Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are issuing this Cybersecurity Advisory to present findings from a recent CISA and USCG hunt engagement. The purpose of this advisory is to highlight identified cybersecurity issues, thereby informing security defenders in other organizations of potential similar issues and encouraging them to take proactive measures to enhance their cybersecurity posture. This advisory has been coordinated with the organization involved in the hunt engagement.

CISA led a proactive hunt engagement at a U.S. critical infrastructure organization with the support of USCG analysts. During hunts, CISA proactively searches for evidence of malicious activity or malicious cyber actor presence on customer networks. The organization invited CISA to conduct a proactive hunt to determine if an actor had been present in the organization’s environment. (Note: Henceforth, unless otherwise defined, “CISA” is used in this advisory to refer to the hunt team as an umbrella for both CISA and USCG analysts).

During this engagement, CISA did not identify evidence of malicious cyber activity or actor presence on the organization’s network, but did identify cybersecurity risks, including:

In coordination with the organization where the hunt was conducted, CISA and USCG are sharing cybersecurity risk findings and associated mitigations to assist other critical infrastructure organizations with improving their cybersecurity posture. Recommendations are listed for each of CISA’s findings, as well as general practices to strengthen cybersecurity for OT environments. These mitigations align with CISA and the National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs), and with mitigations provided in the USCG Cyber Command’s (CGCYBER) 2024 Cyber Trends and Insights in the Marine Environment (CTIME) Report.

Although no malicious activity was identified during this engagement, critical infrastructure organizations are advised to review and implement the mitigations listed in this advisory to prevent potential compromises and better protect our national infrastructure. These mitigations include the following (listed in order of importance):

For more detailed mitigations addressing the identified cybersecurity risks, see the Mitigations section of this advisory.

Download the PDF version of this report:

AA25-212A CISA and USCG Identify Areas for Cyber Hygiene Improvement (PDF, 537.67 KB )

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 17. See Appendix: MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques for a table of potential activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

Overview

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) analysts (collectively referred to as CISA in this report) conducted a threat hunt engagement at a critical infrastructure organization. During this hunt, CISA proactively searched for evidence of malicious activity or the presence of a malicious cyber actor on the customer’s network using host, network, industrial control system (ICS), and commercial cloud and open-source analysis tools. CISA searched for evidence of activity by looking for specific exploitation tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and associated artifacts.

While CISA did not find evidence of threat actor presence on the organization’s network, the team did identify several cybersecurity risks. These findings are listed below in order of risk. Technical details of each identified cyber risk are included, along with the potential impact from threat actor exploitation of each risk (recommendations for mitigating each risk are listed in the Mitigations section below).

Several of these findings align with those observed during similar engagements conducted by US Coast Guard Cyber Command (CGCYBER), which are documented in their 2024 Cyber Trends and Insights in the Marine Environment (CTIME) report. The authoring agencies encourage critical infrastructure organizations to review the CTIME report to understand trends in the techniques/attack paths threat actors are using to compromise at-risk organizations, and what mitigations organizations should implement to prevent a successful attack.

Key Findings

Shared Local Admin Accounts with Non-Unique Passwords Stored as Plaintext

Details: CISA identified a few local admin accounts with non-unique passwords; these accounts were shared across many hosts. The credentials for each account were stored plaintext in batch scripts. CISA discovered these authorized scripts were configured to create user accounts with local admin privileges and then set identical, non-expiring passwords—these passwords were stored in plaintext in the script. One script was configured to create an admin account (set with a password stored in the script in plaintext) and automatically add to the admin group. The account was set as the local admin account on many other hosts.

Potential Impact: The storage of local admin credentials in plaintext scripts across numerous hosts increases the risk of widespread unauthorized access, and the usage of non-unique passwords facilitates lateral movement throughout the network. Malicious actors with access to workstations with either of these batch scripts could obtain the passwords for these local admin accounts by searching the filesystem for strings like net user /add, identifying scripts containing usernames and passwords [T1552.001], and accessing these accounts to move laterally.

