Cloud

The evolution of the cloud has been tremendous over the past decade. Every step of the way, Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) has been there to meet new challenges. From giving DevOps more scalable foundations to supporting the rise of cloud-native AI, we took Kubernetes’ brilliance and gave it the fully managed service it deserved to thrive.

GKE turns 10 this year, and to celebrate, we’ve launched 10 years of GKE, an ebook that explores this incredible decade and how customers have built global businesses powered on this managed platform. We released Kubernetes as open source in 2014, and one million contributions later, we couldn’t be prouder of what Kubernetes has become, its history, and its future with GKE.

GKE’s leading lights

One of the earliest GKE customers was Signify, a global leader in lighting for professionals and the company behind Philips Hue. Ten years on, it continues to thrive on the service. Growing from 200 million to 3.5 billion daily transactions, Signify scaled from one GKE cluster to seven, and is looking to leverage GKE for new workloads, including platform engineering and AI for multi-cluster supervision.

“The constant improvements made by GKE over the past 10 years profoundly changed the way we design, deploy, and evolve our services,” says Leon Bouwmeester, Director of Engineering and Head of Hue Platform at Signify. “We spend less time on infrastructure management and can focus our efforts on what really matters: the quality of the user experience and the speed of innovation.”

However, what put GKE on the map was Pokémon GO, Niantic’s ground-breaking geolocation game. As millions took to the streets to catch ‘em all, GKE brought to life and kept up with its explosive launch. “Never have I taken part in anything close to the growth that Google Cloud customer Niantic experienced with the launch of Pokémon GO,” says Luke Stone, director of customer reliability engineering at Google Cloud.

AI for tomorrow on GKE today

Today, GKE supports  brand new businesses in the rapidly evolving world of AI. Customers report how their AI initiatives are made more powerful on GKE, helping them manage the complex demands of their deployments. This means flexibility and scale for AI workloads and cost-efficient inference — so you can focus on training, not managing.

With GKE Autopilot, AI can also help you optimize your configurations and workloads. In the ebook, learn more about how GKE Autopilot mode frees up teams to focus on innovation, with businesses sharing how they automatically improved performance and cost savings — with the stability and security they expect from Google Cloud.

Join the celebration by exploring 10 years of GKE for yourself. We‘ve distilled a decade of insights into what makes GKE so effective, thoughts from customers on how GKE is supporting their work at scale, and why we’re ready for everything AI has in store for the decade ahead. It’s been an amazing ride, and with AI reshaping the future of application development, we’re just getting started.

Securing sensitive data is a crucial part of moving workloads to the cloud. While encrypting data at rest and in transit are standard security practices, safeguarding data in use — while it’s actively being processed in memory — can present unique security and privacy challenges. 

To make sure that data in use is also protected, we developed Confidential Computing with our hardware partners to use hardware-based Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) to isolate and safeguard data in use, even from the cloud provider hosting the data.

To help build a secure and reliable cloud environment, we’ve partnered with SUSE, a global leader in open source and secure enterprise solutions. Together, we’ve developed targeted solutions that can enable organizations to run their sensitive workloads in the cloud, combining the hardware-based security of Google Cloud Confidential Virtual Machines (Confidential VMs) with the security of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES).

Today, we are excited to announce that SUSE Linux Enterprise Server now supports Google Cloud Confidential VMs that have Confidential Computing technologies AMD SEV, AMD SEV-SNP, or Intel TDX enabled. Previously, SLES was only generally available on AMD SEV and AMD SEV-SNP-based Confidential VMs, but now SLES is also generally available on Intel TDX-based Confidential VMs which run on the performant C3 machine series. This new offering provides customers more choice and flexibility in securing sensitive workloads, while expanding Confidential VM support for guest operating system images.

At Google Cloud, we strongly advocate for a layered approach to security. Here, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) strengthens the guest OS layer, while Confidential VMs strengthen the infrastructure layer. Additionally, the comprehensive SLES security portfolio can help support compliance, risk mitigation, and cybersecurity best practices:

• Meeting compliance requirements: SLES is designed to help organizations meet regulatory requirements through its security features. SLES comes with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 140-3 certified cryptographic modules.

• Ensuring a certified secure software supply chain: SUSE maintains an evaluated secure software supply chain with a Common Criteria Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 4+ certification. SUSE’s build service follows Supply Chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA) Level 4 [v. 0.1] and Level 3 [v. 1.0]. Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) material is available in SPDX 2.0 and CycloneDX.

• Reducing evaluation effort: Utilizing SLES with supplier certifications can help customers streamline their evaluation processes by referencing existing certifications.

• Hardening automatically: SLES includes an automated hardening process that can help with Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG)-compliant hardening during setup with YAST or AutoYAST, which can be adjusted as needed.

The combination of SLES within Google Cloud Confidential VMs can offer several benefits:

• Complementing encryption with a secure OS: With its security focus and certifications, SLES can provide a hardened operating system in a trusted environment, making both applications and the OS less susceptible to vulnerabilities.

• Supporting integrity and trustworthiness: Customers can have greater confidence that both the hardware and the operating system are working as expected. Confidential VMs offer remote attestation, allowing verification of the VM identity and state. Running a secure OS, such as SLES, on an attested Confidential VM can support overall data and code integrity.

• Supporting Confidential Computing technologies: By providing a consistent and secure operating system across all Google Cloud Confidential Computing types (AMD SEV, AMD SEV-SNP, and Intel TDX), SLES can help simplify the deployment and management of sensitive cloud workloads.

• Enhancing compliance in sensitive environments: For workloads that require a notable level of data protection due to compliance regulations, this joint security solution of SLES on Confidential VMs can help alleviate cloud migration concerns from internal auditors. 

• Addressing internal and external threats: While Confidential Computing primarily can help protect against external threats like hypervisors, running a security-focused OS like SLES in a Confidential VM can offer an additional layer of protection against potential internal vulnerabilities in the guest OS itself.

• Reinforcing data ownership and control: Confidential Computing can help provide technical assurances that you have retained control and effective ownership of your data, even when your data is processed in the cloud. By encrypting data in use and limiting access to only your authorized workloads within a TEE, you can gain stronger assurances for your digital sovereignty.

• Extending Zero Trust to execution: By encrypting data in memory on the CPU, this solution extends the Zero Trust principle of “never trust, always verify” to data even when it’s actively being processed. This ensures data remains secure and encrypted throughout its lifecycle, including during execution, helping to enforce a real Zero Trust environment.

• Establishing a secure foundation for cloud-native workloads: With SLES providing a secure base and Google Cloud Confidential VMs offering hardware-level protection, this environment together with SUSE Cloud Native solutions can deliver a robust foundation for your most sensitive cloud-native applications. By securing the underlying compute resources, you can extend data-in-use protection to higher level containerized and cloud-native workloads.

Organizations can confidently move regulated and confidential applications to Google Cloud, knowing their data is supported throughout its lifecycle, including while in use and with a secure guest OS, to bolster their digital sovereignty. 

To learn more about securing sensitive data in the cloud, you can create a Confidential VM with SLES today.

Written by: Stuart Carrera, Brian Meyer

Executive Summary

Broadcom’s VMware vSphere product remains a popular choice for private cloud virtualization, underpinning critical infrastructure. Far from fading, organizations continue to rely heavily on vSphere for stability and control. We’re also seeing a distinct trend where critical workloads are being repatriated from public cloud services to these on-premises vSphere environments, influenced by strategies like bimodal IT and demands for more operational oversight.

The common practice of directly integrating vSphere with Microsoft Active Directory (AD), while simplifying administration tasks, creates an attack path frequently underestimated due to a misunderstanding of the inherent risks presented today. This configuration extends the AD attack surface directly to the hypervisor. From a threat actor’s perspective, this integration constitutes a high-value opportunity. It transforms the relatively common task of compromising AD credentials into a potential high value scenario, granting access to the underlying infrastructure hosting the servers and in turn allowing them to gain privileged administrative control over ESXi hosts and vCenter and ultimately seize complete command of the virtualized infrastructure.

