June 25, 2024

Following up on our Conversation: Detecting & Containing a LinkedIn Phishing Attack with Darktrace

Darktrace/Email detected a phishing attack that had originated from LinkedIn, where the attacker impersonated a well known construction company to conduct a credential harvesting attack on the target. Darktrace’s ActiveAI Security Platform played a critical role in investigating the activity and initiating real-time responses that were outside the physical capability of human security teams.

Written by

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

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

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Jun 2024

Note: Real organization, domain and user names have been modified and replaced with fictitious names to maintain anonymity.

Social media cyber-attacks

Social media is a known breeding ground for cyber criminals to easily connect with a near limitless number of people and leverage the wealth of personal information shared on these platforms to defraud the general public. Analysis suggests even the most tech savvy ‘digital natives’ are vulnerable to impersonation scams over social media, as criminals weaponize brands and trends, using the promise of greater returns to induce sensitive information sharing or fraudulent payments [1].

LinkedIn phishing

As the usage of a particular social media platform increases, cyber criminals will find ways to exploit the increasing user base, and this trend has been observed with the rise in LinkedIn scams in recent years [2]. LinkedIn is the dominant professional networking site, with a forecasted 84.1million users by 2027 [3]. This platform is data-driven, so users are encouraged to share information publicly, including personal life updates, to boost visibility and increase job prospects [4] [5]. While this helps legitimate recruiters to gain a good understanding of the user, an attacker could also leverage the same personal content to increase the sophistication and success of their social engineering attempts.

Darktrace detection of LinkedIn phishing

Darktrace detected a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) compromise affecting a construction company, where the attack vector originated from LinkedIn (outside the monitoring of corporate security tools), but then pivoted to corporate email where a credential harvesting payload was delivered, providing the attacker with credentials to access a corporate file storage platform.

Because LinkedIn accounts are typically linked to an individual’s personal email and are most commonly accessed via the mobile application [6] on personal devices that are not monitored by security teams, it can represent an effective initial access point for attackers looking to establish an initial relationship with their target. Moreover, user behaviors to ignore unsolicited emails from new or unknown contacts are less frequently carried over to platforms like LinkedIn, where interactions with ‘weak ties’ as opposed to ‘strong ties’ are a better predictor of job mobility [7]. Had this attack been allowed to continue, the threat actor could have leveraged access to further information from the compromised business cloud account to compromise other high value accounts, exfiltrate sensitive data, or defraud the organization.

LinkedIn phishing attack details

Reconnaissance

The initial reconnaissance and social engineering occurred on LinkedIn and was thus outside the purview of corporate security tools, Darktrace included.

However, the email domain “hausconstruction[.]com” used by the attacker in subsequent communications appears to be a spoofed domain impersonating a legitimate construction company “haus[.]com”, suggesting the attacker may have also impersonated an employee of this construction company on LinkedIn. In addition to spoofing the domain, the attacker seemingly went further to register “hausconstruction.com” on a commercial web hosting platform. This is a technique used frequently not just to increase apparent legitimacy, but also to bypass traditional security tools since newly registered domains will have no prior threat intelligence, making them more likely to evade signature and rules-based detections [8]. In this instance, open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources report that the domain was created several months earlier, suggesting this may have been part of a targeted attack on construction companies.

Initial Intrusion

It was likely that during the correspondence over LinkedIn, the target user was solicited into following up over email regarding a prospective construction project, using their corporate email account. In a probable attempt to establish a precedent of bi-directional correspondence so that subsequent malicious emails would not be flagged by traditional security tools, the attacker did not initially include suspicious links, attachments or use solicitous or inducive language within their initial emails.

Figure 1: Example of bi-directional email correspondence between the target and the attacker impersonating a legitimate employee of the construction company haus.com.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst investigation into one of the initial emails the target received from the attacker.

To accomplish the next stage of their attack, the attacker shared a link, hidden behind the inducing text “VIEW ALL FILES”, to a malicious file using the Hightail cloud storage service. This is also a common method employed by attackers to evade detection, as this method of file sharing does not involve attachments that can be scanned by traditional security tools, and legitimate cloud storage services are less likely to be blocked.

