Back to evidence

Sanitized live incident

Reconnaissance

Native source identity and targetable endpoints are private.

mediumopen
Confidence
92%
First seen
Aug 20, 8:24:34 PM PDT
Evidence through
Aug 20, 9:05:17 PM PDT
AI status
Complete
Likely true positive89% confidence

The evidence strongly supports the detector's reconnaissance finding: one derived source cluster generated a concentrated, unauthenticated pattern that the incident aggregates as 64 requests spanning 57 unique paths, three methods, and seven path categories in about 97 seconds. Bounded HTTP examples corroborate probing across root, other, and API categories, with mixed 200, 401, and 404 responses. This is consistent with automated application-surface enumeration. The verdict is “likely” rather than definitive because network evidence does not establish whether the activity was authorized security testing or benign inventory work. HTTP status codes do not establish exploitation, and the incident cites no process or flow evidence with which to assess execution or outbound consequences.

Attack stage
Reconnaissance / application route and HTTP method discovery
Model
gpt-5.6-sol · 7 evidence calls

Observed impact

  • The activity could provide an operator with information about reachable, protected, and nonexistent application surfaces for follow-on targeting.
  • No confirmed execution, persistence, lateral movement, command-and-control, or data theft is established by the available cited evidence.

Deterministic signals

Http.surface enumeration92%

Broad unauthenticated route and HTTP method enumeration observed

417 observations · 12 http

Explicit uncertainty

  • Authorization and intent are unknown. The behavior could be an unauthorized scanner, an approved security test, or benign inventory automation.
  • The source key is a traffic/workload cluster, not a guaranteed identity; it may represent a proxy, NAT gateway, or multiple workers.
  • The incident cites only HTTP evidence. Process and flow lookups using the cited HTTP IDs were unavailable because those IDs are not cited process/flow events, so execution and outbound-network consequences cannot be independently assessed.
  • Bounded summaries omit exact paths and raw response bodies, so the sensitivity of any status-200 resource and whether useful information was disclosed are not established.
  • The signal aggregates 64 requests, while only 12 immutable HTTP event references are exposed in this incident update as representative evidence.

Recommended actions

  1. Determine whether the source cluster corresponds to an approved scanner, monitoring system, or inventory job before blocking or escalating.
  2. Review gateway and application logs for the full 64-request window and identify which status-200 routes were reached, while handling request-derived fields as untrusted data.
  3. If the activity is unauthorized, apply proportionate rate limiting or temporary source controls and reduce unnecessary unauthenticated route exposure.
  4. Monitor the target and source cluster for follow-on authentication attempts, exploit payloads, unusual process activity, or outbound connections; escalate only if additional evidence establishes consequences.
  5. Preserve the cited HTTP records and correlate them with workload telemetry for the same window if process and flow data become available.