Ransomware aimed at vSphere infrastructure, including both ESXi hosts and vCenter Server, poses a uniquely severe risk due to its capacity for immediate and widespread infrastructure paralysis. With the end of general support for vSphere 7.x approaching in October 2025—the version Mandiant has observed to be running by a large majority of organizations—the threat of targeted ransomware has become urgent. As recovering from such an attack requires substantial time and resources, proactive defense is paramount. It is therefore critical for organizations to understand the specific threats against these core components and implement effective, unified countermeasures to prevent their compromise, especially before support deadlines introduce additional risk.

This blog post will logically break down the inherent risks and misunderstandings with integrating vSphere with Microsoft AD. Using Mandiant’s deep experience of both vSphere ransomware incidents and proactive assessments of both AD and vSphere, we will provide a directive for understanding risk and increasing security posture aligned with today’s threats in respect of enterprise vSphere management.

After learning about the risks, our next blog post contains actionable guidance on how to defend your VMware vSphere estate. Additionally, register for our upcoming webinar to learn these strategies directly from Mandiant experts.

vSphere Infrastructure Overview

To understand the security risks in a vSphere environment, it’s essential to understand its architecture. A compromise at one layer can have cascading effects throughout the entire virtualized environment.

At its core, vSphere is a platform that pools physical datacenter resources like compute, storage, and networking into a flexible layer of virtual infrastructure, a task primarily accomplished by two key components, ESXi and vCenter, as shown in the following diagram:

• ESXi (The Hypervisor): This is the foundational layer of vSphere. ESXi is a bare metal hypervisor, meaning it installs directly onto the physical server hardware without requiring an underlying operating system. Its core job is to partition that server into multiple, isolated virtual machines (VMs). Each VM, which is essentially just a collection of files, runs its own operating system and applications, acting like an independent computer. The hypervisor’s minimal design is intentional, aiming to reduce its own attack surface while efficiently managing the server’s resources.

• vCenter (The Control Plane): If ESXi hosts are the workers, the vCenter Server is the “brain” or control plane for the entire environment. It provides a single web-based interface to manage all connected ESXi hosts and the VMs they run. ESXi hosts are registered with vCenter, which uses agents on each host to manage operations and enable advanced features like automatic workload balancing and high availability for failover protection.

Integrating vSphere with AD creates a flexible environment that simplifies identity management, yet it introduces profound security risks. This direct link can turn an AD compromise into a significant threat against the entire vSphere deployment. 

An Outdated Blueprint: Re-examining Foundational vSphere Security

Virtualization has been a cornerstone of enterprise IT for nearly two decades, solving server sprawl and delivering transformative operational agility. Alongside it, AD remains a pillar of enterprise IT. This has led to a long-standing directive that all enterprise technology, including critical infrastructure like vSphere, must integrate with AD for centralized authentication. The result is a risky dependency—the security of foundational infrastructure is now directly tied to the security of AD, meaning any compromise within AD becomes a direct threat to the entire virtualization environment.

In the past, vSphere security was often approached in distinct, siloed layers. Perimeter security was stringent, and threats were typically viewed as internal, such as configuration errors, rather than from external threat actors. This, combined with the newfound ease of image-based backups, often led to security efforts becoming primarily focused on robust business continuity and disaster recovery capabilities over proactive defense. As environments expanded, managing local user accounts created significant administrative overhead, so support for AD integration was introduced for centralized identity management.

Mandiant’s observation, based on extensive incident response engagements, is that many vSphere environments today still operate on this foundational architecture, carrying forward security assumptions that haven’t kept pace with the evolving threat landscape. As Mandiant’s assessments frequently identify, these architectures often prioritize functionality and stability over a security design grounded in today’s threats.

So what’s changed? Reliance solely on perimeter defenses is an outdated security strategy. The modern security boundary focuses on the user and device, typically protected by agent-based EDR solutions. But here lies the critical gap: The ESXi hypervisor, a purpose-built appliance, which, contrary to what many people believe, is not a standard Linux distribution. This specialized architecture inherently prevents the installation of external software, including security tools like EDR agents. vSphere documentation explicitly addresses this, stating:

Consequently, most organizations focus their security efforts and EDR deployment inside the guest operating systems. This leaves the underlying ESXi hypervisor—the foundation of the entire virtualization environment—as a significant blind spot for security teams.

The vSphere Threat Landscape

The security gap at the hypervisor layer, which we detailed in the previous section, has not gone unnoticed by threat actors. As security for Windows-based operating systems matured with advanced EDR solutions, threat actors have pivoted to a softer, higher-value target—the ESXi hypervisor itself.

This pivot is amplified by common operational realities. The critical role of ESXi hosts often leads to a hesitancy to apply patches promptly for fear of disruption. Many organizations face a rapidly closing window to mitigate risks; however, threat actors aren’t just relying on unpatched vulnerabilities. They frequently leverage compromised credentials, a lack of MFA, and simple misconfigurations to gain access.

The Rise of Hypervisor-Aware Ransomware

Ransomware targeting vSphere is fundamentally more devastating than its traditional Windows counterpart. Instead of encrypting files on servers or end user compute, these attacks aim to cripple the entire infrastructure by encrypting virtual disk files (VMDKs), disabling dozens of VMs at once.

This is not a theoretical threat. According to Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG), the focus on vSphere is rapidly increasing. Of the new ransomware families observed, the proportion specifically tailored for vSphere ESXi systems grew from ~2% in 2022 to over 10% in 2024. This demonstrates a clear and accelerating trend that threat actors are actively dedicating resources to build tooling that specifically targets the hypervisor. In incidents investigated by GTIG, threat actors most frequently deployed REDBIKE, RANSOMHUB, and LOCKBIT.BLACK variants.

GTIG analysts have also noted a recent trend for threat actors to gain persistence to vSphere environments via reverse shells deployed on Virtual center. This enables a foothold to be obtained within the vSphere control plane and thus complete control over all infrastructure. This would typically manifest in into a two-pronged approach: a tactical data exfiltration such as an AD database (NTDS.dit) and then the deployment of ransomware and mass encryption of all VMs.

Understanding the Active Directory Integration in vSphere 

The decision to integrate vSphere with AD often overlooks the specifics of how this connection actually works. To properly assess the risk, we must look beneath the surface at the technical components that enable this functionality. This analysis will deconstruct those key pieces: the legacy agent responsible for authentication, its inherent inability to support modern security controls like multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the insecure default trust relationships it establishes. By examining these foundational mechanisms, we can expose the direct line from a credential compromise to an infrastructure takeover.

vSphere’s Likewise Agent

When discussing vSphere’s integration with AD, it’s essential to distinguish between two separate components: vCenter Server and the ESXi hosts. Their respective AD integration options are independent and possess different capabilities. This connection is entirely facilitated by the Likewise agent.

The Likewise agent was originally developed by Likewise Software to allow Linux and Unix-based systems to join AD environments, enabling centralized identity management using standard protocols like Kerberos, NTLM, and LDAP/(S). The open-source edition, Likewise Open, included tools such as domainjoin-cli and system daemons like lsassd, which are still found under the hood in ESXi and the vCenter Server Appliance (VCSA). vSphere embedded this agent starting with ESX 4.1 (released in 2010) to facilitate Integrated Windows Authentication (IWA). However, its function differs:

• In ESXi, the Likewise agent actively handles AD user authentication when configured.

• In vCenter, it is only used for the initial domain join when Integrated Windows Authentication (IWA) is selected as the identity source—all actual authentication is then handled by the vCenter Single Single On (SSO) subsystem.