OSINT analysis on the malicious link link shows the file hosted on Hightail was a HTML file with the associated message “Following up on our LinkedIn conversation”. Further analysis suggests the file contained obfuscated Javascript that, once opened, would automatically redirect the user to a malicious domain impersonating a legitimate Microsoft login page for credential harvesting purposes.

Figure 3: The malicious HTML file containing obfuscated Javascript, where the highlighted string references the malicious credential harvesting domain.

Screenshot of fraudulent Microsoft Sign In page hosted on the malicous credential harvesting domain. — Figure 4: Screenshot of fraudulent Microsoft Sign In page hosted on the malicious credential harvesting domain.

Although there was prior email correspondence with the attacker, this email was not automatically deemed safe by Darktrace and was further analyzed for unusual properties and unusual communications for the recipient and the recipient’s peer group.

Darktrace determined that:

It was unusual for this file storage solution to be referenced in communications to the user and the wider network
Textual properties of the email body suggested a high level of inducement from the sender, with a high level of focus on the phishing link.
The full link contained suspicious properties suggesting it is high risk.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s analysis of the phishing email, presenting key information about the unusual characteristics of this email, information on highlighted content, and an overview of actions that were initially applied.

Based on these anomalies, Darktrace initially moved the phishing email to the junk folder and locked the link, preventing the user from directly accessing the malicious file hosted on Hightail. However, the customer’s security team released the email, likely upon end-user request, allowing the target user to access the file and ultimately enter their credentials into that credential harvesting domain.

Figure 6: Darktrace alerts triggered by the malicious phishing email and the corresponding Autonomous Response actions.

Lateral Movement

Correspondence between the attacker and target continued for two days after the credential harvesting payload was delivered. Five days later, Darktrace detected an unusual login using multi-factor authentication (MFA) from a rare external IP and ASN that coincided with Darktrace/Email logs showing access to the credential harvesting link.

This attempt to bypass MFA, known as an Office365 Shell WCSS attack, was likely achieved by inducing the target to enter their credentials and legitimate MFA token into the fake Microsoft login page. This was then relayed to Microsoft by the attacker and used to obtain a legitimate session. The attacker then reused the legitimate token to log into Exchange Online from a different IP and registered their own device for MFA.

Figure 7: Screenshot within Darktrace/Email of the phishing email that was released by the security team, showing the recipient clicked the link to file storage where the malicious payload was stored.

‍

Figure 8: Event Log showing a malicious login and MFA bypass at 17:57:16, shortly after the link was clicked. Highlighted in green is activity from the legitimate user prior to the malicious login, using Edge. Highlighted in orange and red is the malicious activity using Chrome.

The IP addresses used by the attacker appear to be part of anonymization infrastructure, but are not associated with any known indicators of compromise (IoCs) that signature-based detections would identify [9] [10].

In addition to logins being observed within half an hour of each other from multiple geographically impossible locations (San Francisco and Phoenix), the unexpected usage of Chrome browser, compared to Edge browser previously used, provided Darktrace with further evidence that this activity was unlikely to originate from the legitimate user. Although the user was a salesperson who frequently travelled for their role, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI understood that the multiple logins from these locations was highly unusual at the user and group level, and coupled with the subsequent unexpected account modification, was a likely indicator of account compromise.

Accomplish mission

Although the email had been manually released by the security team, allowing the attack to propagate, additional layers of defense were triggered as Darktrace's Autonomous Response initiated “Disable User” actions upon detection of the multiple unusual logins and the unauthorized registration of security information.

However, the customer had configured Autonomous Response to require human confirmation, therefore no actions were taken until the security team manually approved them over two hours later. In that time, access to mail items and other SharePoint files from the unusual IP address was detected, suggesting a potential loss of confidentiality to business data.

Figure 9: Advanced Search query showing several FilePreviewed and MailItemsAccessed events from either the IPs used by the attacker, or using the software Chrome. Note some of the activity originated from Microsoft IPs which may be whitelisted by traditional security tools.

However, it appears that the attacker was able to maintain access to the compromised account, as login and mail access events from 199.231.85[.]153 continued to be observed until the afternoon of the next day.

