August 22, 2022

Emotet Resurgence: Cross-Industry Analysis

Technical insights on the Emotet resurgence in 2022 across various client environments, industries, and regions.

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Eugene Chua

Cyber Security Analyst

Aug 2022

Introduction

Last year provided further evidence that the cyber threat landscape remains both complex and challenging to predict. Between uncertain attribution, novel exploits and rapid malware developments, it is becoming harder to know where to focus security efforts. One of the largest surprises of 2021 was the re-emergence of the infamous Emotet botnet. This is an example of a campaign that ignored industry verticals or regions and seemingly targeted companies indiscriminately. Only 10 months after the Emotet takedown by law enforcement agencies in January, new Emotet activities in November were discovered by security researchers. These continued into the first quarter of 2022, a period which this blog will explore through findings from the Darktrace Threat Intel Unit.

Dating back to 2019, Emotet was known to deliver Trickbot payloads which ultimately deployed Ryuk ransomware strains on compromised devices. This interconnectivity highlighted the hydra-like nature of threat groups wherein eliminating one (even with full-scale law enforcement intervention) would not rule them out as a threat nor indicate that the threat landscape would be any more secure.

When Emotet resurged, as expected, one of the initial infection vectors involved leveraging existing Trickbot infrastructure. However, unlike the original attacks, it featured a brand new phishing campaign.

Figure 1: Distribution of observed Emotet activities across Darktrace deployments

Although similar to the original Emotet infections, the new wave of infections has been classified into two categories: Epochs 4 and 5. These had several key differences compared to Epochs 1 to 3. Within Darktrace’s global deployments, Emotet compromises associated to Epoch 4 appeared to be the most prevalent. Affected customer environments were seen within a large range of countries (Figure 1) and industry verticals such as manufacturing and supply chain, hospitality and travel, public administration, technology and telecoms and healthcare. Company demographics and size did not appear to be a targeting factor as affected customers had varying employee counts ranging from less than 250, to over 5000.

Key differences between Epochs 1-3 vs 4-5

Based on wider security research into the innerworkings of the Emotet exploits, several key differences were identified between Epochs 4/5 and its predecessors. The newer epochs used:

· A different Microsoft document format (OLE vs XML-based).

· A different encryption algorithm for communication. The new epochs used Elliptic Curve Cryptograph (ECC) [1] with public encryption keys contained in the C2 configuration file [2]. This was different from the previous Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) key encryption method.

· Control Flow Flattening was used as an obfuscation technique to make detection and reverse engineering more difficult. This is done by hiding a program’s control flow [3].

· New C2 infrastructure was observed as C2 communications were directed to over 230 unique IPs all associated to the new Epochs 4 and 5.

In addition to the new Epoch 4 and 5 features, Darktrace detected unsurprising similarities in those deployments affected by the renewed campaign. This included self-signed SSL connections to Emotet’s new infrastructure as well as malware spam activities to multiple rare external endpoints. Preceding these outbound communications, devices across multiple deployments were detected downloading Emotet-associated payloads (algorithmically generated DLL files).

Emotet Resurgence Campaign

Figure 2: Darktrace’s Detection Timeline for Emotet Epoch 4 and 5 compromises

1. Initial Compromise

The initial point of entry for the resurgence activity was almost certainly via Trickbot infrastructure or a successful phishing attack (Figure 2). Following the initial intrusion, the malware strain begins to download payloads via macro-ladened files which are used to spawn PowerShell for subsequent malware downloads.

Following the downloads, malicious communication with Emotet’s C2 infrastructure was observed alongside activities from the spam module. Within Darktrace, key techniques were observed and documented below.