The original Likewise Software was eventually absorbed by BeyondTrust, and the open-source edition of the agent is no longer actively maintained publicly. The Likewise OSS project is now archived and marked as inactive. It is understood the codebase is only maintained internally. Note: The agent’s build version remains identical at Likewise Version 6.2.0 across both ESXi 7 and 8.

The following table lists comparisons between native AD connection methods for both Virtual Center and ESXi.

Why Not to Use Likewise-Based AD Integration (ESXi/vCenter)

The following list contains considerations when using AD-based connections managed by the vSphere Likewise agent:

• Deprecated software: Likewise is legacy software, no longer maintained or supported upstream.

• No support for modern authentication: Likewise only supports Integrated Windows Authentication (Kerberos) and offers no support for SAML, OIDC, or FIDO2.

• No MFA: Likewise cannot enforce contextual policies such as MFA, geolocation restrictions, or time-based access.

• Credential material stored locally: Kerberos keytabs and cached credentials are stored unencrypted on disk.

VMware recommends leveraging identity federation with modern identity providers, bypassing the limitations of the legacy Likewise-based stack. Broadcom announced on March 25 that IWA will be removed in the next major release. 

The MFA Gap

While AD integration offers administrative convenience, it introduces significant security limitations, particularly regarding MFA. Traditional AD authentication methods, including Kerberos and NTLM, are inherently single-factor. These protocols do not natively support MFA, and the vCenter Likewise integration does not extend AD MFA enforcement to vCenter or ESXi.

Critically, ESXi does not support MFA in any form, nor does it support identity federation, SAML, or modern protocols such as OIDC or FIDO2. Even for vCenter, MFA can only be applied to users within the vSphere.local domain (using mechanisms like RSA SecurID or RADIUS), but not to AD-joined users authenticated through IWA or LDAP/S.

Ancillary solutions can offer proxy-based MFA that integrate with AD to enforce MFA to vSphere. AuthLite extends the native AD login process by requiring a second factor during Windows authentication, which can indirectly secure vCenter access when Integrated Windows Authentication is used. Silverfort operates at the domain controller level, enforcing MFA on authentication flows in real time without requiring agents on endpoints or changes to vCenter. Both solutions can help enforce MFA into vSphere environments that lack native support for it, but they can also introduce caveats such as added complexity and potential authorization loops if AD becomes dependent on the same infrastructure they protect and the need to treat their control planes or virtual appliances as Tier 0 systems within the vSphere environment.

While it is technically possible to enforce MFA in vSphere through Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS), this approach requires careful consideration. It is important to note that ADFS is still a feature included in Windows Server 2025 and is not on any official deprecation list with an end-of-life date. However, the lack of significant new feature development compared to the rapid innovation in Microsoft Entra ID speaks to its status as a legacy technology. This is underscored by the extensive migration resources Microsoft now provides to move applications away from AD FS and into Entra ID.

Therefore, while ADFS remains a supported feature, for the purposes of securing vSphere it is a complex workaround that doesn’t apply to direct ESXi access and runs contrary to Microsoft’s clear strategic direction toward modern, cloud-based identity solutions.

Another common approach involves Privileged Access Management (PAM). While a PAM-centric strategy offers benefits like centralized control and session auditing, several caveats warrant consideration. PAM systems add operational complexity, and the vCenter session itself is typically not directly federated with the primary enterprise identity provider (like Entra ID or Okta). Consequently, context-aware conditional access policies are generally applied only at the initial PAM logon, not within the vCenter session itself.

Ultimately, these workarounds do not address the core issue: vSphere’s reliance on the Likewise agent and traditional AD protocols prevents native MFA enforcement for AD users, leaving the environment vulnerable.

The ‘ESX Admins’ Problem Is Not an ESXi Issue, It’s a Trust Issue 

In July 2024, Microsoft published a blog post on CVE-2024-37085, an “ESXi vulnerability” that was considered a critical issue, and one that vSphere promptly addressed in a patch release. The CVE, present in vSphere ESXi for many years, involved several ESXi advanced settings utilizing insecure default configurations. Upon joining an ESXi host to an AD domain, the “ESX Admins” AD group is automatically granted an ESXi Admin role, potentially expanding the scope of administrative access beyond the intended users.

These settings are configured by the following ESXi controls:

1. Config.HostAgent.plugins.hostsvc.esxAdminsGroupAutoAdd
   • What it does: This setting controls whether users from a designated administrators group are automatically added to the host’s local administrative group.
2. Config.HostAgent.plugins.vimsvc.authValidateInterval
   • What it does: This setting defines the time interval at which the host’s management services validate the authentication credentials (or tickets) of connected clients.
3. Config.HostAgent.plugins.hostsvc.esxAdminsGroup
   • What it does: This parameter specifies the name (or identifier) of the group whose members are to be automatically considered for host administrative privileges (when auto-add is enabled by the first setting).

vSphere produced a manual workaround for prior versions of vSphere ESXi 8.0 Update 3 based on the following settings:

The following is a configuration fix to default settings in vSphere ESXi 8.0 Update 3:

Integrating an ESXi host with Microsoft AD introduces a fundamental security issue that is often overlooked—the IdP’s administrators effectively gain administrative control over the ESXi host and any other system relying on that trust. While a common perception, sometimes reinforced by narratives focusing on the endpoint, suggests the ESXi host itself is the primary vulnerability, the more critical security concern is the implicit, far-reaching administrative power wielded by the administrators of the trusted IdP, particularly when using AD authentication with ESXi.

Consequently, neither workarounds nor configuration fixes, which only adjust default settings, resolve this core problem when an ESXi host is joined to AD. The issue transcends specific CVEs; it stems from the inherent security implications of the implicit trust model itself, particularly when it involves systems like ESXi and AD, which already possess their own security vulnerabilities and are frequent targets for threat actors.

In respect of ESXi, context should be applied to the following: 

• Automatic full administrative access: When ESXi hosts are joined to AD, a default (or custom configured) AD group (e.g., “ESX Admins”) is granted full root-level administrative privileges on the ESXi hosts. Any member of this AD group instantly gains unrestricted control of the ESXi host.
• Group name: If AD is compromised, threat actors can manipulate any group name used for via the the Config.HostAgent.plugins.hostsvc.esxAdminsGroup advanced setting, This is not limited to the group name “ESX Admins.”
• Lack of security identifier (SID) tracking: AD group names (not limited to “ESX Admins”) added to ESXi are not tracked by their SIDs. This means that a threat actor could rename or recreate a deleted AD group such as “ESX Admins” maintaining the same name in ESXi via Config.HostAgent.plugins.hostsvc.esxAdminsGroup and retain the elevated privileges. This is a limitation of the Likewise ESXi agent.
• Active Directory group management. Any threat actor looking to access a domain-joined ESXi host would need to simply require sufficient permissions to add themselves to the AD group defined via Config.HostAgent.plugins.hostsvc.esxAdminsGroup.

Recent discussions around vulnerabilities like CVE-2024-37085 have brought this security issue to the forefront: the inherent dangers of joining vSphere ESXi hosts directly to an AD domain. While such integration offers perceived management convenience, it establishes a level of trust that can be easily exploited.

Why Your ESXi Hosts Should Never Be Active Directory Domain Joined

Based on previous discussions we can confidently establish that joining an ESXi host to AD carries substantial risk. This is further endorsed where there is an absence of comprehensive ESXi security controls such as Secure Boot, TPM, execInstalledOnly, vCenter integration, comprehensive logging and SIEM integration. Compromised AD credentials tied to an ESXi-joined group will allow remote threat actors to readily exploit the elevated privileges, executing actions such as virtual machine shutdown and ransomware deployment via SSH. These risks can be summarized as follows:

• No MFA support: ESXi does not support MFA for AD users. Domain joining exposes critical hypervisor access to single-factor password-based authentication.