For example, during a controlled security validation exercise (with explicit permission from the customer), CISA used the credentials found in one of the scripts to log into its associated admin account locally on a workstation [T1078.003], and then establish a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) connection to another workstation [T1021.001]. This demonstrated that the credentials allowed local login to an admin account and enabled lateral movement to any workstation with the account. While using this account, the user had local admin privileges on many workstations. Upon initiating the RDP session, the system issued out a notification that another user was currently logged in and that continuing the session would disconnect the existing user, confirming that the account can be accessed remotely via RDP.

The uniform use of local admin accounts with identical, non-expiring passwords across numerous hosts, coupled with the storage of these credentials in plaintext within accessible scripts, elevates the risk of unauthorized access and lateral movement throughout the network.

With local admin access, malicious cyber actors can:

The widespread distribution of plaintext credentials and the use of identical passwords across hosts increases the risk of unauthorized access throughout the network. This vulnerability heightens the potential for attackers to conduct unauthorized activities, which may impact the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organization’s assets.

Note: This finding was associated with workstations only; servers and other devices were not affected.

Insufficient Network Segmentation Configuration Between IT and Operational Technology Environments

Details: While assessing interconnectivity between the customer’s IT and operational technology (OT) environments, CISA identified that the OT environment was not properly configured. Specifically, standard user accounts could directly access the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) virtual local area network (VLAN) directly from IT hosts.

First, CISA determined it was possible to establish a connection via port 21 from a user workstation in the IT network to a system within the SCADA VLAN. The test established that a network path was available, the remote host was reachable, the port was open and listening for connections, and that the port was directly accessible between the IT and SCADA VLANs, with misconfigured network-level restrictions—for example, firewalls or access control lists (ACLs)—blocking the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection on the port. This test was conducted using a standard user account on a regular IT workstation without administrative privileges [T1078].

Second, CISA discovered that the customer did not have sufficient secured bastion hosts dedicated for accessing SCADA and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. A bastion host­—sometimes referred to as a jump box or jump server—is a specialized, highly secured system (often a server or dedicated workstation) that serves as the sole access point between a network segment (such as an internal IT network) and a protected internal network (like an OT or ICS environment). By inspecting and filtering all inbound and outbound traffic, a bastion host is designed to prevent unauthorized access and lateral movement, ensuring that only authenticated and authorized users can interact with internal systems. Though several hosts were designated as bastion hosts for remote access to SCADA and HVAC systems, they lacked the enhanced security configuration, dedicated monitoring, and specialized scrutiny expected of bastion hosts.

Potential Impact: Insufficient OT network segmentation configuration, network access control (NAC), and the ability of a non-privileged user within the IT network to use their credentials to access the critical SCADA VLAN [T1078] presents a security and safety risk. Given that SCADA and HVAC systems control physical processes, compromises of these systems can have real-world consequences, including risks to personnel safety, infrastructure integrity, and equipment functionality.

Malicious actors could further exploit potentially unsecured workstations with access to OT systems, and insufficient network segmentation configuration between IT and OT systems, in the following ways:

By exploiting these weaknesses, attackers can potentially gain unauthorized access to critical OT systems, manipulate physical processes, disrupt operations, and cause harm.

Insufficient Log Retention and Implementation

Details: CISA was unable to hunt for every MITRE ATT&CK® procedure in the scoped hunt plan partly because the organization’s event logging system was insufficient for this analysis. For example, Windows event logs from workstations were not being forwarded to the organization’s security information event management (SIEM), verbose command line auditing was not enabled (meaning command line arguments were not being captured in Event ID 4688), logging in the SIEM was not as comprehensive as required for the analysis, and log retention did not allow for a thorough analysis of historical activity.

Potential Impact: The absence of comprehensive and detailed logs, along with a lack of an established baseline for normal network behavior, prevented CISA from performing thorough behavior and anomaly-based detection. This limitation hindered the ability to hunt for certain TTPs, such as living-off-the-land techniques, the use of valid accounts [T1078], and other TTPs used by sophisticated threat actors. Such techniques often do not produce discrete indicators of compromise or trigger alerts from antivirus software, intrusion detection systems (IDS), or endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions. Further, the lack of workstation logs in the organization’s SIEM meant CISA could not analyze authentication events to identify anomalous activities, such as unauthorized access using local administrator credentials. This gap exposes networks to undetected lateral movement and unauthorized access.

Insufficient logging can prevent the detection of malicious activity by hindering investigations, which makes detection of threat actors more challenging and leaves the network susceptible to undetected threats.