2. Establish Foothold: Binary Dynamic-link library (.dll) with algorithmically generated filenames

Emotet payloads are polymorphic and contain algorithmically generated filenames . Within deployments, HTTP GET requests involving a suspicious hostname, www[.]arkpp[.]com, and Emotet related samples such as those seen below were observed:

· hpixQfCoJb0fS1.dll (SHA256 hash: 859a41b911688b00e104e9c474fc7aaf7b1f2d6e885e8d7fbf11347bc2e21eaa)

· M0uZ6kd8hnzVUt2BNbRzRFjRoz08WFYfPj2.dll (SHA256 hash: 9fbd590cf65cbfb2b842d46d82e886e3acb5bfecfdb82afc22a5f95bda7dd804)

· TpipJHHy7P.dll (SHA256 hash: 40060259d583b8cf83336bc50cc7a7d9e0a4de22b9a04e62ddc6ca5dedd6754b)

These DLL files likely represent the distribution of Emotet loaders which depends on windows processes such as rundll32[.]exe and regsvr32[.]exe to execute.

3. Establish Foothold: Outbound SSL connections to Emotet C2 servers

A clear network indicator of compromise for Emotet’s C2 communication involved self-signed SSL using certificate issuers and subjects which matched ‘CN=example[.]com,OU=IT Department,O=Global Security,L=London,ST=London,C=GB’ , and a common JA3 client fingerprint (72a589da586844d7f0818ce684948eea). The primary C2 communications were seen involving infrastructures classified as Epoch 4 rather than 5. Despite encryption in the communication content, network contextual connection details were sufficient for the detection of the C2 activities (Figure 3).

Figure 3: UI Model Breach logs on download and outbound SSL activities.

Outbound SSL and SMTP connections on TCP ports 25, 465, 587

An anomalous user agent such as, ‘Microsoft Outlook 15.0’, was observed being used for SMTP connections with some subject lines of the outbound emails containing Base64-encoded strings. In addition, this JA3 client fingerprint (37cdab6ff1bd1c195bacb776c5213bf2) was commonly seen from the SSL connections. Based on the set of malware spam hostnames observed across at least 10 deployments, the majority of the TLDs were .jp, .com, .net, .mx, with the Japanese TLD being the most common (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Malware Spam TLDs observed in outbound SSL and SMTP

Plaintext spam content generated from the spam module were seen in PCAPs (Figure 5). Examples of clear phishing or spam indicators included 1) mismatched personal header and email headers, 2) unusual reply chain and recipient references in the subject line, and 3) suspicious compressed file attachments, e.g. Electronic form[.]zip.

Figure 5: Example of PCAP associated to SPAM Module

4. Accomplish Mission

The Emotet resurgence also showed through secondary compromises involving anomalous SMB drive writes related to CobaltStrike. This consistently included the following JA3 hash (72a589da586844d7f0818ce684948eea) seen in SSL activities as well as SMB writes involving the svchost.exe file.

Darktrace Detection

The key DETECT models used to identify Emotet Resurgence activities were focused on determining possible C2. These included:

· Suspicious SSL Activity

· Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

· Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Possible Outbound Spam

File-focused models were also beneficial and included:

· Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location

· EXE from Rare External Location

Darktrace’s detection capabilities can also be shown through a sample of case studies identified during the Threat Research team’s investigations.

Case Studies

Darktrace’s detection of Emotet activities was not limited by industry verticals or company sizing. Although there were many similar features seen across the new epoch, each incident displayed varying techniques from the campaign. This is shown in two client environments below:

When investigating a large customer environment within the public administration sector, 16 different devices were detected making 52,536 SSL connections with the example[.]com issuer. Devices associated with this issuer were mainly seen breaching the same Self-Signed and Spam DETECT models. Although anomalous incoming octet-streams were observed prior to this SSL, there was no clear relation between the downloads and the Emotet C2 connections. Despite the total affected devices occupying only a small portion of the total network, Darktrace analysts were able to filter against the much larger network ‘noise’ and locate detailed evidence of compromise to notify the customer.

Darktrace also identified new Emotet activities in much smaller customer environments. Looking at a company in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sector, from mid-March 2022 a single internal device was detected making an HTTP GET request to the host arkpp[.]com involving the algorithmically-generated DLL, TpipJHHy7P.dll with the SHA256 hash: 40060259d583b8cf83336bc50cc7a7d9e0a4de22b9a04e62ddc6ca5dedd6754b (Figure 6).