• Legacy authentication protocols: ESXi relies on IWA and Kerberos / NTLM / Windows Session Authentication (SSPI)—outdated protocols vulnerable to various attacks, including pass-the-hash and credential relay.

• Likewise agent is deprecated: The underlying Likewise agent is a discontinued open-source project. Continued reliance on it introduces maintenance and security risks.

• No modern authentication integration: ESXi does not support federated identity, SAML, OIDC, FIDO2, or conditional access. 

• AD policy enforcement is absent: Group Policy Objects (GPOs), conditional access, and login time restrictions do not extend to ESXi via AD join, undermining centralized security controls.

• Complexity without benefit: Domain joining adds administrative overhead without offering meaningful security gains — especially when using vCenter as the primary access point.

• Limited role mapping granularity: Group-based role mappings on ESXi are basic and cannot match the RBAC precision available in vCenter, reducing access control fidelity.

To securely remove ESXi hosts from AD, a multistep process is required to shift access management explicitly to vCenter. This involves assessing current AD usage, designing granular vCenter roles, configuring vCenter’s RBAC, removing hosts from the domain via PowerCLI, and preventing future AD re-integration. All management then moves to vCenter, with direct ESXi access minimized. This comprehensive approach prioritizes security and efficiency by moving away from AD reliance for ESXi authentication and authorization towards a vCenter-centric, granular RBAC model. vSphere explicitly discourages joining ESXi hosts to AD:

vSphere Virtual Center — The Primary Target

vSphere vCenter Server represents a strategic objective for threat actors due to its authoritative role as the centralized management for virtualized infrastructure. A compromised vCenter instance effectively cedes comprehensive administrative control over the entire virtual estate, encompassing all connected ESXi hypervisors, virtual machines, datastores, and virtual network configurations. 

Through its extensive Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), adversaries can programmatically manipulate all managed ESXi hosts and their resident virtual machines, enabling actions such as mass ransomware deployment, large-scale data exfiltration, the provisioning of rogue virtual assets, or the alteration of security postures to evade detection and induce widespread operational disruption. 

Furthermore, the vCenter Server appliance itself can be subverted by implanting persistent backdoors, thereby establishing covert command-and-control (C2) channels that allow for entrenched persistence and continued malicious operations. Consequently, its critical function renders vCenter a high-value target. The following should be considered:

• Coupled security dependency (compromise amplification risk): Directly linking vCenter to AD makes vSphere security dependent on AD’s integrity. As AD is a prime target, compromising privileged AD accounts mapped to vCenter grants immediate, potentially unrestricted administrative access to the virtual infrastructure, bypassing vSphere-specific security layers. Insufficient application of least privilege for AD accounts in vSphere magnifies this risk.

• Single-factor authentication weakness (credential compromise risk): Relying solely on AD password validation makes vCenter highly vulnerable to common credential compromise methods (phishing, brute-force, spraying, stuffing, malware). Without mandatory MFA, a single stolen password for a privileged AD account allows complete authentication bypass, enabling unauthorized access, data breaches, ransomware, or major disruptions.

• Lack of native MFA: The direct vsphere.local-to-AD integration offers no built-in enforcement of strong authentication like phishing resistant FIDO2 . While compatibility exists for external systems (Smart Cards, RSA SecurID), these require separate, dedicated infrastructure and are not inherent features, leaving a significant authentication assurance gap if unimplemented.

• Facilitation of lateral movement and privilege escalation: Compromised AD credentials, even non-administrative ones with minimal vSphere rights, allow threat actors initial vCenter access. vCenter can then be exploited as a pivot point for further network infiltration, privilege escalation within the virtual environment, or attacks on guest systems via console/API access, all stemming from the initial single-factor credential compromise.

Integrating vSphere vCenter directly with AD for identity management, while common, inherently introduces significant security vulnerabilities stemming from coupled dependencies, reliance on single-factor authentication, a lack of native strong MFA, and facilitated attack pathways. These not only critically expose the virtual infrastructure but also provide avenues to exploit the VCSA appliance’s attack surface, such as its underlying Linux shell and the lack of comprehensive endpoint detection and response (EDR) capabilities.

Securing vSphere: The Tier 0 Challenge

The widespread practice of running Tier 0 services—most critically, AD domain controllers (often used for direct Identity integration)—directly on vSphere hypervisors introduces a significant and often overlooked security risk. By placing Active Directory Domain Controllers on vSphere, any successful attack against the hypervisor effectively hands threat actors the keys to the entire AD environment, enabling complete domain takeover. Mandiant observes that a general lack of awareness and proactive mitigation persists.

The danger is significant and present, for example, even for vSphere permissions that appear low-risk or are operationally common. For example, the privilege to snapshot an AD virtual machine can be weaponized for complete AD takeover. This specific vSphere capability, often assigned for backup routines, enables offline NTDS.dit (AD database) exfiltration. This vSphere-level action renders many in-guest Windows Server security controls ineffective, bypassing not only traditional measures like strong passwords and MFA, but also advanced protections such as LSASS credential guard and EDR, which primarily monitor activity within the operating system. This effectively paves a direct route to full domain compromise for a threat actor possessing this specific permission. 

Mandiant observed these tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) attributed to various ransomware groups across multiple incidents. The absence of VM encryption and logging makes this a relatively simple task to obtain the AD database while being undetected.

The following table contains a list of sample threats matched to related permissions:

Delegation of trust from vSphere vCenter to AD grants implicit administrator privileges on the trusted systems to any AD domain administrator. This elevates the risk profile of AD compromise, impacting the entire infrastructure. To mitigate this, implement a two-pronged strategy: first, create a separate, dedicated vSphere environment specifically for the most critical Tier 0 assets, including AD. This isolated environment should be physically or logically separated from other systems and highly secured with robust network segmentation. Second, implement a zero-trust security model for the control plane of this environment, verifying every access request regardless of source. Within this isolated environment, deploy a dedicated “infrastructure-only” IdP (on-premises or cloud). Implementing the principle of least privilege is paramount. 

A dedicated, isolated vSphere environment for Tier 0 assets (e.g., Active Directory) should have strictly limited administrative access (via a PAW), granting permissions only to those directly managing the infrastructure. This significantly reduces the impact of a breach by preventing lateral movement and minimizing damage. Unnecessary integrations should be avoided to maintain the environment’s security and adhere to the least-privilege model.

To effectively safeguard critical Tier 0 assets operating within the vSphere environment–specifically systems like Privileged Access Management (PAM), Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) virtual appliances, and any associated AD tools deployed as virtual appliances–a multilayered security approach is essential. These assets must be treated as independent, self-sufficient environments. This means not only isolating their network traffic and operational dependencies but also, critically, implementing a dedicated and entirely separate identity provider (IdP) for their authentication and authorization processes. For the highest level of assurance, these Tier 0 virtual machines should be hosted directly on dedicated physical servers. This practice of physical and logical segregation provides a far greater degree of separation than shared virtualized environments. 

The core objective here is to break the authorization dependency chain, ensuring that credentials or permissions compromised elsewhere in the network cannot be leveraged to gain access to these Tier 0 systems. This design creates defense in depth security barriers, fundamentally reducing the likelihood and impact of a complete system compromise.

Conclusion

Mandiant has observed that threat actors are increasingly targeting vSphere, not just for ransomware deployment, but also as a key avenue for data exploitation and exfiltration. This shift is demonstrated by recent threat actor activity observed by GTIG, where adversaries have leveraged compromised vSphere environments to exfiltrate sensitive data such as AD databases before or alongside ransomware execution.

As this document has detailed, the widespread reliance on vSphere, coupled with often underestimated risks inherent in its integration with AD and the persistence of insecure default configurations, creates a dangerously vulnerable landscape. Threat actors are not only aware of these weaknesses but are actively exploiting them with sophisticated attacks increasingly targeting ESXi and vCenter to achieve maximum impact.

