-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
Sigma rules to detect CVE 2025 29824 and susp BLF File Creation #5260
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
06f95b7
5cbd69b
a967890
1d1fdc4
c0dbdaa
0b10c24
caa3b81
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ | ||
title: Potential Exploitation of CVE-2025-29824 - CLFS BLF File Creation | ||
id: 4a8e9f3d-7b2c-4f1a-9e5c-8d3b7f5c1234 | ||
status: experimental | ||
description: | | ||
Detects the suspicious creation of CLFS BLF files which may indicate possible exploitation of CVE-2025-29824. | ||
CVE-2025-29824 is a elevation of privilege vulnerability in the Windows Common Log File System (CLFS) driver. | ||
According to Microsoft, this vulnerability is being exploited in the wild by Storm-2460, a ransomware group to | ||
gain elevated privileges to deploy ransomware. | ||
references: | ||
- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/04/08/exploitation-of-clfs-zero-day-leads-to-ransomware-activity/ | ||
author: Swachchhanda Shrawan Poudel (Nextron Systems) | ||
date: 2025-04-10 | ||
tags: | ||
- attack.privilege-escalation | ||
- attack.t1068 | ||
- cve.2025-29824 | ||
- detection.emerging-threats | ||
logsource: | ||
category: file_event | ||
product: windows | ||
detection: | ||
selection_blf: | ||
TargetFilename|endswith: '.blf' | ||
selection_path: | ||
TargetFilename|contains: ':\ProgramData\SkyPDF\' | ||
selection_image: | ||
Image|endswith: '\dllhost.exe' | ||
condition: selection_blf and (selection_path or selection_image) | ||
falsepositives: | ||
- Unknown | ||
level: high |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ | ||
title: BLF File Creation in Suspicious Paths | ||
id: 7b1d5d21-a3b1-4e63-8eb7-797c8e368595 | ||
status: experimental | ||
description: | | ||
Detects the creation of base log (.blf) files outside of Windows system directories, which is suspicious behavior. | ||
Such behaviour have been observed in the exploitation of CVE-2025-29824, a privilege escalation vulnerability in the Windows Common Log File System (CLFS) driver. | ||
If you observe this behavior, it is recommended to investigate the process that created the file and its parent process to determine if it is malicious. | ||
references: | ||
- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/04/08/exploitation-of-clfs-zero-day-leads-to-ransomware-activity/ | ||
author: Swachhanda Shrawan Poudel (Nextron Systems) | ||
date: 2025-04-10 | ||
tags: | ||
- attack.privilege-escalation | ||
logsource: | ||
product: windows | ||
category: file_event | ||
detection: | ||
selection_blf: | ||
TargetFilename|endswith: '.blf' | ||
selection_suspicious_paths_1: | ||
TargetFilename|contains: | ||
- ':\$Recycle.bin' | ||
- ':\Perflogs' | ||
- ':\ProgramData' | ||
- ':\Temp' | ||
- ':\Users\Default' | ||
- ':\Users\public' | ||
- ':\Windows\Temp' | ||
- ':\Windows\addins' | ||
- ':\Windows\Fonts' | ||
- ':\Windows\IME' | ||
- ':\Windows\System32\Tasks' | ||
- ':\Windows\Tasks' | ||
- '\config\systemprofile' | ||
- '\AppData\Local\Temp' | ||
- '\AppData\Roaming' | ||
selection_suspicious_paths_user_1: | ||
TargetFilename|contains: ':\Users\' | ||
selection_suspicious_paths_user_2: | ||
TargetFilename|contains: | ||
- '\Contacts\' | ||
- '\Documents\' | ||
- '\Favorites\' | ||
- '\Favourites\' | ||
- '\Music\' | ||
- '\Photos\' | ||
- '\Pictures\' | ||
Comment on lines
+20
to
+47
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. .blf files should not be common so focusing on exclusion is far better than specifying a list that can be bypassed. Also your list already contains FP such as You cannot add a static list of potential susp paths without testing them first. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If so, wouldn't using the exclusion increase the chances of false positives even more? we can only speculate as we don't have proper sets of env logs There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The FP that i mentioned are built-in hence can be found with a nice lab. As for the logic to use exclusion is that argument that .blf are not that common (not in many random folders) and should be created by a set of expected processes. The FPs cannot be huge once you exclude the appropriate system dirs and files. Because it is experimental and the level is not high. People would not be flooded and you can gather more data once its merged in. |
||
condition: selection_blf and (selection_suspicious_paths_1 or (all of selection_suspicious_paths_user_* )) | ||
falsepositives: | ||
- Legitimate software creating .blf files in non-system directories for some reason. | ||
level: medium |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Who is the process that usually writes
.blf
files? Are you sure its not dllhost?