3 ms·
I guess it makes sense - as for persistence I guess no point in having any if you can just compromise the target again.
by kachapopopow 10mo ago
I guess it makes sense - as for persistence I guess no point in having any if you can just compromise the target again.
- ronsor 10mo agoMany servers and systems are rarely rebooted, and many campaigns are not that long term. There may not be a reason to compromise the target again. For example, a ransomware gang may compromise a company's network, steal data, deploy the cryptolocker, and then get out. There's no need to have persistent access; they got what they wanted.
- kachapopopow 10mo agoI know that very well considering I have servers that have 5 years of uptime, but generally the environment isn't the same as it was with cloud services living less than a few hours (or even seconds for functional endpoints) this becomes a problem. my first thoughts is that this is actually a vector against people rather than servers which do reboot daily.
- flipped 9mo ago>persistence I guess no point in having any The most obvious reason would be the fear of patching a vulnerability which the attacker used to gain initial access. Persistence is required.