The usability and stability that make vSphere a foundational standard for on-premise and private clouds can be misleading; they do not equate to inherent security. The evolution of the threat landscape, particularly the direct targeting of the hypervisor layer which bypasses traditional endpoint defenses, necessitates a fundamental shift in how vSphere security is approached. Relying on outdated practices, backups, perimeter defenses alone, or assuming EDR on guest VMs provides sufficient protection for the underlying infrastructure creates significant security gaps and exposes an organization to severe risks.

Identity integration vulnerabilities will be exploited, therefore, organizations are strongly urged to immediately assess their vSphere environment’s AD integration status and decisively prioritize the implementation of the mitigation strategies outlined in this document. This proactive stance is crucial to effectively counter modern threats and includes:

1. Decoupling critical dependencies: Severing direct ESXi host integration with AD is paramount to shrinking the AD attack surface.

2. Modernizing authentication: Implementing robust, phishing-resistant MFA for vCenter, preferably via identity federation with modern IdPs, is no longer optional but essential.

3. Systematic hardening: Proactively addressing the insecure defaults for ESXi and vCenter, enabling features like execInstalledOnly, Secure Boot, TPM, Lockdown Mode, and configuring stringent firewall rules.

4. Enhanced visibility: Implementing comprehensive remote logging for both ESXi and vCenter, feeding into a SIEM with use cases specifically designed to detect hypervisor-level attacks.

5. Protecting Tier 0 assets: Strategically isolating critical workloads like Active Directory Domain Controllers in dedicated, highly secured vSphere environments with strict, minimized access controls and encrypted VMs and vMotion.

The upcoming end-of-life for vSphere 7 in October 2025 means that vast numbers of organizations will not be able to receive product support, security patches and updates for a product that underpins Infrastructure. This presents a critical juncture for organizations and a perfect storm for threat actors. The transition away from vSphere 7 should be viewed as a key opportunity to re-architect for security, not merely a routine upgrade to implement new features and obtain support. Failure to proactively address these interconnected risks by implementing these recommended mitigations will leave organizations exposed to targeted attacks that can swiftly cripple their entire virtualized infrastructure, leading to operational disruption and financial loss. The time to adopt a resilient, defense-in-depth security posture to protect these critical vSphere environments is unequivocally now.

Introduction

In mid 2025, Google Threat Intelligence Group (GITG) identified a sophisticated and aggressive cyber campaign targeting multiple industries, including retail, airline, and insurance. This was the work of UNC3944, a financially motivated threat group that has exhibited overlaps with public reporting of “0ktapus,” “Octo Tempest,” and “Scattered Spider.” Following public alerts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the group’s targeting became clear. GTIG observed that the group was suspected of turning its ransomware and extortion operations to the U.S. retail sector. The campaign soon broadened further, with airline and transportation organizations in North America having also become targets.

The group’s core tactics have remained consistent and do not rely on software exploits. Instead, they use a proven playbook centered on phone calls to an IT help desk. The actors are aggressive, creative, and particularly skilled at using social engineering to bypass even mature security programs. Their attacks are not opportunistic but are precise, campaign-driven operations aimed at an organization’s most critical systems and data.

Their strategy is rooted in a “living-off-the-land” (LoTL) approach. After using social engineering to compromise one or more user accounts, they manipulate trusted administrative systems and use their control of Active Directory as a launchpad to pivot to the vSphere vSphere environment thus providing an avenue to exfiltrate data and deploy ransomware directly from the hypervisor. This method is highly effective as it generates few traditional indicators of compromise (IoCs) and bypasses security tools like endpoint detection and response (EDR), which often have limited or no visibility into the ESXi hypervisor and vCenter Server Appliance (VCSA).

This blog post provides a deep dive into the anatomy of UNC3944’s vSphere-centric attacks and outlines a fortified, multi-pillar defense strategy required for mitigation. Learn more about the risks associated with integrating VMware vSphere with Microsoft Active Directory. Additionally, register for our upcoming webinar to learn these strategies directly from Mandiant experts.

vSphere Logging Fundamentals 

Before discussing key detection signals and hardening strategies related to UNC3944’s vSphere-related operations, it’s important to understand vSphere logging and the distinction between vCenter Events and ESXi host logs. When forwarded to a central syslog server, vCenter Server events and ESXi host logs represent two distinct yet complementary sources of data. Their fundamental difference lies in their scope, origin, and the structured, event-driven nature of vCenter logs versus the verbose, file-based output of ESXi.

1. vCenter Server (VC Events)

vCenter events operate at the management plane, providing a structured audit trail of administrative actions and automated processes across the entire virtual environment. Each event is a discrete, well-defined object identified by a unique eventTypeId, such as VmPoweredOnEvent or UserLoginSessionEvent. This programmatic identification makes them ideal for ingestion into Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platforms like Splunk or Google Chronicle for automated parsing, alerting, and security analysis.

• Native storage & syslog forwarding: These events are generated by vCenter Server and stored within its internal VCSA database (PostgreSQL). When forwarded, vCenter streams a real-time copy of these structured events to the syslog server. The resulting log message typically contains the formal eventTypeId along with its human-readable description, allowing for precise analysis.

• Primary use cases:

• Security auditing & forensics: Tracking user actions, permission changes, and authentication

• Change management: Providing a definitive record of all configuration changes to clusters, hosts, and virtual machines (VMs)

• Automated alerting: Triggering alerts in a SIEM or monitoring tool based on specific eventTypeIds (e.g., HostCnxFailedEvent)

• UserLoginSessionEvent

• Description: “User {userName}@{ipAddress} logged in as {locale}”

• Significance: A critical security event for tracking all user access to the vCenter management plane

• Description: “Created virtual machine {vm.name} on {host.name} in {datacenter.name}”

• Significance: Logs the creation of new inventory objects, essential for asset management and change control

• Description: “Virtual machine {vm.name} on {host.name} in {datacenter.name} is powered off”

• Significance: Tracks the operational state and availability of workloads. An unexpected power-off event is a key indicator for troubleshooting.

Note on VCSA Logging Limitations: The VCSA does not, out-of-the-box, support forwarding critical security logs for denied network connections or shell command activity. To enable this non-default capability, a custom configuration at the native Photon OS level is required. This is an agentless approach that leverages only built-in Linux tools (like iptables and logger) and does not install any third-party software. This configuration pipes firewall and shell events into the VCSA’s standard rsyslog service, allowing the built-in remote logging mechanism to forward them to a central SIEM.

2. ESXi Host Logs 

ESXi logs operate at the hypervisor level, providing granular, host-specific operational data. They contain detailed diagnostic information about the kernel, hardware, storage, networking, and services running directly on the ESXi host.

• Native storage: These logs are enabled by default and stored as a collection of plain text files on the ESXi host itself, primarily within the /var/log/ directory. This storage is often a local disk or a persistent scratch partition. If a persistent location is not configured, these logs are ephemeral and will be lost upon reboot, making syslog forwarding essential for forensics.

• Primary use cases:
  • Deep-dive troubleshooting of performance issues
  • Diagnosing hardware failures or driver issues
  • Analyzing storage and network connectivity problems
• Examples of ESXi log entries sent to syslog:
  • (from vmkernel.log): Detailed logs about storage device latency
  • (from hostd.log): Logs from the host agent, including API calls, VM state changes initiated on the host, and host service activity
  • (from auth.log): Records of successful or failed login attempts directly to the host via SSH or the DCUI

3. ESXi Host Audit Logs

ESXi audit records provide a high-fidelity, security-focused log of actions performed directly on an ESXi host. The following analysis of the provided example demonstrates why this log source is forensically superior to standard logs for security investigations. These logs are not enabled by default.

• Native storage & persistence: These records are written to audit.*.log on the host’s local filesystem, governed by the Syslog.global.auditRecord.storageEnable = TRUE parameter. Persistent storage configuration is critical to ensure this audit trail survives a reboot.

