheduled tasks to execute the IcedID payload hourly and installed remote management tools like Atera Agent and Splashtop. These legitimate tools provided alternative access if malware connections were lost, making it harder for defenders to remove their foothold. (Source)

What discovery techniques did the threat actors use in this campaign?

The attackers used Windows utilities such as net, chcp, nltest, and wmic for host discovery, and later used AdFind and PowerView scripts like Invoke-ShareFinder to enumerate domain information and shared resources. (Source)

How did the attackers escalate privileges and move laterally?

The attackers dumped credentials from LSASS memory, used process injection into explorer.exe, and transferred malicious DLLs to domain controllers over SMB. They created remote services to execute Cobalt Strike payloads on domain controllers, enabling lateral movement and privilege escalation. (Source)

What was the final impact of the Conti ransomware attack described?

The attackers ultimately executed the ransomware payload from the domain controller, resulting in domain-wide ransomware infection. This could lead to business disruption, data encryption, and significant operational and financial damage. (Source)

What legitimate tools did the attackers use for persistence and access?

The attackers installed remote management tools such as Atera Agent and Splashtop, which allowed them to maintain access even if their malware connections were lost. These tools were registered using common email services like gmail.com and outlook.com. (Source)

How long did the Conti ransomware attack campaign last?

The campaign described lasted at least 19 days, with attackers performing various stages of discovery, persistence, lateral movement, and ultimately ransomware deployment over this period. (Source)

What is the significance of using multiple Cobalt Strike servers in an attack?

Using multiple Cobalt Strike servers allows attackers to maintain redundancy, evade detection, and ensure continued command and control even if one server is blocked or discovered by defenders. In this campaign, four different Cobalt Strike servers were used. (Source)

How did the attackers attempt privilege escalation during the campaign?

The attackers tried to exploit known CVEs to escalate privileges after their initial ransomware execution failed, even though they already had domain admin access. This demonstrates their persistence and adaptability in achieving their objectives. (Source)

What can organizations learn from the Conti ransomware campaign described?

Organizations can learn the importance of layered defenses, monitoring for legitimate tool abuse, and the need for continuous validation of security controls to detect and respond to multi-stage attacks. The campaign highlights the risks of persistence mechanisms and the necessity of proactive threat exposure management. (Source)

How does Cymulate help organizations defend against ransomware campaigns like Conti?

Cymulate provides continuous threat validation, simulating real-world ransomware and multi-stage attacks to test and improve defenses. The platform helps identify exploitable gaps, prioritize remediation, and validate the effectiveness of security controls against advanced threats like Conti ransomware. (Learn more)

What is Cymulate's Exposure Management Platform?

Cymulate's Exposure Management Platform is a unified SaaS solution that integrates breach and attack simulation (BAS), continuous automated red teaming (CART), and exposure prioritization. It enables organizations to continuously validate, prioritize, and remediate security exposures across their IT environment. (Platform details)

What is Exposure Validation and how does Cymulate deliver it?

Exposure Validation is Cymulate's automated, continuous security testing solution. It simulates real-world attacks to validate the effectiveness of security controls, identify exploitable vulnerabilities, and provide actionable remediation guidance. It is delivered via the Cymulate Exposure Management Platform and can include Auto Mitigation and Custom Attacks modules. (Learn more)

How does Cymulate's Threat Validation differ from manual pen tests and traditional BAS?

Cymulate's Threat Validation provides automated, continuous testing with a library of over 100,000 attack actions, daily threat intelligence, and out-of-the-box integrations. Unlike manual pen tests or traditional BAS, Cymulate offers automated mitigation, actionable remediation, and full kill chain coverage for faster, more comprehensive validation. (Learn more)

What is Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) and why is it important?

Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) is a proactive framework for continuously identifying, validating, and prioritizing security exposures. It helps organizations address the growing volume of threats, tool sprawl, and lack of clear risk prioritization, making them less likely to suffer breaches. (Learn more)

What are the key features of Cymulate's platform?

Cymulate offers continuous threat validation, attack path discovery, automated mitigation, detection engineering, complete kill chain coverage, and an extensive, daily-updated threat library. The platform is user-friendly, integrates with leading security tools, and provides actionable insights for remediation. (Features)

What integrations does Cymulate support?

