MITRE ATT&CK 2025 Results are LIVE

Get a Demo
Living off the land

The Invisible Intruder: Living Off the Land After a FortiGate Exploit 

Subscribe to get the latest updates and resources

This is part of our ongoing blog series breaking down the use cases in the 2025 2H CyOps ECHO report. Download the complete report here.

There’s a seductive assumption in cybersecurity: that sophisticated attackers require sophisticated defenses, and that simple, well-known techniques belong to amateurs. The FortiGate use case from 2025 dismantles that assumption cleanly. 

A retail organization experienced what Cynet’s CyOps team assessed as a pre-ransomware intrusion. The attackers didn’t deploy novel zero-days or custom implants. They used a publicly known vulnerability in an unpatched perimeter device — and then relied almost entirely on tools already present in the environment. 

Entry: The Unpatched Perimeter 

The initial access came through an unpatched FortiGate firewall. In the months preceding this incident, FortiGate devices had become a primary target across the industry — mass credential leaks and exploit campaigns had turned them into a well-documented entry point. This organization had not yet applied the relevant patches. That single gap was all it took. 

Attack Timeline 

  • Step 1 — Initial Access: Threat actor exploits unpatched FortiGate firewall vulnerability to gain a foothold inside the network perimeter. 
  • Step 2 — Privilege Enumeration (Blocked by Cynet): Attempt to enumerate the ‘Domain Admins’ group via RDP to identify high-value accounts for lateral movement. Blocked. 
  • Step 3 — RDP Pre-Auth Manipulation (Blocked by Cynet): Registry modification attempted, setting UserAuthentication to 0 to allow RDP interaction with the Windows login screen before authentication.
  • Step 4 — Persistence and Privilege Escalation (Blocked by Cynet): File drop for persistence fails; WMI commands attempted to add a rogue ‘admin$’ user and enable Restricted Admin mode.

The Living-Off-the-Land Playbook 

Living off the Land (LotL) is one of the oldest evasion strategies in the attacker playbook. In 2025, it remained one of the most effective. Rather than dropping detectable malware, the attacker uses legitimate tools and features already present on the target system. Their traffic blends with normal administrative activity. Alerts that might trigger on known malicious signatures simply don’t fire. 

In this case, the attacker used net group to enumerate Domain Admins, reg add to modify RDP authentication settings via the registry, and wmic to attempt adding a rogue administrator account. None of these commands require external tooling — they are built into every Windows installation and used by legitimate administrators every day. 

The challenge for defenders isn’t recognizing the tool — it’s recognizing the context in which it’s being used. 

Most Commonly Abused RMM Tools in 2025 

  • MeshAgent and DWAgent 
  • AnyDesk and TeamViewer 
  • ScreenConnect and RustDesk 
  • Atera 

Why Simple Still Works 

This case carries a message that experienced security professionals sometimes resist: technical sophistication is not required for success. The barriers to entry for cybercrime have collapsed dramatically, and attackers have learned to maximize the effectiveness of basic techniques. 

The retail attacker’s approach was methodical rather than brilliant. Gain entry through a known, unpatched vulnerability. Enumerate the environment using built-in tools. Attempt to modify just enough to get persistent, privileged access. Avoid introducing any file that would trigger signature-based detection. 

In environments with robust MDR monitoring, these techniques get caught — as they were here. In environments where monitoring coverage is thin, or where alerts are handled reactively rather than in real time, the story ends differently. 

Key Takeaway 

Attackers don’t need to be clever when their targets are unpatched. A single vulnerable perimeter device, combined with LotL techniques and Windows native tooling, is sufficient to reach Domain Admin territory. Effective detection depends not on recognizing malicious tools, but on recognizing malicious behavior patterns in the use of legitimate ones. Behavior-based detection — not just signature-based — is the key differentiator. 

Related Posts

February 2026 Cyber Threat Intelligence Roundup: What Security Teams Need to Know This Month
The Helpful Support Agent Scam: How Attackers Are Exploiting Microsoft Teams
Token to Takeover: Inside a Real-World Microsoft Entra ID ITDR Investigation
ECHO Findings: Data Exfiltration and The Quiet Evolution of Ransomware 
MongoBleed: Inside The Critical MongoDB Memory Disclosure Vulnerability (CVE-2025-14847)

Keep Reading

blog-bg-threat
Teams Remote Access
blog-bg-threat-4

Search results for: