<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: senturkselim</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by senturkselim (@senturkselim).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/senturkselim</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/senturkselim"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>Building 646 Suricata Rules to Detect AI Agent Threats: OpenClaw Security with CGTI Lite</title>
      <dc:creator>senturkselim</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/senturkselim/building-646-suricata-rules-to-detect-ai-agent-threats-openclaw-security-with-cgti-lite-41md</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/senturkselim/building-646-suricata-rules-to-detect-ai-agent-threats-openclaw-security-with-cgti-lite-41md</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fsuaijgs2k3rys6ibqz4m.png" class="article-body-image-wrapper"&gt;&lt;img src="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fsuaijgs2k3rys6ibqz4m.png" alt=" " width="800" height="444"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;# Building 646 Suricata Rules to Detect AI Agent Threats: OpenClaw Security with CGTI Lite&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Between January and March 2026, the OpenClaw AI agent ecosystem faced a wave of targeted attacks that existing security tools weren't equipped to handle. The ClawHavoc campaign distributed 1,184+ malicious skills through ClawHub. GhostClaw RAT spread via typosquatted npm packages. AMOS Stealer harvested macOS credentials. 135,000+ OpenClaw instances were found exposed on the public internet with zero authentication. 25 CVEs were disclosed, with CVSS scores reaching 9.9.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I looked for Suricata rules covering these threats. MCP protocol exploitation, WebSocket gateway attacks, AI skill supply-chain poisoning — none of it was covered by ET Open, ET Pro, or any community ruleset I could find.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So I built CGTI Lite for OpenClaw — 646 hand-crafted Suricata detection rules across 13 specialized categories, plus a cross-platform management tool. This post explains the detection engineering behind it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;GitHub: &lt;a href="https://github.com/Senturkselim/CGTI-for-OpenClaw" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://github.com/Senturkselim/CGTI-for-OpenClaw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The Threat Landscape
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Here's what CGTI Lite detects, mapped to the actual campaigns:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="table-wrapper-paragraph"&gt;&lt;table&gt;
&lt;thead&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;th&gt;Threat&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;th&gt;What It Does&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;th&gt;CGTI Detection Method&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ClawHavoc&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;1,184+ malicious ClawHub skills distributing infostealers&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;C2 IPs, domains, skill download patterns, DNS queries&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GhostClaw/GhostLoader&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;RAT via typosquatted npm packages, exfil to GoFile.io&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;TLS/HTTP C2 to trackpipe.dev, bootstrap payload URI, npm package detection&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AMOS Stealer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;macOS infostealer targeting openclaw.json, crypto wallets&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;TLS C2 (91.92.242.0/24), HTTP exfil patterns, BuildID header&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vidar 2.0&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Credential store theft from ~/.openclaw/&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;JA3 fingerprint, TLS cert anomalies&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GhostSocks&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Proxy malware turning hosts into SOCKS proxies&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Default cert CN, Stealth Packer indicators&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25 CVEs&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;RCE, sandbox escape, command injection&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Full kill-chain signatures per CVE&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Rule Design: Why Two Indicators Minimum
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Every CGTI rule requires at least two independent content matches. No rule fires on a single &lt;code&gt;content:&lt;/code&gt; string alone. Here's why — and how it looks in practice.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bad rule (single indicator, high FP risk):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;alert http any any -&amp;gt; any any (
  msg:"Suspicious download";
  content:"download"; http.uri;
  sid:9999999; rev:1;
)
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;This fires on literally any HTTP request with "download" in the URI.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CGTI approach (dual indicator):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;alert tls $HOME_NET any -&amp;gt; $EXTERNAL_NET any (
  msg:"CGTI-OC GHOSTCLAW - TLS Connection to trackpipe.dev C2 Panel";
  flow:to_server,established;
  tls.sni; content:"trackpipe.dev"; nocase; isdataat:!1,relative;
  classtype:trojan-activity; priority:1;
  reference:url,research.jfrog.com/post/ghostclaw-unmasked/;
  sid:9200124; rev:1;
  metadata:malware_family GhostClaw, mitre_attack T1071.001,
           signature_severity Critical, false_positive Zero;
)
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;This combines &lt;code&gt;tls.sni&lt;/code&gt; match + &lt;code&gt;isdataat:!1,relative&lt;/code&gt; (exact domain, not substring) + &lt;code&gt;flow:to_server,established&lt;/code&gt; (only outbound TLS handshakes). The false positive rate on a known C2 domain is effectively zero.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Three Confidence Layers