• Forensic analysis: standard vs. audit log: In the provided scenario, a threat actor logs into an ESXi host, attempts to run malware, and disables the execInstalledOnly security setting. Here is how each log type captures this event:

• Standard syslog shell.log analysis: The standard log provides a simple, chronological history of commands typed into the shell.

• • Limitations:
    • No login context: It does not show the threat actors source IP address or that the initial SSH login was successful.
    • No outcome: It shows the command ./malware was typed but provides no information on whether it succeeded or failed.
    • Incomplete narrative: It is merely a command history, lacking the essential context needed for a full security investigation.
• ESXi audit log analysis: The ESXi audit log provides a rich, structured, and verifiable record of the entire session, from connection to termination, including the outcome of each command.

• • Successful login: It explicitly records the successful authentication, including the source IP.
  • Failed malware execution: This is the most critical distinction. The audit log shows that the malware execution failed with an exit status of 126.
  • Successful security disablement: It then confirms that the command to disable a key security feature was successful.

This side-by-side comparison proves that while standard ESXi logs show a threat actor’s intent, the ESXi audit log reveals the actual outcome, providing actionable intelligence and a definitive forensic trail. A comprehensive logging strategy for a vSphere environment requires the collection and analysis of three distinct yet complementary data sources. When forwarded to a central syslog server, vCenter Server events, ESXi host audit records, and standard ESXi operational logs provide a multilayered view of the environment’s security, administrative changes, and operational health.

Anatomy of an Attack: The Playbook

UNC3944’s attack unfolds across five distinct phases, moving methodically from a low-level foothold to complete hypervisor control.

Phase 1: Initial Compromise, Recon, and Escalation

This initial phase hinges on exploiting the human element.

• The tactic: The threat actor initiates contact by calling the IT help desk, impersonating a regular employee. Using readily available personal information from previous data breaches and employing persuasive or intimidating social engineering techniques, they build rapport and convince an agent to reset the employee’s Active Directory password. Once they have this initial foothold, they begin a two-pronged internal reconnaissance mission:
  • Path A (information stores): They use their new access to scan internal SharePoint sites, network drives, and wikis. They hunt for IT documentation, support guides, org charts, and project plans that reveal high-value targets. This includes not only the names of individual Domain or vSphere administrators, but also the discovery of powerful, clearly named Active Directory security groups like “vSphere Admins” or “ESX Admins” that grant administrative rights over the virtual environment.
  • Path B (secrets stores): Simultaneously, they scan for access to password managers like HashiCorp Vault or other Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions. If they find one with weak access controls, they will attempt to enumerate it for credentials.

Armed with the name of a specific, high-value administrator, they make additional calls to the help desk. This time, they impersonate the privileged user and request a password reset, allowing them to seize control of a privileged account.

• Why it’s effective: This two-step process bypasses the need for technical hacking like Kerberoasting for the initial escalation. The core vulnerability is a help desk process that lacks robust, non-transferable identity verification for password resets. The threat actor is more confident and informed on the second call, making their impersonation much more likely to succeed.

• Key detection signals:

  • [LOGS] Monitor for command-line and process execution: Implement robust command-line logging (e.g., via Audit Process Creation, Sysmon Event ID 1 or EDR). Create alerts for suspicious remote process execution, such as wsmprovhost.exe (WinRM) launching native tools like net.exe to query or modify sensitive groups (e.g., net group "ESX Admins" /add).

  • [LOGS] Monitor for group membership changes: Create high-priority alerts for AD Event ID 4728 (A member was added to a security-enabled global group) or 4732 (local group) for any changes to groups named “vSphere Admins,” “ESX Admins,” or similar.

  • [LOGS] Correlate AD password resets with help desk activity: Correlate AD Event ID 4724 (Password Reset) and the subsequent addition of a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) device with help desk ticket logs and call records.

  • [BEHAVIOR] Alert on anomalous file access: Alert on a single user accessing an unusually high volume of disparate files or SharePoint sites, which is a strong indicator of the reconnaissance seen during UNC3944 activity.

  • [CRITICAL BEHAVIOR] Monitor Tier 0 account activity: Any password reset on a Tier 0 account (Domain Admin, Enterprise Admin, vSphere) must be treated as a critical incident until proven otherwise.

• Critical hardening and mitigation:

  • [CRITICAL] Prohibit phone-based resets for privileged accounts: For all Tier 0 accounts, enforce a strict “no password resets over the phone” policy. These actions must require an in-person, multipart, or high-assurance identity verification process.

  • Protect and monitor privileged AD groups: Treat these groups as Tier 0 assets: tightly control who can modify their membership and implement the high-fidelity alerting for any membership change (AD Event ID 4728/4732). This is critical as threat actors will use native tools like net.exe, often via remote protocols like WinRM, to perform this manipulation. Avoid using obvious, non-obfuscated names like “vSphere Admins” for security groups that grant high-level privileges

  • Harden information stores: Implement data loss prevention (DLP) and data classification to identify and lock down sensitive IT documentation that could reveal high-value targets. Treat secrets vaults as Tier 0 assets with strict, least-privilege access policies.

  • Restrict or monitor remote management tools: Limit the use of remote management protocols like WinRM and vSphere management APIs to authorized administrative subnets and dedicated PAWs. Log all remote commands for review and anomaly detection.

Table 2 displays threat actors actions in support of Active Directory escalation along with process and command-line data that an organization may use to detect this activity.

Phase 2: The Pivot to vCenter — The Control Plane Compromise 

With mapped Active Directory to vSphere credentials, the threat actors turn their sights on the heart of the virtual environment.

• The tactic: They use the compromised credentials to log into the vSphere vCenter Server GUI. From there, they leverage their vCenter Admin rights to gain what amounts to “virtual physical access” to the VCSA itself. They open a remote console, reboot the appliance, and edit the GRUB bootloader to start with a root shell (init=/bin/bash), giving them passwordless root access. They then change the root password to enable SSH access upon reboot. To maintain their foothold, they upload and execute teleport, a legitimate open source remote access tool, to create a persistent and encrypted reverse shell (C2 channel) that bypasses most firewall egress rules.
• Why it’s effective: vCenter’s delegation of trust in Active Directory often via LDAP(S) means the initial login isn’t protected by MFA. The VCSA takeover abuses a fundamental privilege of a virtual environment administrator—the ability to interact with a VM’s console pre-boot.
• Key detection signals:
  • [LOGS] Monitor vCenter events for logins (com.vSphere.vc.UserLoginSessionLoginSuccessEvent) (com.vSphere.vc.UserLoginSessionLoginFailureEvent) and reboot (com.vSphere.vc.appliance.ApplianceRebootEvent).
  • [LOGS] Monitor for log entries with prefixes like “SSH” in remote VCSA syslog to detect dropped SSH attempts or other blocked traffic via iptables.
  • [LOGS] On the VCSA, monitor journald and implement VCSA remote forwarding of logs to a SIEM to detect unauthorized shell access and the enablement of the SSH and Shell service.

