Proxy: External Proxy

Adversaries may use an external proxy to act as an intermediary for network communications to a command and control server to avoid direct connections to their infrastructure. Many tools exist that enable traffic redirection through proxies or port redirection, including HTRAN, ZXProxy, and ZXPortMap. [1] Adversaries use these types of proxies to manage command and control communications, to provide resiliency in the face of connection loss, or to ride over existing trusted communications paths to avoid suspicion.

External connection proxies are used to mask the destination of C2 traffic and are typically implemented with port redirectors. Compromised systems outside of the victim environment may be used for these purposes, as well as purchased infrastructure such as cloud-based resources or virtual private servers. Proxies may be chosen based on the low likelihood that a connection to them from a compromised system would be investigated. Victim systems would communicate directly with the external proxy on the Internet and then the proxy would forward communications to the C2 server.

ID: T1090.002
Sub-technique of:  T1090
Platforms: Linux, Windows, macOS
Version: 1.0
Created: 14 March 2020
Last Modified: 27 March 2020

Procedure Examples

ID Name Description
G0007 APT28

APT28 used other victims as proxies to relay command traffic, for instance using a compromised Georgian military email server as a hop point to NATO victims. The group has also used a tool that acts as a proxy to allow C2 even if the victim is behind a router. APT28 has also used a machine to relay and obscure communications between CHOPSTICK and their server.[2][3][4]

G0022 APT3

An APT3 downloader establishes SOCKS5 connections for its initial C2.[5]

G0087 APT39

APT39 has used various tools to proxy C2 communications.[6]

G0053 FIN5

FIN5 maintains access to victim environments by using FLIPSIDE to create a proxy for a backup RDP tunnel.[7]


GALLIUM used a modified version of HTRAN to redirect connections between networks.[8]

S0260 InvisiMole

InvisiMole InvisiMole can identify proxy servers used by the victim and use them for C2 communication.[9][10]

G0032 Lazarus Group

Lazarus Group uses multiple proxies to obfuscate network traffic from victims.[11][12]

G0045 menuPass

menuPass has used a global service provider's IP as a proxy for C2 traffic from a victim.[13][14]

G0069 MuddyWater

MuddyWater has controlled POWERSTATS from behind a proxy network to obfuscate the C2 location.[15] MuddyWater has used a series of compromised websites that victims connected to randomly to relay information to command and control (C2).[16][17]

S0439 Okrum

Okrum can identify proxy servers configured and used by the victim, and use it to make HTTP requests to C2 its server.[18]


POWERSTATS has connected to C2 servers through proxies.[19]

S0650 QakBot

QakBot has a module that can proxy C2 communications.[20]

S0019 Regin

Regin leveraged several compromised universities as proxies to obscure its origin.[21]

S0444 ShimRat

ShimRat can use pre-configured HTTP proxies.[22]

G0091 Silence

Silence has used ProxyBot, which allows the attacker to redirect traffic from the current node to the backconnect server via Sock4\Socks5.[23]

G0131 Tonto Team

Tonto Team has routed their traffic through an external server in order to obfuscate their location.[24]

S0266 TrickBot

TrickBot has been known to reach a command and control server via one of nine proxy IP addresses. [25] [26]


ID Mitigation Description
M1031 Network Intrusion Prevention

Network intrusion detection and prevention systems that use network signatures to identify traffic for specific adversary malware can be used to mitigate activity at the network level. Signatures are often for unique indicators within protocols and may be based on the specific C2 protocol used by a particular adversary or tool, and will likely be different across various malware families and versions. Adversaries will likely change tool C2 signatures over time or construct protocols in such a way as to avoid detection by common defensive tools.[27]


ID Data Source Data Component
DS0029 Network Traffic Network Connection Creation
Network Traffic Content
Network Traffic Flow

Analyze network data for uncommon data flows, such as a client sending significantly more data than it receives from an external server. Processes utilizing the network that do not normally have network communication or have never been seen before are suspicious. Analyze packet contents to detect communications that do not follow the expected protocol behavior for the port that is being used.[27]