Additional Findings

Misconfigured sslFlags on a Production Server

Details: CISA used PowerShell to examine the ApplicationHost.config file[1]—a central configuration file for Internet Information Services (IIS) that governs the behavior of the web server and its applications and websites—on a production IIS server. CISA observed an HTTPS binding configured with sslFlags==“0”, which keeps IIS in its legacy “one-certificate-per-IP” mode. This mode disables modern certificate-management features, and because mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS) (client-certificate authentication) must be enabled separately in “SSL Settings” or by adding <access sslFlags=“Ssl, SslRequireCert” />, the binding leaves the client-certificate enforcement off by default, allowing any TLS client to complete the handshake anonymously. Moreover, sslFlags does not control protocol or cipher selection, so outdated protocols or weak cipher suites (e.g., SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0/1.1) may still be accepted unless Secure Channel (Schannel)[2] has been explicitly hardened.

Potential Impact: The misconfigured sslFlags could enable threat actors to attempt an adversary-in-the-middle attack [T1557] to intercept credentials and data transmitted between clients and the IIS server. Malicious actors could also exploit vulnerabilities in older Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/TLS protocols, as well as weak cipher suites, increasing the risk for protocol downgrade attacks in which an attacker forces the server and client to negotiate the use of weaker encryption standards [T1562.010]. This compromises the confidentiality and integrity of data transmitted over this channel. Furthermore, the absence of client certificate enforcement meant the server did not validate the identity of the connecting clients beyond the basic SSL/TLS handshake. This deficiency exposed the server to risks where unauthorized or malicious clients could impersonate legitimate users, potentially gaining access to sensitive resources without proper verification.

Misconfigured Structured Query Language Connections on a Production Server

Details: CISA reviewed machine.config file on a production server and identified that it was configured with a centralized database connection string, LocalSqlServer, for both profile and role providers. This configuration implies that, unless overridden in each application’s web.config files, every ASP.NET site on the server connects to the same Structured Query Language (SQL) Express or aspnetdb database and shares the same credentials context.

Additionally, CISA identified that the machine.config file set the minRequiredPasswordLength to be less than 15 characters, which is CISA’s recommended password length.

Potential Impact: Using a centralized database approach increases risk, as a single breach or misconfiguration in this central SQL database server can compromise all applications dependent on the server. This creates a single point of failure and could be exploited by attackers aiming to gain broad access to the system.

Additionally, setting the minimum password length to any password under 15 characters is more vulnerable to various forms of brute-force attacks, such as password guessing [T1110.001], cracking [T1110.002], spraying [T1110.003], and credential stuffing [T1110.004]. If a threat actor successfully cracked these weak passwords, they could gain unauthorized access to user or application accounts and leverage vulnerabilities within applications to further escalate privileges, potentially leading to unauthorized access to the backend SQL Server databases. This could result in data breaches, data manipulation, or a loss of database integrity.

Mitigations

CISA and USCG recommend that critical infrastructure organizations implement the mitigations below to improve their organization’s cybersecurity posture. Recommendations to reduce cyber risk are listed for each of CISA’s findings during this engagement and are ordered starting from the highest to lowest importance for organizations to implement. CISA and USCG also include general practices to strengthen cybersecurity for OT environments that are not tied to specific findings.

These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals jointly developed by CISA and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful TTPs. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information.

Many of these mitigations also align with recommendations made by CGCYBER in their 2024 CTIME report. The report provides relevant information and lessons learned about cybersecurity risks gathered through operations similar to this threat hunt engagement, and best practices to mitigate these risks. Please see the 2024 CTIME report for additional recommendations for critical infrastructure organizations to implement to harden their environments against malicious activity.

Implement Unique Credentials and Access Control Measures for Administrator Accounts

Securely Store and Manage Credentials

Establish Network Segmentation Between IT and OT Environments

Prevent Unauthorized Access via Port 21

Establish Secure Bastion Hosts for OT Network Access

Implement Comprehensive Logging, Log Retention, and Analysis

For additional guidance on logging, see joint guidance Best Practices for Event Logging and Threat Detection.

