June 20, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

This blog investigates the network-based activity detected by Darktrace in compromises stemming from the exploitation of a vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall devices, namely CVE-2024-3400.

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber 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

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Jun 2024

Update:
Following the initial publication of this blog detailing exploitation campaigns utilizing the recently disclosed vulnerability, Darktrace analysts expanded the scope of the threat research investigation to identify potential earlier, pre-CVE disclosure, exploitation of CVE 2024-3400. While the majority of PAN-OS exploitation activity seen in the Darktrace customer base occurred after the public release of the CVE, Darktrace did also see tooling activity likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation prior to the vulnerability's disclosure. Unlike the post-CVE-release exploitation activity, which largely reflected indiscriminate, opportunistic targeting of unpatched systems, these pre-CVE release activities likely represented selective targeting by more calculated actors.

Between March 26 and 28, Darktrace identified two Palo Alto firewall devices within the network of a public sector customer making HTTP GET requests utilizing both cURL and wget user agents, versions of which were seen in later compromise activity in April. The devices requested multiple shell script files (.sh) from rare external IP addresses. These IPs are likely associated with an operational relay box (ORB) network^[1]. The connections also occurred without a specified hostname lookup, suggesting the IPs were hardcoded into process code or already cached through unexpected running processes. One of the destination IPs was later confirmed by Palo Alto Network’s Unit 42 as associated with exploitation of the PAN-OS vulnerability^[2]. This observed activity closely resembles post-exploitation activity seen on affected firewall devices in mid-April. However, unlike the more disruptive and noisier follow-on exploitation activity seen in post-CVE-release incidents, the pre-CVE-release case observed by Darktrace appears to have been much more discreet, likely due to the relevant threat actor's desire to remain undetected.

--

Introduction

Perimeter devices such as firewalls, virtual private networks (VPNs), and intrusion prevention systems (IPS), have long been the target of adversarial actors attempting to gain access to internal networks. However, recent publications and public service announcements by leading public institutions underscore the increased emphasis threat actors are putting on leveraging such products to initiate compromises.

A blog post by the UK National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) released in early 2024 notes that as improvements are made in the detection of phishing email payloads, threat actors have again begun re-focusing efforts to exploiting network edge devices, many of which are not secure by design, as a means of breach initiation.^[i] As such, it comes as no surprise that new Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are constantly discovered that exploit such internet-exposed systems.

Darktrace analysts frequently observe the impacts of such CVEs first through their investigations via Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC). Beginning in April 2024, Darktrace’s SOC began handling alerts and customer requests for potential incidents involving Palo Alto Networks firewall devices. Just days prior, external researchers publicly disclosed what would later be classified as PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability that affects several versions of Palo Alto Networks’ firewall operating system (PAN-OS), namely PAN-OS 11.1, 11.0 and 10.2. At the time, multiple Darktrace customers were unaware of the recently announced vulnerability.

The increase in observed SOC activity for Palo Alto firewall devices, coupled with the public announcement of the new CVE prompted Darktrace researchers to look for evidence of PAN-OS exploitation on customer networks. Researchers also focused on documenting post-exploitation activity from threat actors leveraging the recently disclosed vulnerability.

As such, this blog highlights the network-based behaviors involved in the CVE-2024-3400 attack chains investigated by Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams. Moreover, this investigation also provides a deeper insight into the post-compromise activities of threat actors leveraging the novel CVE. Such insights will not only prove relevant for cybersecurity teams looking to inhibit compromises in this specific instance, but also highlights general patterns of behavior by threat actors utilizing such CVEs to target internet-facing systems.

CVE-2024-3400

In mid-April 2024, the Darktrace SOC observed an uptick in activity involving recurring patterns of malicious activity from Palo Alto firewall appliances. In response to this trend, Darktrace initiated a Threat Research investigation into such activity to try and identify common factors and indicators across seemingly parallel events. Shortly before the Threat Research team opened their investigation, external researchers provided public details of CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability in the GlobalProtect feature on Palo Alto Network firewall devices running PAN-OS versions: 10.2, 11.0, and 11.1.^[ii]

In their proof of concept, security researchers at watchTowr demonstrated how an attacker can pass session ID (SESSID) values to these PAN-OS devices to request files that do not exist. In response, the system creates a zero-byte file with root privileges with the same name.^[iii] Log data is passed on devices running telemetry services to external servers through command line functionality.^[iv] Given this functionality, external actors could then request non-existent files in the SESSID containing command parameters which then be interpreted by the command line functionality.^[v] Although researchers first believed the exploit could only be used against devices running telemetry services, this was later discovered to be untrue.^[vi]

As details of CVE-2024-3400 began to surface, Darktrace’s Threat Research analysts quickly identified distinct overlaps in the observed activity on specific customer deployments and the post-exploitation behavior reported by external researchers. Given the parallels, Darktrace correlated the patterns of activity observed by the SOC team to exploitation of the newly discovered vulnerability in PAN-OS firewall appliances.

Campaign Analysis

Between the April and May 2024, Darktrace identified four main themes of post-exploitation activity involving Palo Alto Network firewall devices likely targeted via CVE-2024-3400: exploitation validation, shell command and tool retrieval, configuration data exfiltration, and ongoing command and control through encrypted channels and application protocols.

1. Exploit Validation and Further Vulnerability Enumeration

Many of the investigated attack chains began with malicious actors using out-of-band application security testing (OAST) services such as Interactsh to validate exploits against Palo Alto firewall appliances. This exploit validation activity typically resulted in devices attempting to contact unusual external endpoints (namely, subdomains of ‘oast[.]pro’, ‘oast[.]live’, ‘oast[.]site’, ‘oast[.]online’, ‘oast[.]fun’, ‘oast[.]me’, and ‘g3n[.]in’) associated with OAST services such as Interactsh. These services can be used by developers to inspect and debug internet traffic, but also have been easily abused by threat actors.

While attempted connections to OAST services do not alone indicate CVE-2024-3400 exploitation, the prevalence of such activities in observed Palo Alto firewall attack chains suggests widespread usage of these OAST services to validate initial access methods and possibly further enumerate systems for additional vulnerabilities.

Figure 1: Model alert log details showcasing a PAN-OS device making DNS queries for Interactsh domain names in what could be exploit validation, and/or further host enumeration.

2. Command and Payload Transmission

The most common feature across analyzed incidents was HTTP GET requests for shell scripts and Linux executable files (ELF) from external IPs associated with exploitation of the CVE. These HTTP requests were frequently initiated using the utilities, cURL and wget. On nearly every device likely targeted by threat actors leveraging the CVE, Darktrace analysts highlighted the retrieval of shell scripts that either featured enumeration commands, the removal of evidence of compromise activity, or commands to retrieve and start binaries on the destination device.

a) Shell Script Retrieval

Investigated devices commonly performed HTTP GET requests to retrieve shell command scripts. Despite this commonality, there was some degree of variety amongst the retrieved payloads and their affiliation with certain command tools. Several distinct types of shell commands and files were identified during the analyzed breaches. For example, some firewall devices were seen requesting .txt files associated with both Sliver C2, whose malicious use has previously been investigated by Darktrace, and Cobalt Strike. The target URIs of devices’ HTTP requests for these files included, “36shr.txt”, “2.txt”, “bin.txt”, and “data.txt”.

More interestingly, though, was the frequency with which analyzed systems requested bash scripts from rare external IP addresses, sometimes over non-standard ports for the HTTP protocol. These bash scripts would feature commands usually for the recipient system to check for certain existing files and or running processes. If the file did not exist, the system would then use cURL or wget to obtain content from external sites, change the permissions of the file, and then execute, sending output to dev/null as a means of likely defense evasion. In some scripts, the system would first make a new folder, and change directories prior to acquiring external content. Additionally, some samples highlighted multiple attempts at enumeration of the host system.

