2021 - III Quarterly Bulletin

C3 TOP – Threat Observatory Platform

Threat Agent activities

Behind every cyber-attack there is an actor with a specific intent. However, for many events, the identity and general motivation are unknown. On the other hand, some groups have been well known for years and their criminal activities and techniques are documented and monitored. Typically, they conduct targeted attacks against specific organisations, using relatively sophisticated tools and attack procedures.

Some of them are considered as State-sponsored, but the actual link with various countries stays often subject of controversies and should be considered with prudence.

As during previous quarters, the attribution rate of events is very low. This means that most of the ongoing attacks are not attributable.

According to the attribution found in the MISP records, the following groups were particularly active during this quarter:

External transfer pathway and infrastructures

The transfer of the malicious artefacts or payloads is done through a number of different types of technical procedures and infrastructures.

Also, during this quarter of 2021, it is confirmed that the most frequently used strategy is associated with scams that use email or similar approaches to reach potential victims. The data collected show a significant increase of phishing events. Phishing is the most common strategy, but there has also been an increase in malspam and smishing events. In most of these cases, the pathway is a human to human or machine to human infrastructure.

The attribution rates are significantly better than for threat actors. Attribution means that it was possible to identify the external transfer pathway for a given event.

Infrastructures represent the type of systems being used for supporting attacks. Some are meant to compromise or help compromise, the targeted system, others are more focused on helping to maintain the foothold in it. Indeed, once access to a system device has been gained, a communication channel is maintained through the use of command and control (C2) infrastructures. The specific mechanisms vary greatly between attacks, but C2 generally consists of one or more covert communication channels between devices in a victim organization and a platform that the attacker controls. These communication channels are supporting the malicious activities. They are used to issue instructions to the compromised devices, download additional malicious payloads, and pipe stolen data back to the cyber-actor.


The monitoring system showed a substantial prevalence of the use of Malware especially associated with IoT systems.

During this quarter, ransomware tool are still in evidence.

The data collected show a significant increase in the use of stealing tools.

Compared to the other dimensions of the interpretation model, this dimension is confirmed as having the highest attribution rate.

Points of access

The most common access point reported by MISPPRIV users is e-mail, which isn’t too surprising as it’s an effective ingress vector for several types of attacks. It’s often exploiting users’ weaknesses, be they voluntary (negligence) or involuntary (lack of knowledge about a specific threat).

There were also a number of events that took advantage of Facebook and Sharepoint, i.e., a web-based collaborative platform that integrates with Microsoft Office.

There has also been a marked decrease in server utilisation and malicious websites.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that the attribution rate is rather low. Most of the attacks’ point of access is not known.

With regard to component and system vulnerabilities, the monitoring system identified the following:

IT Target

Information on the attacked IT target is not sufficiently described by the analysed events.

Type of Impact

Information on the type of consequences for the victim is mainly related to ransom demands.

Type of Victim

There has been a continuation of attacks on banks and other institutions.