Securely Configure HTTPS Bindings and LocalSqlServer Connection String

Enforce Strong Password Policies

Additional Mitigation Recommendations to Strengthen Cybersecurity

CISA and USCG recommend critical infrastructure organizations implement the following additional mitigations (not tied to specific findings from the engagement) to improve the cybersecurity of their IT and OT environments:

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, CISA and USCG recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. CISA and USCG recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To get started:

  1. Select an ATT&CK technique described in this advisory (see Table 1 to Table 9).
  2. Align your security technologies against the technique.
  3. Test your technologies against the technique.
  4. Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.
  5. Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.
  6. Tune your security program—including people, processes, and technologies—based on the data generated by this process.

CISA and USCG recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.

Contact Information

Critical infrastructure organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to:

Additional Resources

For more information on improving cyber hygiene for critical infrastructure IT and OT environments, please see the following additional resources authored by CISA, CGCYBER, and international partners:

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and USCG do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA and USCG.

Version History

July 31, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix: MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 1 to Table 9 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 1: Initial Access
Technique Title ID Use
Valid Accounts T1078 Malicious actors could use access to valid accounts for access to IT and OT networks.
Valid Accounts: Local Accounts T1078.003 Threat actors could use credentials obtained for local administrator accounts to gain administrator access to workstations or services that use the account.
Account Manipulation T1098 Malicious actors could modify existing accounts or create new accounts to maintain access or escalate privileges. 
Table 2: Execution
Technique Title ID Use
Command and Scripting Interpreter  T1059 Malicious actors could use script interpreters like PowerShell to execute commands and scripts. 
Table 3: Persistence
Technique Title ID Use
Boot or Autostart Execution T1547 Malicious actors could configure autostart execution paths to ensure persistence.
Hijack Execution Flow T1574 Malicious actors could hijack the execution flow of applications and inject malicious code.
Table 4: Privilege Escalation
Technique Title ID Use
Domain or Tenant Policy Modification T1484 Malicious actors could modify domain policies to escalate privileges or evade defenses.
Table 5: Defense Evasion
Technique Title ID Use
Modify Registry T1112 Malicious actors could install malicious browser extensions on compromised systems.
Impair Defenses: Downgrade Attack T1562.010 Malicious actors could exploit vulnerabilities in older systems to force a downgrade to a less secure mode of operation.
Table 6: Credential Access
Technique Title ID Use
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in Files T1552.001 Malicious actors could search for and exploit credentials stored in unsecured files. 
OS Credential Dumping T1003 Malicious actors could extract credentials from memory or storage from unsecured workstations.
Adversary-in-the-Middle T1557 Malicious actors could position themselves between networked devices to intercept credentials and other data. 
Brute Force: Password Guessing T1110.001 Malicious actors could systematically guess possible passwords.
Brute Force: Password Cracking T1110.002 Malicious actors could recover plaintext credentials after obtaining password hashes or other similar credential material.
Brute Force: Password Spraying T1110.003 Malicious actors could attempt to use a common password against different accounts to try to obtain account access. 
Brute Force: Credential Stuffing T1110.004 Malicious actors could try to use credentials gained from an unrelated account to gain access to a desired account in the victim’s environment. 
Table 7: Discovery
Technique Title ID Use
System Network Connections Discovery T1049 Malicious actors could map network connections to identify paths to OT systems from an unsecured IT workstation with access to the OT network. 
System Network Configuration Discovery T1016 Malicious actors could use an unsecured workstation to discover network configurations.
Table 8: Lateral Movement
Technique Title ID Use
Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol T1021.001 Malicious actors could use valid credentials to establish an RDP connection to access a workstation. 
Remote Services: SSH T1021.004 Malicious actors could use valid accounts to establish an SSH connection to a workstation.
Table 9: Command and Control
Technique Title ID Use
Application Layer Protocol T1071 Malicious actors could use application layer protocols to communicate with systems they compromised while blending in with existing network traffic. 

[1] While CISA used PowerShell to review these configuration settings, they can also be identified by running a search in any text editor.
[2] For more information, see Schannel – Microsoft Learn.
[3] Reference the Purdue Model for ICS Security as a guide for layered security zones and assess compliance with IEC 62443 network and system security standards; organizations may use this version of the model developed by Department of Energy (DOE) as a guide: Purdue Model Framework for Industrial Control Systems & Cybersecurity Segmentation.