  1. Wilhoit, K. (2013, March 4). In-Depth Look: APT Attack Tools of the Trade. Retrieved December 2, 2015.
  2. FireEye. (2015). APT28: A WINDOW INTO RUSSIA’S CYBER ESPIONAGE OPERATIONS?. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  3. Bitdefender. (2015, December). APT28 Under the Scope. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
  4. Mueller, R. (2018, July 13). Indictment - United States of America vs. VIKTOR BORISOVICH NETYKSHO, et al. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
  5. Moran, N., et al. (2014, November 21). Operation Double Tap. Retrieved January 14, 2016.
  6. Rusu, B. (2020, May 21). Iranian Chafer APT Targeted Air Transportation and Government in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Retrieved May 22, 2020.
  7. Bromiley, M. and Lewis, P. (2016, October 7). Attacking the Hospitality and Gaming Industries: Tracking an Attacker Around the World in 7 Years. Retrieved October 6, 2017.
  8. Cybereason Nocturnus. (2019, June 25). Operation Soft Cell: A Worldwide Campaign Against Telecommunications Providers. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
  9. Hromcová, Z. (2018, June 07). InvisiMole: Surprisingly equipped spyware, undercover since 2013. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  10. Hromcova, Z. and Cherpanov, A. (2020, June). INVISIMOLE: THE HIDDEN PART OF THE STORY. Retrieved July 16, 2020.
  11. US-CERT. (2017, November 22). Alert (TA17-318A): HIDDEN COBRA – North Korean Remote Administration Tool: FALLCHILL. Retrieved December 7, 2017.
  12. Mabutas, G. (2020, May 11). New MacOS Dacls RAT Backdoor Shows Lazarus’ Multi-Platform Attack Capability. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
  13. FireEye iSIGHT Intelligence. (2017, April 6). APT10 (MenuPass Group): New Tools, Global Campaign Latest Manifestation of Longstanding Threat. Retrieved June 29, 2017.
  14. Matsuda, A., Muhammad I. (2018, September 13). APT10 Targeting Japanese Corporations Using Updated TTPs. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  1. Symantec DeepSight Adversary Intelligence Team. (2018, December 10). Seedworm: Group Compromises Government Agencies, Oil & Gas, NGOs, Telecoms, and IT Firms. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  2. Reaqta. (2017, November 22). A dive into MuddyWater APT targeting Middle-East. Retrieved May 18, 2020.
  3. Peretz, A. and Theck, E. (2021, March 5). Earth Vetala – MuddyWater Continues to Target Organizations in the Middle East. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
  4. Hromcova, Z. (2019, July). OKRUM AND KETRICAN: AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT KE3CHANG GROUP ACTIVITY. Retrieved May 6, 2020.
  5. Singh, S. et al.. (2018, March 13). Iranian Threat Group Updates Tactics, Techniques and Procedures in Spear Phishing Campaign. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
  6. Kuzmenko, A. et al. (2021, September 2). QakBot technical analysis. Retrieved September 27, 2021.
  7. Kaspersky Lab's Global Research and Analysis Team. (2014, November 24). THE REGIN PLATFORM NATION-STATE OWNAGE OF GSM NETWORKS. Retrieved December 1, 2014.
  8. Yonathan Klijnsma. (2016, May 17). Mofang: A politically motivated information stealing adversary. Retrieved May 12, 2020.
  9. Group-IB. (2018, September). Silence: Moving Into the Darkside. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
  10. Daniel Lughi, Jaromir Horejsi. (2020, October 2). Tonto Team - Exploring the TTPs of an advanced threat actor operating a large infrastructure. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  11. Liviu Arsene, Radu Tudorica. (2020, November 23). TrickBot is Dead. Long Live TrickBot!. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  12. Radu Tudorica. (2021, July 12). A Fresh Look at Trickbot’s Ever-Improving VNC Module. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  13. Gardiner, J., Cova, M., Nagaraja, S. (2014, February). Command & Control Understanding, Denying and Detecting. Retrieved April 20, 2016.