Mobility APT Threat Intelligence — Index

Mobility APT Threat Intelligence

BLUF. Public reporting shows that sophisticated actors usually enter an operator through ordinary enterprise, edge, vendor, or management systems and then move toward telecom-specific assets. In this lab, the most plausible post-entry paths terminate at the Docker host, unauthenticated 5G SBI, MongoDB subscriber store, Diameter trust links, or privileged packet-plane containers—not at a fictional “5G exploit.”

Reading order

  1. Documented campaigns — what authoritative sources actually observed, including filenames and applications.
  2. Attack surfaces and inspection files — operator-layer attack vectors and evidence to collect.
  3. Local lab exposure map — exact repository files, observed conditions, and likely attack locations.
  4. Defensive validation backlog — safe, non-destructive checks to close the largest gaps.
  5. Source ledger — primary or authoritative sources and the claims each supports.

Evidence labels

Label Meaning Permitted language
D — Documented The cited source reports the actor or incident performing the action. “Observed,” “used,” or “compromised.”
A — Architectural A standard or authoritative guide establishes the trust boundary or security requirement; no actor use is asserted. “Could,” “exposes,” or “requires.”
L — Lab observed The named file or running lab demonstrates the condition locally. “Configured,” “present,” or “reachable in the lab.”
U — Unverified Vendor/user report or hypothesis has not been reproduced or assigned a CVE. “Reported,” “requires reproduction”; never “vulnerable” without qualification.

Attack-path model

Internet / vendor / registrar / UE
             |
             v
 edge appliance, DNS, support, CI/CD, or management identity
             |
             v
 operator management plane / Docker host / OSS-BSS
        |             |              |
        v             v              v
  5G SBI/NRF      subscriber DB    RAN/core config
        |             |              |
        +-------> policy and session state <------+
                           |
                           v
                 PFCP / GTP-U packet plane

The public evidence is strongest on the left side of this diagram: routers, DNS, Linux servers, Windows/IIS estates, privileged identities, and trusted inter-operator systems. The local lab gives us safe coverage of the right side after an attacker has obtained network or host access.

Scope guardrails

Fast answer: where could activity happen here?

Priority Local location Why it matters
P0 Docker host and lab/core/docker-compose.yml Compromise reaches every NF, test secret, virtual network, and privileged packet-plane container.
P0 NRF and the cleartext SBI on TCP/7777 The lab already demonstrates NF registration without authorization; Open5GS 2.7.6 is also in the affected range for CVE-2025-41067.
P0 MongoDB at 10.74.0.2 The compose URI has no credentials; access exposes or changes subscriber authentication and policy data.
P1 UPF/SGWU containers and N3/S1-U Privileged/root packet-plane services are a high-impact bridge from session control to user traffic.
P1 freeDiameter peers on TCP/3868 The checked-in peers explicitly use No_TLS; a foothold inside the Docker network inherits that trust.
P1 UERANSIM UE/gNB configuration Static lab K/OP and null SUCI protection make identity and authentication material observable to a host/repository compromise.
P2 srsRAN NSA/SA configuration Relevant for configuration integrity and handover/control-plane study; it is not a production RAN or a complete NSA data-plane target.