• • [NETWORK] Use Network Flow Logs to spot anomalous outbound connections from the VCSA’s IP address.
  • [NETWORK] Unusual DNS Requests from vCenter – This detection identifies when a vSphere vCenter server makes DNS requests for domains that are not on the explicit allow list of known, trusted sites (e.g., vSphere.com, ntp.org, or internal domains).
  • [LOGS] Use of cURL or Wget to download tools: This detection can identify the use of command-line utilities like cURL or Wget on a critical server (such as a vCenter, Domain Controller, or database server) to download a file from an external URL.
• Critical hardening and mitigation:
  • [CRITICAL] Enable the VCSA remote logging: Implement remote syslog forwarding on the VCSA appliance. 
  • [CRITICAL] Enforce phishing-resistant MFA on vCenter: Implement a phishing-resistant MFA solution, such as FIDO2/WebAuthn, for all vCenter logins by federating authentication with a supported identity provider. This is a critical control that directly neutralizes the threat of credential theft, rendering phishing attacks against vCenter users ineffective.
  • [CRITICAL] Enforce least privilege in vCenter: Strictly limit the use of the Administrator role, reserving it for dedicated “break glass” accounts only such as administrator@vsphere.local. Instead, create granular, custom roles for specific job functions to ensure users and groups only have the minimum permissions necessary, breaking the link between a compromised AD account and a full vCenter takeover.
  • [CRITICAL] Use the VCSA firewall and block shell access: Block all unnecessary outbound internet traffic from the VCSA using egress filtering and its built-in firewall. Disable the SSH and BASH shells by default. This thwarts the teleport backdoor and makes the VCSA takeover significantly more difficult.
  • [CRITICAL] Configure the VCSA’s underlying iptables firewall: Enforce a Zero Trust allow-list for all management interfaces (443, 5480, 22) and enable logging for all denied connections. The default VCSA GUI firewall can be disabled by an attacker with a compromised web session and, crucially, it does not log blocked connection attempts. By configuring iptables at the OS level, the rules become immune to GUI tampering, and every denied connection is logged and forwarded to your SIEM.

Table 3 displays threat actor actions in support of Teleport Installation along with key evidence that an organization may use to detect this activity.

Phase 3: The Hypervisor Heist — Offline Credential Theft and Exfiltration

This is where the threat actor leverages their vSphere control to operate beneath the notice of in-guest security and EDR.

• The tactic: From vCenter, the threat actor enables SSH on the ESXi hosts and reset their root passwords. They then execute an offline attack by identifying a Domain Controller VM, powering it off, and detaching its virtual disk (.vmdk). This disk is then attached as a secondary drive to a forgotten or “orphaned” VM they control. From this unmonitored machine, they copy the NTDS.dit Active Directory database. The process is then reversed, and the DC is powered back on as if nothing happened. The stolen data is then moved in a two-stage process: first, an internal transfer from the orphaned VM to the compromised VCSA using sftp, and second, an external exfiltration from the VCSA through the already-established teleport C2 channel to a threat actor controlled cloud service.
• Why it’s effective: This entire operation occurs at the hypervisor layer, making it invisible to any EDR or security agent running inside the Domain Controller’s operating system. The use of the VCSA as a data funnel bypasses any network segmentation rules.

Table 4 displays threat actor actions in support of VM data exfiltration along with key evidence that an organization may use to detect this activity.

• Key detection signals:
  • [BEHAVIOR] Monitor for reconnaissance in the vSphere UI: Before the attack, the threat actor browses the vSphere client to identify their target (e.g., a VM named ACME-DC01) and their staging VM (OLD-APPSRV-01). If UI access logs or browser histories from admin workstations are available, correlating suspicious browsing patterns with a subsequent reconfiguration event can provide very early warning.
  • [LOGS] Scrutinize: As shown in this anonymised real-world example, a vim.event.VmReconfiguredEvent for the staging VM (e.g., OLD-APPSRV-01) will contain the file path of the target VM’s disk in its configuration details (e.g., backing = (fileName = '.../ACME-DC01/ACME-DC01_4.vmdk' ...)). Create high-priority alerts that parse this event data to detect when a disk from a critical asset is attached to any non-standard machine.
  • [LOGS] Correlate the full event sequence: A high-fidelity alert can be built by correlating the full sequence of vCenter events on a critical asset: VmPoweredOffEvent, followed by the VmReconfiguredEvent previously detailed, and eventually a VmPoweredOnEvent combined with a restart initiated by vmtoolsd.exe, along with supporting Windows guest events like 6006 (shutdown) and 6005 (startup).
  • [BEHAVIOR] Create CRITICAL alerts for any power-on or reconfiguration event on VMs located in a “Decommissioned” or “Orphaned” folder as these are prime candidates for the threat actors staging VM.
  • [LOGS] Monitor ESXi host changes: Alert on SSH service start via vCenter events (vim.event.HostServiceStartedEvent), firewall configuration changes (vim.event.HostFirewallInfoChangedEvent), and direct root shell access logs on the ESXi hosts themselves.
• Critical hardening and mitigation:
  • [CRITICAL] Use vSphere VM encryption: Encrypt all Tier 0 virtualized assets. This is the definitive technical block for the offline “Disk Swap” attack as the stolen .vmdk file would be unreadable.
  • [CRITICAL] Implement a strict VM decommissioning process: Formally decommission old VMs by deleting their disks. Do not leave powered-off, “orphaned” VMs on your datastores as these are the ideal workbenches for threat actors.
  • [CRITICAL] Harden ESXi accounts: Disable the default ESXi root account in favor of a named “break glass” account with a highly complex password. On ESXi 8.0+, run esxcli system account set -i vpxuser -s false to prevent a compromised vCenter user from changing ESXi root passwords.
  • [CRITICAL] Enable ESXi remote audit logging: Enable remote ESXi audit logging (vpxa.log, hostd.log, audit_records) to a SIEM to provide verbose, centralized details of security-focused events on the hosts themselves.

Phase 4: Backup Sabotage — Removing the Safety Net

Before deploying ransomware, the actor ensures their target cannot recover.

• The tactic: Leveraging their full control over Active Directory, the threat actor targets the backup infrastructure (e.g., a virtualized backup server). They either reuse the compromised Domain Admin credentials to log in via RDP or, more stealthily, add a user they control to the “Veeam Administrators” security group in AD. Once in, they delete all backup jobs, snapshots, and repositories.
• Why it’s effective: This works due to a lack of administrative tiering (where the same powerful accounts manage both virtualization and backups) and insufficient monitoring of changes to critical AD security groups.
• Key detection signals:
  • [Detecting Path A] Monitor for interactive logons (Windows Event ID 4624) on the backup server by high-privilege accounts.
  • [Detecting Path B] Triggers a CRITICAL alert from AD logs for Event ID 4728 (“A member was added to a security-enabled global group”) for any change to the “Veeam Administrators” group
  • [LOGS] Monitor the backup application’s own audit logs for mass deletion events.
• Critical hardening and mitigation:
  • [CRITICAL] Isolate backup infrastructure: The Veeam server and its repositories must be in a separate MFA protected, highly restricted security domain or use dedicated, non-AD-joined credentials. This severs the AD trust relationship the threat actor exploits.
  • [CRITICAL] Utilize immutable repositories: This is the technical backstop against backup deletion. It makes the backup data undeletable for a set period, even if a threat actor gains full administrative access to the backup console.

Phase 5: Encryption — Ransomware from the Hypervisor

With the target blinded and their safety net gone, the final stage commences.

• The tactic: The threat actor uses their SSH access to the ESXi hosts to push their custom ransomware binary via SCP/SFTP into a writable directory like /tmp. They then execute a script that uses the native ESXi command-line tool, vim-cmd, to forcibly power off every VM on the host. Finally, they launch the ransomware binary (often with nohup to ensure it continues after they log out), which scans the datastores and encrypts all VM files (.vmdk, .vmx, etc.).

Table 5 displays threat actor actions in support of ESXi ransomware execution along with key evidence that an organization may use to detect this activity.