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Rules are organized into detection confidence tiers:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer 1 — High Confidence (priority 1):&lt;/strong&gt; Known C2 IPs and domains, CVE-specific exploit signatures, JA3/JARM fingerprints. These are indicators derived directly from published threat research (JFrog, Huntress, DepthFirst Security, etc.). Near-zero false positive rate.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer 2 — Medium Confidence (priority 2):&lt;/strong&gt; Behavioral patterns like data exfiltration to paste sites, unusual WebSocket commands, HTTP requests matching supply-chain attack patterns. These use threshold-based detection and require protocol-specific scoping.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Layer 3 — Low Confidence (priority 3):&lt;/strong&gt; Heuristic rules like scanner detection, broad IP geolocation lookups, generic curl-to-shell patterns. Informational — meant to be tuned per deployment.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Detecting a 5-Phase CVE Kill Chain
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;CVE-2026-25253 (CVSS 8.8) enables 1-click RCE through gatewayUrl token exfiltration. The attack has 5 distinct phases, and CGTI has detection rules for each:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Phase 1 — Token exfiltration via gatewayUrl:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;alert http $HOME_NET any -&amp;gt; $EXTERNAL_NET any (
  msg:"CGTI-OC CVE-2026-25253 Phase-1 gatewayUrl Token Exfil";
  flow:established,to_server;
  http.uri; content:"gatewayUrl=";
  http.uri; content:"token="; distance:0;
  classtype:trojan-activity; priority:1;
  reference:cve,2026-25253;
  sid:9200801; rev:1;
)
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;Detecting each phase individually means even if the attacker modifies one step, the other phases still trigger alerts. Defense in depth at the rule level.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The DNS Blocking Problem (And How I Solved It)
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is the most technically interesting part of the project.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;When Suricata fires a DNS alert (e.g., "host queried trackpipe.dev"), the destination IP in the EVE log is your DNS resolver — typically &lt;code&gt;8.8.8.8&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;1.1.1.1&lt;/code&gt;. If your autoblock system naively blocks the destination IP from the alert, it blocks your DNS server. Your entire internet breaks.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;CGTI's Enhanced Autoblock handles this differently:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Detect that the alert is DNS traffic (port 53)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Extract the queried domain from the alert signature text&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Resolve that domain via system DNS to get the actual IP(s)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Block the resolved IPs (the real C2 server), not the DNS resolver&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Apply RFC1918/CGNAT/loopback protection — never block private IPs&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Auto-whitelist configured DNS servers&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So a DNS alert for &lt;code&gt;trackpipe.dev&lt;/code&gt; results in blocking the actual GhostClaw C2 infrastructure IP, not your DNS resolver. Bidirectional — both INPUT and OUTPUT firewall rules are created.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  False Positive Management
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;16 rules are shipped disabled by default. Each has a &lt;code&gt;# DISABLED-FP:&lt;/code&gt; comment explaining exactly why:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;SID:9200872&lt;/strong&gt; — Python REPL detection. Disabled because REPL is a core OpenClaw feature. Re-enable if you don't use the Python REPL.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;SID:9202610&lt;/strong&gt; — MCP &lt;code&gt;tools/call + exec&lt;/code&gt;. Matches legitimate tools like &lt;code&gt;execute_query&lt;/code&gt;. Re-enable if you don't use any MCP tool with "exec" in its name.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;SID:9201070&lt;/strong&gt; — &lt;code&gt;registry.npmjs.org&lt;/code&gt; DNS. Fires on every &lt;code&gt;npm install&lt;/code&gt;. Re-enable if your OpenClaw host never runs npm.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The README includes a full tuning guide organized by use case: Discord/Slack integrations, Telegram bots, crypto trading, MCP filesystem tools, etc.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  IPS Mode on Linux: Avoiding the Fork Race
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A technical detail that took significant debugging: Suricata's &lt;code&gt;-D&lt;/code&gt; (daemon) flag causes a fork race condition with NFQUEUE binding on Linux. The forked child process tries to bind the NFQ queue before the parent fully exits, sometimes resulting in a failed bind.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;CGTI's solution: start Suricata with &lt;code&gt;subprocess.Popen&lt;/code&gt; + &lt;code&gt;os.setpgrp&lt;/code&gt; instead of using &lt;code&gt;-D&lt;/code&gt;. This keeps the process in the foreground from Python's perspective but fully detached from the parent process group. The NFQUEUE binding succeeds reliably.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The IPS flow:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Stop any existing Suricata instance (including Ubuntu's &lt;code&gt;suricata.service&lt;/code&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Convert alert rules to drop rules in-place (reverts on stop)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Auto-configure &lt;code&gt;nfq:&lt;/code&gt; section in suricata.yaml&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Set up &lt;code&gt;iptables -I&lt;/code&gt; NFQUEUE rules (with automatic rollback on failure)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Start Suricata with &lt;code&gt;-q 0&lt;/code&gt; via Popen&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Boot-Time Autostart: The Ubuntu Edge Case
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;On Ubuntu, installing Suricata via &lt;code&gt;apt&lt;/code&gt; also installs &lt;code&gt;suricata.service&lt;/code&gt;, which is enabled by default. At boot:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;code&gt;suricata.service&lt;/code&gt; starts Suricata in IDS mode (&lt;code&gt;--af-packet&lt;/code&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;code&gt;cgti-lite.service&lt;/code&gt; runs — but Suricata is already running&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If IPS mode is configured, CGTI detects this situation: Suricata is running but in IDS mode, not IPS. CGTI stops the IDS instance, then restarts Suricata in full NFQUEUE/IPS mode with iptables rules, drop rule conversion, and NFQ configuration.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This edge case took real-world testing on Ubuntu VMs to discover and fix properly.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Rule Coverage Summary