Figure 6: A screenshot from VirusTotal, showing that the SHA256 hash has been flagged as malicious by other security vendors.

After the sample was downloaded, the device contacted a large number of endpoints that had never been contacted by devices on the network. The endpoints were contacted over ports 443, 8080, and 7080 involving Emotet related IOCs and the same SSL certificate mentioned previously. Malware spam activities were also observed during a similar timeframe.

The Emotet case studies above demonstrate how autonomous detection of an anomalous sequence of activities - without depending on conventional rules and signatures - can reveal significant threat activities. Though possible staged payloads were only seen in a proportion of the affected environments, the following outbound C2 and malware spam activities involving many endpoints and ports were sufficient for the detection of Emotet.

If present, in both instances Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology, RESPOND, would recommend or implement surgical actions to precisely target activities associated with the staged payload downloads, outgoing C2 communications, and malware spam activities. Additionally, restriction to the devices’ normal pattern of life will prevent simultaneously occurring malicious activities while enabling the continuity of normal business operations.

Conclusion

· The technical differences between past and present Emotet strains emphasizes the versatility of malicious threat actors and the need for a security solution that is not reliant on signatures.

· Darktrace’s visibility and unique behavioral detection continues to provide visibility to network activities related to the novel Emotet strain without reliance on rules and signatures. Key examples include the C2 connections to new Emotet infrastructure.

· Looking ahead, detection of C2 establishment using suspicious DLLs will prevent further propagation of the Emotet strains across networks.

· Darktrace’s AI detection and response will outpace conventional post compromise research involving the analysis of Emotet strains through static and dynamic code analysis, followed by the implementation of rules and signatures.

Thanks to Paul Jennings and Hanah Darley for their contributions to this blog.

Appendices

Model breaches

· Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

· Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Possible Outbound Spam

· Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Anomalous Connection / Repeated Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Expired SSL

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

· Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)

· Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

· Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / New or Repeated to Unusual SSL Port

· Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days

· Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

· Compromise / Suspicious Spam Activity

· Compromise / Suspicious SSL Activity

· Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

· Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints

· Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

· Device / New User Agent

· Device / New User Agent and New IP

· Device / SMB Session Bruteforce

· Device / Suspicious Domain

· Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

‍

For Darktrace customers who want to know more about using Darktrace to triage Emotet, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

References

[1] https://blog.lumen.com/emotet-redux/

[2] https://blogs.vmware.com/security/2022/03/emotet-c2-configuration-extraction-and-analysis.html

[3] https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2022/05/04/attacking-emotets-control-flow-flattening/

Written by

Eugene Chua

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Eugene Chua

Cyber Security Analyst

Director of Product, Cloud Security

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

August 8, 2025

Ivanti Under Siege: Investigating the Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile Vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-4427 & CVE-2025-4428)

ivanti cve exploitation edge infrastructure

Ivanti & Edge infrastructure exploitation

Edge infrastructure exploitations continue to prevail in today’s cyber threat landscape; therefore, it was no surprise that recent Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) vulnerabilities CVE-2025-4427 and CVE-2025-4428 were exploited targeting organizations in critical sectors such as healthcare, telecommunications, and finance across the globe, including across the Darktrace customer base in May 2025.

Exploiting these types of vulnerabilities remains a popular choice for threat actors seeking to enter an organization’s network to perform malicious activity such as cyber espionage, data exfiltration and ransomware detonation.

Vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM

Ivanti EPMM allows organizations to manage and configure enterprise mobile devices. On May 13, 2025, Ivanti published a security advisory [1] for their Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) devices addressing a medium and high severity vulnerability:

CVE-2025-4427, CVSS: 5.6: An authentication bypass vulnerability
CVE-2025-4428, CVSS: 7.2: Remote code execution vulnerability

Successfully exploiting both vulnerabilities at the same time could lead to unauthenticated remote code execution from an unauthenticated threat actor, which could allow them to control, manipulate, and compromise managed devices on a network [2].