• Why it’s effective: Root access on the ESXi shell is the highest level privilege in a virtual environment. By encrypting at the hypervisor level, they bypass all in-guest security and compromise servers with a single action.
• Key detection signals:
  • [NETWORK] Monitor Network Flow Logs for large file transfers to and from ESXi hosts over SSH/SCP.
  • [BEHAVIOR] A SIEM alert for a high volume of VM power-off commands originating from a single ESXi host is a high-fidelity indicator of an ongoing attack.
  • [LOGS] Monitor ESXi host logs for the execution of esxcli system settings kernel set -s execInstalledOnly -v FALSE (a threat actor attempting to disable a key defense) and mass vmsvc/power.off commands. Since this setting only applies after a reboot, correlate this alert with a subsequent host reboot within a short time window.
• Critical hardening and mitigation:
  • [CRITICAL] Enable vSphere lockdown mode: This is a primary prevention for this phase as it blocks the interactive SSH access needed to push and execute the payload.
  • [CRITICAL] Enforce execInstalledOnly execution policy: This ESXi kernel setting is the definitive technical prevention. It blocks any unsigned binary from running, rendering the threat actor’s custom ransomware execution attempt to failure. Enable the hardware based TPM 2.0 chip with Secure Boot to lock this setting so it cannot be disabled.

The Three-Pillar Defense: A Fortified Strategy

Pillar 1: Proactive Hardening (Your Most Reliable Defense)

• Architect for centralized access: Do not join ESXi hosts directly to Active Directory. Manage all host access exclusively through vCenter roles and permissions. This drastically reduces the attack surface.
• Enable vSphere lockdown mode: This is a critical control that restricts ESXi management, blocking direct shell access via SSH and preventing changes from being made outside of vCenter.
• Enforce execInstalledOnly: This powerful ESXi kernel setting prevents the execution of any binary that wasn’t installed as part of a signed, packaged vSphere Installation Bundle (VIB). It would have directly blocked the threat actor’s custom ransomware from running. 
• Use vSphere VM encryption: Encrypt your Tier 0 virtualized assets (DCs, PKI, etc.). This is the definitive technical block for the offline disk-swap attack, rendering any stolen disk files unreadable.
• Practice strict infrastructure hygiene: Don’t just power off old VMs. Implement a strict decommissioning process that deletes their disks from the datastore or moves them to segregated archival storage to eliminate potential “staging” machines.
• Posture management: It is vital to implement continuous vSphere posture Management (CPM) because hardening is not a one-time task, but a security state that must be constantly maintained against “configuration drift.” The UNC3944 playbook fundamentally relies on creating these policy deviations—such as enabling SSH or altering firewall rules. This can be achieved either through dedicated Hybrid Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools, such as the vSphere Aria Operations Compliance Pack, Wiz, or by developing custom in-house scripts that leverage the vSphere API via PowerShell/PowerCLI to regularly audit your environment. 
• Harden the help desk: For privileged accounts, mandate that MFA enrollment or password resets require an in-person, multipart, or high-assurance multi-factor verification process.

Pillar 2: Identity and Architectural Integrity (Breaking the Attack Chain)

• Enforce phishing-resistant MFA everywhere: This must be applied to VPN, vCenter logins, and all privileged AD accounts. Use hardened PAWs with exclusive, firewalled access to the virtual center.
• Isolate critical identity infrastructure: Run your Tier 0 assets (Domain Controllers, PAM, Veeam etc) in a dedicated, highly-secured “identity cluster” with its own stringent access policies, segregated from general-purpose workloads.
• Avoid authentication loops: A critical architectural flaw is hosting identity providers (AD) recovery systems (Veeam) or privileged access management (PAM) on the very virtualization platform they secure and authenticate. A compromise of the underlying ESXi hosts results in a correlated failure of both the dependent services and the means to restore them, a scenario that significantly complicates or prevents disaster recovery.
• Consider alternate identity providers (IdPs): To break the “AD-to-everything” chain, consider using a separate, cloud-native IdP like Azure Entra ID for authenticating to infrastructure.

Pillar 3: Advanced Detection and Recovery (Your Safety Net)

• Build detections after hardening: The most effective alerts are those that detect the attempted manipulation of the hardening controls you’ve put in place. Harden first, then build your detection logic.
• Centralize and monitor key logs: Forward all logs from AD, vCenter, ESXi, networking infrastructure, firewalls, and backups to a SIEM. Correlate logs from these disparate sources to create high-fidelity detection scenarios that can spot the threat actors’ methodical movements.
• Focus on high-fidelity alerts: Prioritize alerting on events in phases 1-3. Detecting the enablement of SSH on a host, a VCSA takeover, or membership changes to your “Veeam Admins” group will enable you to act before data exfiltration and ransomware deployment.
• Architect for survival: Assume the worst-case scenario. Your immutable and air-gapped backups are your last line of defense. They must be isolated from your production AD and inaccessible to a compromised administrator. Test your recovery plan against this specific threat model to ensure it works.

Conclusion: The Defender’s Mandate — Harden and Alert

UNC3944’s playbook requires a fundamental shift in defensive strategy, moving from EDR-based threat hunting to proactive, infrastructure-centric defense. This threat differs from traditional Windows ransomware in two ways: speed and stealth. While traditional actors may have a dwell time of days or even weeks for reconnaissance, UNC3944 operates with extreme velocity; the entire attack chain from initial access to data exfiltration and final ransomware deployment can occur in mere hours. This combination of speed and minimal forensic evidence makes it essential to not just identify but to immediately intercept suspicious behavioral patterns before they can escalate into a full-blown compromise.

This living-off-the-land (LotL) approach is so effective because the Virtual Center appliance and ESXi hypervisor cannot run traditional EDR agents, leaving a significant visibility gap at the virtualization layer. Consequently, sophisticated detection engineering within your SIEM becomes the primary and most essential method for active defense.

This reality presents the most vital key for defenders: the ability to detect and act on early alerting is paramount. An alert generated during the final ransomware execution is merely a notification of a successful takeover. In contrast, an alert that triggers when the threat actor first compromises a help desk account or accesses Virtual Center from an unusual location is an actionable starting point for an investigation—a crucial window of opportunity to evict the threat before they achieve complete administrative control.

A resilient defense, therefore, cannot rely on sifting through a sea of broad, noisy alerts. This reactive approach is particularly ineffective when, as is often the case, many vSphere environments are built upon a foundation of insecure defaults—such as overly permissive roles or enabled SSH—and suffer from a lack of centralized logging visibility from ESXi hosts and vCenter. Without the proper context from these systems, a security team is left blind to the threat actors’ methodical, LotL movements until it is far too late.

Instead, the strategy must be twofold. First, it requires proactive, defense-in-depth technical hardening to systematically correct these foundational gaps and reduce the attack surface. Second, this must be complemented by a deep analysis of the threat actor’s tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to build the high-fidelity correlation rules and logging infrastructure needed to spot their earliest movements. This means moving beyond single-event alerts and creating rules that connect the dots between a help desk ticket, a password reset in Active Directory, and a subsequent anomalous login to vCenter.

These two strategies are symbiotic, creating a system where defense enables detection. Robust hardening is not just a barrier, it also creates friction for the threat actor, forcing them to attempt actions that are inherently suspicious. For example, when Lockdown Mode is enabled (hardening), a threat actor’s attempt to open an SSH session to an ESXi host will fail, but it will also generate a specific, high-priority event. The control itself creates the clean signal that a properly configured SIEM is built to catch.

For any organization with a critical dependency on vSphere, this is not a theoretical exercise. What makes this threat exceptionally dangerous is its ability to render entire security strategies irrelevant. It circumvents traditional tiering models by attacking the underlying hypervisor that hosts all of your virtualized Tier 0 assets—including Domain Controllers, Certificate Authorities, and PAM solutions—rendering the logical separation of tiering completely ineffective. Simultaneously, By manipulating virtual disks while the VMs are offline, it subverts in-guest security solutions—such as EDR, antivirus (AV), DLP, and host-based intrusion prevention systems (HIPS)—as their agents cannot monitor for direct ESXi level changes.

The threat is immediate, and the attack chain is proven. Mandiant has observed that the successful hypervisor-level tactics leveraged by groups like UNC3944 are no longer exclusive; these same TTPs are now being actively adopted by other ransomware groups. This proliferation turns a specialized threat into a mainstream attack vector, making the time to act now.