Figure 2: Packet capture (PCAP) data highlighting the incoming shell scripts providing instructions to use cURL to obtain external content, change the permissions of the file to execute, and then run the binary using the credentials and details provided.

Figure 3: PCAP data highlighting a variation of a shell script seen in an HTTP response processed by compromised devices. The script provides instructions to make a directory, retrieve and execute external content, and to hide the output.

Not every retrieved file that was not explicitly a binary featured bash scripts. Model alerts on some deployments also included file masquerading attempts by threat actors, whereby the Palo Alto firewall device would request content with a misleading extension in the URI. In one such instance, the requested URI, and HTTP response header suggests the returned content is an image/png, but the actual body response featured configuration parameters for a new daemon service to be run on the system.

Figure 4: PCAP data indicating configuration details likely for a new daemon on an investigated host. Such HTTP body content differs from the image/png extension within the request URI and declared content type in the HTTP response header.

Bash scripts analyzed across customer deployments also mirrored those identified by external security teams. External researchers previously reported on a series of identifiable shell commands in some cases of CVE-2024-3400 exploitation analyzed by their teams. Commands frequently involved a persistence mechanism they later labeled as the “UPSTYLE” backdoor.^[vii] This python-based program operates by reading commands hidden in error logs generated by 404 requests to the compromised server. The backdoor interprets the requests and writes the output to CSS files on the device. In many cases, Darktrace’s Threat Research team noted clear parallels between shell commands retrieved via HTTP GET request with those directly involving UPSTYLE. There were also matches with some URI patterns identified with the backdoor and requests observed on Darktrace deployments.

Figure 5: HTTP response data containing shell commands potentially relating to the UPSTYLE backdoor.

The presence of these UPSTYLE-related shell commands in response to Palo Alto firewall devices’ HTTP requests provides further evidence for initial exploitation of the CVE. Many bash scripts in examined cases interacted with folders and files likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation. These scripts frequently sought to delete contents of certain folders, such as “/opt/panlogs/tmp/device_telemetry/minute/*” where evidence of exploitation would likely reside. Moreover, recursive removal and copy commands were frequently seen targeting CSS files within the GlobalProtect folder, already noted as the vulnerable element within PAN-OS versions. This evidence is further corroborated by host-based forensic analysis conducted by external researchers.^[viii]

Figure 6: PCAP data from investigated system indicating likely defense evasion by removing content on folders where CVE exploitation occurred.

b) Executable File Retrieval

Typically, following command processing, compromised Palo Alto firewall devices proceeded to make web requests for several unusual and potentially malicious files. Many such executables would be retrieved via processed scripts. While there a fair amount of variety in specific executables and binaries obtained, overall, these executables involved either further command tooling such as Sliver C2 or Cobalt Strike payloads, or unknown executables. Affected systems would also employ uncommon ports for HTTP connections, in a likely attempt to evade detection. Extensions featured within the URI, when visible, frequently noted ‘.elf’ (Linux executable) or ‘.exe’ payloads. While most derived hashes did not feature identifiable open-source intelligence (OSINT) details, some samples did have external information tying the sample to specific malware. For example, one such investigation featured a compromised system requesting a file with a hash identified as the Spark malware (backdoor) while another investigated case included a host requesting a known crypto-miner.

Figure 7: PCAP data highlighting compromised system retrieving ELF content from a rare external server running a simple Python HTTP server.

Figure 8: Darktrace model alert logs highlighting a device labeled “Palo Alto” making a HTTP request on an uncommon port for an executable file following likely CVE exploitation.

