Back to evidence

Sanitized live incident

Suspicious activity

Native source identity and targetable endpoints are private.

criticalopen
Confidence
99%
First seen
Aug 26, 9:17:45 PM PDT
Evidence through
Aug 26, 9:22:59 PM PDT
AI status
Complete
Indeterminate90% confidence

Process telemetry verifies that an event-driven `dash` shell was executed as root in the protected workload, then exited successfully about 11.6 ms later (process evidence [redacted] and [redacted]). This supports the detector's shell-spawn consequence, but it does not establish malicious exploitation. No cited HTTP or flow evidence was available to identify an originating request, actor, network consequence, or external destination. The very short, zero-exit lifecycle is compatible with both a successful one-shot command and legitimate workload activity; command arguments and parent identity are not exposed in the bounded evidence. Therefore maliciousness cannot be determined from the available evidence.

Attack stage
Execution observed; initiating action and malicious intent undetermined
Model
gpt-5.6-sol · 5 evidence calls

Observed impact

  • A root-level `dash` shell process executed briefly inside the protected workload (process evidence [redacted]).
  • The observed shell exited with a zero outcome shortly after execution (process evidence [redacted]); no further consequence is established.

Deterministic signals

Process.observed shell spawn99%

An event-driven shell execution was observed in a protected workload without correlated HTTP evidence

2 observations · 2 process
Process.correlated exit99%

A previously correlated process lifecycle exited

2 observations · 2 process

Explicit uncertainty

  • No HTTP evidence reference is cited by the incident, so an originating request, route, response, or remote actor cannot be determined.
  • No flow evidence reference is cited by the incident, so outbound connectivity or a request-to-socket relationship cannot be assessed.
  • The bounded process summary does not expose command arguments, environment, parent executable identity, or application context needed to distinguish expected processor behavior from abuse.
  • The zero exit outcome establishes process completion, not whether any invoked action was benign or malicious.
  • The source key represents a workload cluster and must not be treated as a human or remote-agent identity.
  • No evidence establishes persistence, host escape, lateral movement, command-and-control, or data theft.

Recommended actions

  1. Identify PPID 2212455 and review its trusted workload role and surrounding application/audit logs for the execution window.
  2. Compare this `dash` invocation with the processor workload's approved startup, job-processing, health-check, and administrative behavior.
  3. Retrieve command-line and ancestry telemetry, if retained, and determine whether PID 3862479 performed expected one-shot work.
  4. Review network and workload telemetry around 2026-08-27T04[redacted]45Z for corroborating activity without assuming causal linkage.
  5. If root shell invocation is not expected for this workload, isolate or restrict the workload according to local response policy and preserve relevant telemetry for deeper analysis.
  6. Reduce unnecessary root execution and shell availability in the workload where operationally feasible.