Shortly after the disclosure of these vulnerabilities, external researchers uncovered evidence that they were being actively exploited in the wild and identified multiple indicators of compromise (IoCs) related to post-exploitation activities for these vulnerabilities [2] [3]. Research drew particular attention to the infrastructure utilized in ongoing exploitation activity, such as leveraging the two vulnerabilities to eventually deliver malware contained within ELF files from Amazon Web Services (AWS) S3 bucket endpoints and to deliver KrustyLoader malware for persistence. KrustyLoader is a Rust based malware that was discovered being downloaded in compromised Ivanti Connect Secure systems back in January 2024 when the zero-day critical vulnerabilities; CVE-2024-21887 and CVE-2023-46805 [10].

This suggests the involvement of the threat actor UNC5221, a suspected China-nexus espionage actor [3].

In addition to exploring the post-exploit tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) observed for these vulnerabilities across Darktrace’s customer base, this blog will also examine the subtle changes and similarities in the exploitation of earlier Ivanti vulnerabilities—specifically Ivanti Connect Secure (CS) and Policy Secure (PS) vulnerabilities CVE-2023-46805 and CVE-2024-21887 in early 2024, as well as CVE-2025-0282 and CVE-2025-0283, which affected CS, PS, and Zero Trust Access (ZTA) in January 2025.

Darktrace Coverage

In May 2025, shortly after Ivanti disclosed vulnerabilities in their EPMM product, Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified attack patterns potentially linked to the exploitation of these vulnerabilities across multiple customer environments. The most noteworthy attack chain activity observed included exploit validation, payload delivery via AWS S3 bucket endpoints, subsequent delivery of script-based payloads, and connections to dpaste[.]com, possibly for dynamic payload retrieval. In a limited number of cases, connections were also made to an IP address associated with infrastructure linked to SAP NetWeaver vulnerability CVE-2025-31324, which has been investigated by Darktrace in an earlier case.

Exploit Validation

Darktrace observed devices within multiple customer environments making connections related to Out-of-Band Application Security Testing (OAST). These included a range of DNS requests and connections, most of which featured a user agent associated with the command-line tool cURL, directed toward associated endpoints. The hostnames of these endpoints consisted of a string of randomly generated characters followed by an OAST domain, such as 'oast[.]live', 'oast[.]pro', 'oast[.]fun', 'oast[.]site', 'oast[.]online', or 'oast[.]me'. OAST endpoints can be leveraged by malicious actors to trigger callbacks from targeted systems, such as for exploit validation. This activity, likely representing the initial phase of the attack chain observed across multiple environments, was also seen in the early stages of previous investigations into the exploitation of Ivanti vulnerabilities [4]. Darktrace also observed similar exploit validation activity during investigations conducted in January 2024 into the Ivanti CS vulnerabilities CVE-2023-46805 and CVE-2024-21887.

Payload Delivery via AWS

Devices across multiple customer environments were subsequently observed downloading malicious ELF files—often with randomly generated filenames such as 'NVGAoZDmEe'—from AWS S3 bucket endpoints like 's3[.]amazonaws[.]com'. These downloads occurred over HTTP connections, typically using wget or cURL user agents. Some of the ELF files were later identified to be KrustyLoader payloads using open-source intelligence (OSINT). External researchers have reported that the KrustyLoader malware is executed in cases of Ivanti EPMM exploitation to gain and maintain a foothold in target networks [2].

In one customer environment, after connections were made to the endpoint fconnect[.]s3[.]amazonaws[.]com, Darktrace observed the target system downloading the ELF file mnQDqysNrlg via the user agent Wget/1.14 (linux-gnu). Further investigation of the file’s SHA1 hash (1dec9191606f8fc86e4ae4fdf07f09822f8a94f2) linked it to the KrustyLoader malware [5]. In another customer environment, connections were instead made to tnegadge[.]s3[.]amazonaws[.]com using the same user agent, from which the ELF file “/dfuJ8t1uhG” was downloaded. This file was also linked to KrustyLoader through its SHA1 hash (c47abdb1651f9f6d96d34313872e68fb132f39f5) [6].