Conclusion

This incident demonstrates the necessity of AI to security teams, with Darktrace’s ActiveAI Security Platform detecting a sophisticated phishing attack where human judgement fell short and initiated a real-time response when security teams could not physically respond as fast.

Security teams are very familiar with social engineering and impersonation attempts, but these attacks remain highly prevalent due to the widespread adoption of technologies that enable these techniques to be deployed with great sophistication and ease. In particular, the popularity of information-rich platforms like LinkedIn that are geared towards connecting with unknown people make it an attractive initial access point for malicious attackers.

In the second half of 2023 alone, over 200 thousand fake profiles were reported by members on LinkedIn [11]. Fake profiles can be highly sophisticated, use professional images, contain compelling descriptions, reference legitimate company listings and present believable credentials.

It is unrealistic to expect end users to defend themselves against such sophisticated impersonation attempts. Moreover, it is extremely difficult for human defenders to recognize every fraudulent interaction amidst a sea of fake profiles. Instead, defenders should leverage AI, which can conduct autonomous investigations without human biases and limitations. AI-driven security can ensure successful detection of fraudulent or malicious activity by learning what real users and devices look like and identifying deviations from their learned behaviors that may indicate an emerging threat.

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

DETECT/ Apps

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual External Sources For SaaS Credential

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

SaaS / Compliance / M365 Security Information Modified

‍

RESPOND/ Apps

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Unusual Activity Block

DETECT & RESPOND/ Email

· Link / High Risk Link + Low Sender Association

· Link / New Correspondent Classified Link

· Link / Watched Link Type

· Antigena Anomaly

· Association / Unknown Sender

· History / New Sender

· Link / Link to File Storage

· Link / Link to File Storage + Unknown Sender

· Link / Low Link Association

List of IoCs

· 142.252.106[.]251 - IP - Possible malicious IP used by attacker during cloud account compromise

· 199.231.85[.]153 – IP - Probable malicious IP used by attacker during cloud account compromise

· vukoqo.hebakyon[.]com – Endpoint - Credential harvesting endpoint

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

· Resource Development - T1586 - Compromise Accounts

· Resource Development - T1598.003 – Spearphishing Link

· Persistence - T1078.004 - Cloud Accounts

· Persistence - T1556.006 - Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication

· Reconnaissance - T1593.001 – Social Media

· Reconnaissance - T1598 – Phishing for Information

· Reconnaissance - T1589.001 – Credentials

· Reconnaissance - T1591.002 – Business Relationships

· Collection - T1111 – Multifactor Authentication Interception

· Collection - T1539 – Steal Web Session Cookie

· Lateral Movement - T1021.007 – Cloud Services

· Lateral Movement - T1213.002 - Sharepoint

References

[1] Jessica Barker, Hacked: The secrets behind cyber attacks, (London: Kogan Page, 2024), p. 130-146.

[2] https://www.bitdefender.co.uk/blog/hotforsecurity/5-linkedin-scams-and-how-to-avoid-them/

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/31/linkedin-personal-posts/

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2012/05/21/facebook-vs-linkedin-whats-the-difference/

[5] https://thelinkedblog.com/2022/3-reasons-why-you-should-make-your-profile-public-1248/

[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/50-linkedin-statistics-every-professional-should-ti9ue

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/business/linkedin-social-experiments.html

[8] https://darktrace.com/blog/the-domain-game-how-email-attackers-are-buying-their-way-into-inboxes

[9] https://spur.us/context/142.252.106[.]251

[10] https://spur.us/context/199.231.85[.]153

[11]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1328849/linkedin-number-of-fake-accounts-detected-and-removed

Written by

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Nicole Wong

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

Following up on our Conversation: Detecting & Containing a LinkedIn Phishing Attack with Darktrace

Social media cyber-attacks

LinkedIn phishing

Darktrace detection of LinkedIn phishing

LinkedIn phishing attack details

Reconnaissance

Initial Intrusion

Lateral Movement

Accomplish mission

Conclusion

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

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

Global Telecom Provider: Powering and Protecting the World's Data Giants

Darktrace Collaborates with Microsoft: Unifying Email Security with a Shared Vision

Why attack-centric approaches to email security can’t cope with modern threats

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?