Revil Registry Entry

SPLUNK detection rule by Steven Dick, Teoderick Contreras, Splunk · Apache-2.0

The following analytic identifies suspicious modifications in the registry entry, specifically targeting paths used by malware like REVIL. It detects changes in registry paths such as `SOFTWARE\\WOW6432Node\\Facebook_Assistant` and `SOFTWARE\\WOW6432Node\\BlackLivesMatter`. This detection leverages data from Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) agents, focusing on registry modifications linked to process GUIDs. This activity is significant as it indicates potential malware persistence mechanisms, often used by advanced persistent threats (APTs) and ransomware. If confirmed malicious, this could allow attackers to maintain persistence, encrypt files, and store critical ransomware-related information on compromised hosts.

name: Revil Registry Entry
id: e3d3f57a-c381-11eb-9e35-acde48001122
version: 13
creation_date: '2021-06-04'
modification_date: '2026-05-13'
author: Steven Dick, Teoderick Contreras, Splunk
status: production
type: TTP
description: The following analytic identifies suspicious modifications in the registry entry, specifically targeting paths used by malware like REVIL. It detects changes in registry paths such as `SOFTWARE\\WOW6432Node\\Facebook_Assistant` and `SOFTWARE\\WOW6432Node\\BlackLivesMatter`. This detection leverages data from Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) agents, focusing on registry modifications linked to process GUIDs. This activity is significant as it indicates potential malware persistence mechanisms, often used by advanced persistent threats (APTs) and ransomware. If confirmed malicious, this could allow attackers to maintain persistence, encrypt files, and store critical ransomware-related information on compromised hosts.
data_source:
    - Sysmon EventID 12
    - Sysmon EventID 13
search: '| tstats `security_content_summariesonly` count FROM datamodel=Endpoint.Registry WHERE (Registry.registry_path="*\\SOFTWARE\\WOW6432Node\\Facebook_Assistant\\*" OR Registry.registry_path="*\\SOFTWARE\\WOW6432Node\\BlackLivesMatter*") by Registry.action Registry.dest Registry.process_guid Registry.process_id Registry.registry_hive Registry.registry_path Registry.registry_key_name Registry.registry_value_data Registry.registry_value_name Registry.registry_value_type Registry.status Registry.user Registry.vendor_product | `drop_dm_object_name(Registry)` | `security_content_ctime(firstTime)` | `security_content_ctime(lastTime)` | `revil_registry_entry_filter`'
how_to_implement: The detection is based on data that originates from Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) agents. These agents are designed to provide security-related telemetry from the endpoints where the agent is installed. To implement this search, you must ingest logs that contain the process GUID, process name, and parent process. Additionally, you must ingest complete command-line executions. These logs must be processed using the appropriate Splunk Technology Add-ons that are specific to the EDR product. The logs must also be mapped to the `Processes` node of the `Endpoint` data model. Use the Splunk Common Information Model (CIM) to normalize the field names and speed up the data modeling process.
known_false_positives: No false positives have been identified at this time.
references:
    - https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/05/a-closer-look-at-the-darkside-ransomware-gang/
    - https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/other-blogs/mcafee-labs/mcafee-atr-analyzes-sodinokibi-aka-revil-ransomware-as-a-service-what-the-code-tells-us/
drilldown_searches:
    - name: View the detection results for - "$dest$" and "$user$"
      search: '%original_detection_search% | search  dest = "$dest$" user = "$user$"'
      earliest_offset: $info_min_time$
      latest_offset: $info_max_time$
    - name: View risk events for the last 7 days for - "$dest$" and "$user$"
      search: '| from datamodel Risk.All_Risk | search normalized_risk_object IN ("$dest$", "$user$") | stats count min(_time) as firstTime max(_time) as lastTime values(search_name) as "Search Name" values(risk_message) as "Risk Message" values(analyticstories) as "Analytic Stories" values(annotations._all) as "Annotations" values(annotations.mitre_attack.mitre_tactic) as "ATT&CK Tactics" by normalized_risk_object | `security_content_ctime(firstTime)` | `security_content_ctime(lastTime)`'
      earliest_offset: 7d
      latest_offset: "0"
finding:
    title: A registry entry $registry_path$ with registry value $registry_value_name$ and $registry_value_name$ related to revil ransomware in host $dest$
    entity:
        field: user
        type: user
        score: 50
intermediate_findings:
    entities:
        - field: dest
          type: system
          score: 50
          message: A registry entry $registry_path$ with registry value $registry_value_name$ and $registry_value_name$ related to revil ransomware in host $dest$
analytic_story:
    - Ransomware
    - Revil Ransomware
    - Windows Registry Abuse
asset_type: Endpoint
mitre_attack_id:
    - T1112
product:
    - Splunk Enterprise
    - Splunk Enterprise Security
    - Splunk Cloud
category: endpoint
security_domain: endpoint
tests:
    - name: True Positive Test
      attack_data:
        - data: https://media.githubusercontent.com/media/splunk/attack_data/master/datasets/malware/revil/inf1/windows-sysmon.log
          source: XmlWinEventLog:Microsoft-Windows-Sysmon/Operational
          sourcetype: XmlWinEventLog
      test_type: unit

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

1ad3ab02-9dbf-4056-9e64-0f899be00839

Propose edits, view related rules, and engage with the community through comments.

Executable code, not a declarative rule

This submission is arbitrary [[ currentRule.format ? currentRule.format.toUpperCase() : '' ]] code, not a declarative detection rule — review it as you would any script before running it, and note that it cannot be safely aggregated or auto-executed alongside YARA/Sigma/Suricata/CRS rules.

Rejected pattern present

[[ reason ]]

What does this mean?

Format & documentation suggestions

Not a security issue — this rule is valid and was accepted as-is. These are optional fields/conventions its own format recommends, mainly affecting its quality score and how well it documents itself for other reviewers.

[[ reason ]]

What do these messages mean?

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

[[ currentRule.title ]]

Community Discussion