The pattern of activity observed so far closely mirrors previous exploits associated with the Ivanti vulnerabilities CVE-2023-46805 and CVE-2024-21887 [4]. As in those cases, Darktrace observed exploit validation using OAST domains and services, along with the use of AWS endpoints to deliver ELF file payloads. However, in this instance, the delivered payload was identified as KrustyLoader malware.

Later-stage script file payload delivery

In addition to the ELF file downloads, Darktrace also detected other file downloads across several customer environments, potentially representing the delivery of later-stage payloads.

The downloaded files included script files with the .sh extension, featuring randomly generated alphanumeric filenames. One such example is “4l4md4r.sh”, which was retrieved during a connection to the IP address 15.188.246[.]198 using a cURL-associated user agent. This IP address was also linked to infrastructure associated with the SAP NetWeaver remote code execution vulnerability CVE-2025-31324, which enables remote code execution on NetWeaver Visual Composer. External reporting has attributed this infrastructure to a China-nexus state actor [7][8][9].

In addition to the script file downloads, devices on some customer networks were also observed making connections to pastebin[.]com and dpaste[.]com, two sites commonly used to host or share malicious payloads or exploitation instructions [2]. Exploits, including those targeting Ivanti EPMM vulnerabilities, can dynamically fetch malicious commands from sites like dpaste[.]com, enabling threat actors to update payloads. Unlike the previously detailed activity, this behavior was not identified in any prior Darktrace investigations into Ivanti-related vulnerabilities, suggesting a potential shift in the tactics used in post-exploitation stages of Ivanti attacks.

Conclusion

Edge infrastructure vulnerabilities, such as those found in Ivanti EPMM and investigated across customer environments with Darktrace / NETWORK, have become a key tool in the arsenal of attackers in today’s threat landscape. As highlighted in this investigation, while many of the tactics employed by threat actors following successful exploitation of vulnerabilities remain the same, subtle shifts in their methods can also be seen.

These subtle and often overlooked changes enable threat actors to remain undetected within networks, highlighting the critical need for organizations to maintain continuous extended visibility, leverage anomaly based behavioral analysis, and deploy machine speed intervention across their environments.

Credit to Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Anna Gilbertson (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Appendices

Mid-High Confidence IoCs

(IoC – Type - Description)

- trkbucket.s3.amazonaws[.]com – Hostname – C2 endpoint

- trkbucket.s3.amazonaws[.]com/NVGAoZDmEe – URL – Payload

- tnegadge.s3.amazonaws[.]com – Hostname – C2 endpoint

- tnegadge.s3.amazonaws[.]com/dfuJ8t1uhG – URL – Payload

- c47abdb1651f9f6d96d34313872e68fb132f39f5 - SHA1 File Hash – Payload

- 4abfaeadcd5ab5f2c3acfac6454d1176 - MD5 File Hash - Payload

- fconnect.s3.amazonaws[.]com – Hostname – C2 endpoint

- fconnect.s3.amazonaws[.]com/mnQDqysNrlg – URL - Payload

- 15.188.246[.]198 – IP address – C2 endpoint

- 15.188.246[.]198/4l4md4r.sh?grep – URL – Payload

- 185.193.125[.]65 – IP address – C2 endpoint

- 185.193.125[.]65/c4qDsztEW6/TIGHT_UNIVERSITY – URL – C2 endpoint

- d8d6fe1a268374088fb6a5dc7e5cbb54 – MD5 File Hash – Payload

- 64.52.80[.]21 – IP address – C2 endpoint

- 0d8da2d1.digimg[.]store – Hostname – C2 endpoint

- 134.209.107[.]209 – IP address – C2 endpoint

Darktrace Model Detections

- Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

- Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

- Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

- Compliance / Pastebin

- Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

- Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device

- Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

- Anomalous File / Incoming ELF File

- Device / Suspicious Domain

- Device / New User Agent

- Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

- Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

- Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

- Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download

- Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

- Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

- Device / Attack and Recon Tools

- Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

- Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

- Device / Large Number of Model Alerts from Critical Network Device

References

1. https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/Security-Advisory-Ivanti-Endpoint-Manager-Mobile-EPMM?language=en_US