Cymulate integrates with a wide range of technology partners, including Akamai Guardicore, AWS GuardDuty, BlackBerry Cylance OPTICS, Carbon Black EDR, Check Point CloudGuard, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cybereason, and more. For a full list, visit the Partnerships and Integrations page.

Use Cases & Benefits

Who can benefit from using Cymulate?

Cymulate is designed for CISOs, security leaders, SecOps teams, red teams, and vulnerability management teams across industries such as finance, healthcare, retail, media, transportation, and manufacturing. It helps organizations of all sizes improve threat resilience and operational efficiency. (Learn more)

What business impact can customers expect from Cymulate?

Customers have reported an 81% reduction in cyber risk within four months, a 60% increase in team efficiency, 40X faster threat validation, a 30% improvement in threat prevention, and a 52% reduction in critical vulnerabilities. (Customer stories)

How does Cymulate address the pain points of security teams?

Cymulate helps teams overwhelmed by threats, lacking visibility, or struggling with prioritization by providing continuous validation, evidence-based prioritization, automation, and actionable insights. It reduces operational inefficiencies and bridges communication gaps between technical and business stakeholders. (Learn more)

How easy is it to implement Cymulate?

Cymulate is designed for quick, agentless deployment with no need for additional hardware or complex configurations. Customers can start running simulations almost immediately, and the platform offers comprehensive support and educational resources. (Schedule a demo)

What feedback have customers given about Cymulate's ease of use?

Customers consistently praise Cymulate for its intuitive interface and ease of use. Security professionals highlight its quick implementation, actionable insights, and accessible support, making it a preferred choice for teams of all sizes. (Customer reviews)

How does Cymulate support a threat-informed defense strategy?

Cymulate continuously validates security controls against the latest threats and attack techniques, ensuring defenses are always prepared for current and emerging adversarial methods. (Learn more)

What resources does Cymulate offer for staying ahead of ransomware threats?

Cymulate provides blog posts, webinars, and e-books on proactive cybersecurity strategies, including guidance for healthcare organizations on defending against ransomware. (Read the blog)

How does Cymulate's 'Threat (IoC) updates' feature improve threat resilience?

The 'Threat (IoC) updates' feature provides recommended Indicators of Compromise that can be exported and directly applied to security controls, enabling rapid defense against new threats and improving overall threat resilience. (Learn more)

Pricing & Plans

What is Cymulate's pricing model?

Cymulate operates on a subscription-based pricing model tailored to each organization's needs. Pricing depends on the chosen package, number of assets, and selected scenarios. The subscription fee is non-refundable. For a custom quote, schedule a demo.

Security & Compliance

What security and compliance certifications does Cymulate have?

Cymulate holds SOC2 Type II, ISO 27001:2013, ISO 27701, ISO 27017, and CSA STAR Level 1 certifications. These attest to the platform's robust security, privacy, and cloud compliance practices. (Security at Cymulate)

How does Cymulate protect customer data?

Cymulate is hosted in secure AWS data centers, uses TLS 1.2+ for data in transit, AES-256 for data at rest, and offers multiple data locality options. The platform follows a strict Secure Development Lifecycle and conducts annual third-party penetration tests. (Security details)

Is Cymulate GDPR compliant?

Yes, Cymulate is GDPR compliant, incorporates data protection by design, and has a dedicated privacy and security team, including a Data Protection Officer and Chief Information Security Officer. (Security at Cymulate)

Competition & Comparison

How does Cymulate compare to AttackIQ?

AttackIQ provides automated security validation but lacks Cymulate's innovation, threat coverage, and ease of use. Cymulate offers the industry's leading threat scenario library and AI-powered capabilities. (Read more)

How does Cymulate compare to Mandiant Security Validation?

Mandiant is an original BAS platform but has seen little innovation in recent years. Cymulate continually innovates with AI and automation, expanding into exposure management as a grid leader. (Read more)

How does Cymulate compare to Pentera?

Pentera focuses on attack path validation but lacks Cymulate's depth in assessing and strengthening defenses. Cymulate provides comprehensive exposure validation, full kill chain coverage, and cloud control validation. (Read more)

How does Cymulate compare to Picus Security?

Picus is suitable for on-premise BAS needs but lacks the complete exposure validation platform Cymulate provides. Cymulate covers the full kill chain and includes cloud control validation. (Read more)

How does Cymulate compare to SafeBreach?