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;13 rule files, 646 active rules, SID range 9200001–9204419:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="table-wrapper-paragraph"&gt;&lt;table&gt;
&lt;thead&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;th&gt;Category&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;th&gt;Rules&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;th&gt;What It Catches&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/thead&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Infostealer C2&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;67&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;AMOS, Vidar, GhostClaw, GhostSocks, DigitStealer&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Reverse Shells&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;59&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;7 languages: bash, netcat, Python, Node.js, PowerShell, Go, Java&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;WebSocket Attacks&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;43&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;CVE-2026-25253 kill-chain, ClawJacked, log poisoning&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Malicious Skills&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;50&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Typosquatting, supply-chain, malicious install patterns&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Data Exfiltration&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;57&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Telegram, Discord, Slack, paste sites, cloud storage&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Gateway Exposure&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;42&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Scanner detection, exposed instances, lateral movement&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Cryptostealer&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;41&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Wallet theft, mining, seed phrases, exchange API keys&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;MCP Security&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;24&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;SSRF, tool injection, credential exfil&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;CVE Signatures&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;126&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;25 CVEs with full kill-chain coverage&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Threat Intel IOCs&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;83&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;Malicious publishers, known attacker infrastructure&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;DNS Threats&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;34&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;C2, rebinding, typosquatting domains&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;TLS Anomalies&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;20&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;MITM, JA3/JARM, self-signed cert detection&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Threat Intelligence Sources
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;All rules are built from published research — not generated or guessed:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;JFrog Security Research — GhostClaw/GhostLoader RAT campaign&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Huntress — AMOS Stealer analysis, GhostSocks campaign&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;DepthFirst Security — CVE-2026-25253 kill-chain discovery&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Koi Security — ClawHavoc campaign (1,184+ malicious skills)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Darktrace, Trend Micro, Ontinue — Vidar/AMOS distribution research&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Bitsight TRACE — 135K+ exposed instance scanning&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hunt.io — certificate analysis of 17,470+ instances&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;abuse.ch SSLBL — JA3 fingerprint database&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;MITRE ATT&amp;amp;CK — technique classification&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Every rule includes &lt;code&gt;reference:&lt;/code&gt; URLs pointing to the original research.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Getting Started
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rules only (any Suricata installation):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Copy the &lt;code&gt;rules/&lt;/code&gt; directory into your Suricata rules path and add them to &lt;code&gt;rule-files:&lt;/code&gt; in suricata.yaml. Done.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Full management tool:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;git clone https://github.com/Senturkselim/CGTI-for-OpenClaw.git
&lt;span class="nb"&gt;cd &lt;/span&gt;CGTI-for-OpenClaw
&lt;span class="nb"&gt;chmod&lt;/span&gt; +x install.sh &lt;span class="o"&gt;&amp;amp;&amp;amp;&lt;/span&gt; ./install.sh
cgti &lt;span class="nb"&gt;install
sudo &lt;/span&gt;cgti start
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;Works on Linux, macOS, and Windows. Single Python file, &lt;code&gt;rich&lt;/code&gt; as the only dependency.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  What's Next
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is the first community-facing release from the CloudGo Threat Intelligence (CGTI) project. The rules will be updated as new threats emerge and new CVEs are disclosed. FP reports and contributions are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you're running OpenClaw in production and want to test the rules against your traffic, I'd genuinely appreciate hearing about detection quality and false positive rates.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;GitHub: &lt;a href="https://github.com/Senturkselim/CGTI-for-OpenClaw" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://github.com/Senturkselim/CGTI-for-OpenClaw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
License: AGPL-3.0 — free forever.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>cybersecurity</category>
      <category>opensource</category>
      <category>openclaw</category>
      <category>ai</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