2. https://blog.eclecticiq.com/china-nexus-threat-actor-actively-exploiting-ivanti-endpoint-manager-mobile-cve-2025-4428-vulnerability

3. https://www.wiz.io/blog/ivanti-epmm-rce-vulnerability-chain-cve-2025-4427-cve-2025-4428

4. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/the-unknown-unknowns-post-exploitation-activities-of-ivanti-cs-ps-appliances

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/ac91c2c777c9e8638ec1628a199e396907fbb7dcf9c430ca712ec64a6f1fcbc9/community

6. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/f3e0147d359f217e2aa0a3060d166f12e68314da84a4ecb5cb205bd711c71998/community

7. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/15.188.246.198

8. https://blog.eclecticiq.com/china-nexus-nation-state-actors-exploit-sap-netweaver-cve-2025-31324-to-target-critical-infrastructures

9. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/tracking-cve-2025-31324-darktraces-detection-of-sap-netweaver-exploitation-before-and-after-disclosure

10. https://www.synacktiv.com/en/publications/krustyloader-rust-malware-linked-to-ivanti-connectsecure-compromises

_{The content provided in this blog is published by Darktrace for general informational purposes only and reflects our understanding of cybersecurity topics, trends, incidents, and developments at the time of publication. While we strive to ensure accuracy and relevance, the information is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Darktrace makes no guarantees regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information presented and expressly disclaims all warranties.}

_{Nothing in this blog constitutes legal, technical, or professional advice, and readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein.}

_{Any references to third-party organizations, technologies, threat actors, or incidents are for informational purposes only and do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or recommendation.}

_{Darktrace, its affiliates, employees, or agents shall not be held liable for any loss, damage, or harm arising from the use of or reliance on the information in this blog.}

_{The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content without notice.}

About the author

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Blog

Cloud

August 7, 2025

How CDR & Automated Forensics Transform Cloud Incident Response

cloud security investigation guy on computer doing work

Introduction: Cloud investigations

In cloud security, speed, automation and clarity are everything. However, for many SOC teams, responding to incidents in the cloud is often very difficult especially when attackers move fast, infrastructure is ephemeral, and forensic skills are scarce.

In this blog we will walk through an example that shows exactly how Darktrace Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) and automated cloud forensics together, solve these challenges, automating cloud detection, and deep forensic investigation in a way that’s fast, scalable, and deeply insightful.

The Problem: Cloud incidents are hard to investigate

Security teams often face three major hurdles when investigating cloud detections:

Lack of forensic expertise: Most SOCs and security teams aren’t natively staffed with forensics specialists.

Ephemeral infrastructure: Cloud assets spin up and down quickly, leaving little time to capture evidence.

Lack of existing automation: Gathering forensic-level data often requires manual effort and leaves teams scrambling around during incidents — accessing logs, snapshots, and system states before they disappear. This process is slow and often blocked by permissions, tooling gaps, or lack of visibility.

How Darktrace augments cloud investigations‍

1. Darktrace’s CDR finds anomalous activity in the cloud

An alert is generated for a large outbound data transfer from an externally facing EC2 instance to a rare external endpoint. It’s anomalous, unexpected, and potentially serious.

2. AI-led investigation stitches together the incident for a SOC analyst to look into

When a security incident unfolds, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst ^TM is the first to surface it, automatically correlating behaviors, surfacing anomalies, and presenting a cohesive incident summary. It’s fast, detailed, and invaluable.

Once the incident is created, more questions are raised.

How were the impacted resources compromised?
How did the attack unfold over time – what tools and malware were used?
What data was accessed and exfiltrated?

What you’ll see as a SOC analyst: The incident begins in Darktrace’s Threat Visualizer, where a Cyber AI Analyst incident has been generated automatically highlighting large anomalous data transfer to a suspicious external IP. This isn’t just another alert, it’s a high-fidelity signal backed by Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI.

Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst incident created for anomalous outbound data transfer

The analyst can then immediately pivot to Darktrace / CLOUD’s architecture view (see below), gaining context on the asset’s environment, ingress/egress points, connected systems, potential attack paths and whether there are any current misconfigurations detected on the asset.

Figure 2: Darktrace / CLOUD architecture view providing critical cloud context

3. Automated forensic capture — No expertise required

Then comes the game-changer, Darktrace’s recent acquisition of Cado enhances its cloud forensics capabilities. From the first alert triggered, Darktrace has already kicked in and automatically processed and analyzed a full volume capture of the EC2. Everything, past and present, is preserved. No need for manual snapshots, CLI commands, or specialist intervention.

Darktrace then provides a clear timeline highlighting the evidence and preserving it. In our example we identify:

A brute-force attempt on a file management app, followed by a successful login
A reverse shell used to gain unauthorized remote access to the EC2
A reverse TCP connection to the same suspicious IP flagged by Darktrace
Attacker commands showing how the data was split and prepared for exfiltration
A file (a.tar) created from two sensitive archives: product_plans.zip and research_data.zip

All of this is surfaced through the timeline view, ranked by significance using machine learning. The analyst can pivot through time, correlate events, and build a complete picture of the attack — without needing cloud forensics expertise.

Darktrace even gives the ability to:

Download and inspect gathered files in full detail, enabling teams to verify exactly what data was accessed or exfiltrated.
Interact with the file system as if it were live, allowing investigators to explore directories, uncover hidden artifacts, and understand attacker movement with precision.

Figure 3 Cado critical forensic investigation automated insights — Figure 3: Cado critical forensic investigation automated insights

Figure 4: Cado forensic file analysis of reverse shell and download option

Figure 5: a.tar created from two sensitive archives: product_plans.zip and research_data.zip

Figure 6: Traverse the full file system of the asset

Why this matters?

This workflow solves the hardest parts of cloud investigation:

Capturing evidence before it disappears
Understanding attacker behavior in detail - automatically
Linking detections to impact with full incident visibility

This kind of insight is invaluable for organizations especially regulated industries, where knowing exactly what data was affected is critical for compliance and reporting. It’s also a powerful tool for detecting insider threats, not just external attackers.

Darktrace / CLOUD and Cado together acts as a force multiplier helping with:

Reducing investigation time from hours to minutes
Preserving ephemeral evidence automatically
Empowering analysts with forensic-level visibility

Cloud threats aren’t slowing down. Your response shouldn’t either. Darktrace / CLOUD + Cado gives your SOC the tools to detect, contain, and investigate cloud incidents — automatically, accurately, and at scale.

[related-resource]

About the author

Adam Stevens

Director of Product, Cloud Security

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Emotet Resurgence: Cross-Industry Analysis

Introduction

Key differences between Epochs 1-3 vs 4-5

Emotet Resurgence Campaign

Darktrace Detection

Case Studies

Conclusion

Appendices

Ivanti Under Siege: Investigating the Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile Vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-4427 & CVE-2025-4428)

How CDR & Automated Forensics Transform Cloud Incident Response

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Darktrace's Cyber AI Analyst in Action: 4 Real-World Investigations into Advanced Threat Actors

Introducing the AI Maturity Model for Cybersecurity

Introducing Version 2 of Darktrace’s Embedding Model for Investigation of Security Threats (DEMIST-2)

Blog

Network

August 8, 2025

Ivanti Under Siege: Investigating the Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile Vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-4427 & CVE-2025-4428)

Ivanti & Edge infrastructure exploitation

Vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM

Darktrace Coverage

Exploit Validation

Payload Delivery via AWS

Later-stage script file payload delivery

Conclusion

Appendices

Blog

Cloud

August 7, 2025

How CDR & Automated Forensics Transform Cloud Incident Response

Introduction: Cloud investigations

The Problem: Cloud incidents are hard to investigate

How Darktrace augments cloud investigations‍

1. Darktrace’s CDR finds anomalous activity in the cloud

2. AI-led investigation stitches together the incident for a SOC analyst to look into

3. Automated forensic capture — No expertise required

Why this matters?