SafeBreach offers breach and attack simulation but lacks Cymulate's innovation, precision, and automation. Cymulate leads with AI-powered BAS, the largest attack library, and a full CTEM solution. (Read more)

How does Cymulate compare to Scythe?

Scythe is suitable for advanced red teams but lacks Cymulate's focus on actionable remediation and automated mitigation. Cymulate provides a more complete exposure validation platform with daily threat updates and vendor-specific remediation guidance. (Read more)

Technical Requirements & Support

What are the technical requirements for deploying Cymulate?

Cymulate operates in agentless mode, requiring no additional hardware or dedicated servers. Customers must provide necessary infrastructure and third-party software as per Cymulate’s prerequisites. (Contact support for details)

What support options does Cymulate offer?

Cymulate provides email support, real-time chat support, a knowledge base, webinars, e-books, and an AI chatbot for technical queries and best practices. (Email support | Chat support)

Cymulate named a Customers' Choice in 2025 Gartner® Peer Insights™
Learn More
New Case Study: Credit Union Boosts Threat Prevention & Detection with Cymulate
Learn More
New Research: Cymulate Research Labs Discovers Token Validation Flaw
Learn More
An Inside Look at the Technology Behind Cymulate
Learn More

Stolen Images Campaign Ends in Conti Ransomware

April 5, 2022

Upon execution of the IcedID DLL, a connection to a C2 server was established. This was followed by the creation of a scheduled task on the beachhead host to establish persistence. The task executed the IcedID payload every one 1 hour. The IcedID malware then used Windows utilities such as net, chcp, nltest, and wmic, to perform discovery activity on the host. After a gap of almost an hour, a Cobalt Strike beacon was dropped and executed on the beachhead host. Soon after, another round of discovery was performed from the Cobalt Strike beacon focusing on the Windows domain. Nltest and net group were utilized to look for sensitive groups such as Domain Admins and Enterprise Admins. Process injection into explorer.exe was then observed from the Cobalt Strike Beacon. The threat actors proceeded to install remote management tools such as Atera Agent and Splashtop. Use of these 3rd party administrative tools allow the threat actors another "legitimate" means of persistence and access if they were to lose their malware connection. In this intrusion, The DFIR Report observed usage of gmail[.]com and outlook[.]com email accounts for Atera agent registration. Soon after, one of the injected Cobalt Strike processes accessed LSASS memory to dump credentials from the beachhead. On the sixth day of the intrusion, the beachhead host saw new discovery activity with a quick nltest followed by the PowerView script Invoke-ShareFinder. On the following day, the seventh day of the intrusion, the threat actors made their next move. On that day, a new Cobalt Strike server was observed, in fact over the course of the intrusion, four different Cobalt Strike servers were used. From the beachhead host, a DLL was transferred to a domain controller over SMB and then a remote service was created on the domain controller to execute the Cobalt Strike DLL. After getting a foothold on the domain controller, The DFIR Report saw more process injection followed by the same pattern of installing Atera for additional persistent access. From the domain controller, the threat actors proceeded with more discovery tasks including AdFind and Invoke-ShareFinder again. After this, the threat actors went quiet. On day nine of the intrusion, the next Cobalt Strike server, which would ultimately be used until the end of the intrusion, was observed for the first time. On the tenth day, little activity was observed but the threat actors connected to the beachhead host via the Atera agent and executed another Cobalt Strike DLL. A little discovery check-in was observed on the 14th day, but little else. On the 19th day, the threat actors moved towards their final objectives. They reviewed the directory structure of several hosts including domain controllers and backup servers. They then dropped their final ransomware payload on the beachhead host and attempted to execute it using a batch file named backup.bat. However, they found that their execution failed. They left for a few hours, and then returned, and attempted to exploit a couple of CVE's in an attempt to escalate privileges. The threat actors had already secured domain admin access but it's possible the operator may have thought they lacked permissions when their first ransomware execution failed. While these exploits appear to have failed the threat actors found their previously captured domain admin credentials and launched two new Cobalt Strike beacons on the domain controllers. Finally, twenty minutes after accessing the domain controllers, the threat actors dropped the ransomware DLL and the batch script and executed it from the domain controller. This time the execution worked as intended and resulted in domain wide ransomware.