3. Configuration Data Exfiltration and Unusual HTTP POST Activity

During Darktrace’s investigations, there were also several instances of sensitive data exfiltration from PAN-OS firewall devices. Specifically, targeted systems were observed making HTTP POST requests via destination port 80 to rare external endpoints that OSINT sources associate with CVE-2024-3400 exploitation and activity. PCAP analysis of such HTTP requests revealed that they often contained sensitive configuration details of the targeted Palo Alto firewall devices, including the IP address, default gateway, domain, users, superusers, and password hashes, to name only a few. Threat actors frequently utilized Target URIs such as “/upload” in their HTTP POST requests of this multi-part boundary form data. Again, the User-Agent headers of these HTTP requests largely involved versions of cURL, typically 7.6.1, and wget.

Figure 9: PCAP datahighlighting Palo Alto Firewall device running vulnerable version of PAN-OSposting configuration details to rare external services via HTTP.

Figure 10: Model alert logs highlighting a Palo Alto firewall device performing HTTP POSTs to a rare external IP, without a prior hostname lookup, on an uncommon port using a URI associated with configuration data exfiltration across analyzed incidents

Figure 11: Examples of TargetURIs of HTTP POST requests involving base64 encoded IPs and potential dataegress.

4. Ongoing C2 and Miscellaneous Activity

Lastly, a smaller number of affected Palo Alto firewall devices were seen engaging in repeated beaconing and/or C2 communication via both encrypted and unencrypted protocols during and following the initial series of kill chain events. Such encrypted channels typically involved protocols such as TLS/SSL and SSH. This activity likely represented ongoing communication of targeted systems with attacker infrastructure. Model alerts typically highlighted unusual levels of repeated external connectivity to rare external IP addresses over varying lengths of time. In some investigated incidents, beaconing activity consisted of hundreds of thousands of connections over several days.

Figure 12: Advanced search details highlighting high levels of ongoing external communication to endpoints associated with C2 infrastructure exploiting CVE-2024-3400.

Some beaconing activity appears to have involved the use of the WebSocket protocol, as indicated by the appearance of “/ws” URIs and validated within packet captures. Such connections were then upgraded to an encrypted connection.

Figure 13: PCAP highlighting use of WebSocket protocol to engage in ongoing external connectivity to likely C2 infrastructure following CVE-2024-3400 compromise.

While not directly visible in all the deployments, some investigations also yielded evidence of attempts at further post-exploitation activity. For example, a handful of the analyzed binaries that were downloaded by examined devices had OSINT information suggesting a relation to crypto-mining malware strains. However, crypto-mining activity was not directly observed at this time. Furthermore, several devices also triggered model alerts relating to brute-forcing activity via several authentication protocols (namely, Keberos and RADIUS) during the time of compromise. This brute-force activity likely represented attempts to move laterally from the affected firewall system to deeper parts of the network.

Figure 14: Model alert logs noting repeated SSL connectivity to a Sliver C2-affiliated endpoint in what likely constitutes C2 connectivity.

Figure 15: Model alert logs featuring repeated RADIUS login failures from a compromised PAN-OS device using generic usernames, suggesting brute-force activity.

Conclusion

Between April and late May 2024, Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams identified several instances of likely PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400 exploitation across the Darktrace customer base. The subsequent investigation yielded four major themes that categorize the observed network-based post-exploitation activity. These major themes were exploit validation activity, retrieval of binaries and shell scripts, data exfiltration via HTTP POST activity, and ongoing C2 communication with rare external endpoints. The insights shared in this article will hopefully contribute to the ongoing discussion within the cybersecurity community about how to handle the likely continued exploitation of this vulnerability. Moreover, this article may also help cybersecurity professionals better respond to future exploitation of not only Palo Alto PAN-OS firewall devices, but also of edge devices more broadly.

Threat actors will continue to discover and leverage new CVEs impacting edge infrastructure. Since it is not yet known which CVEs threat actors will exploit next, relying on rules and signatures for the detection of exploitation of such CVEs is not a viable approach. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection, however, is well positioned to robustly adapt to threat actors’ changing methods, since although threat actors can change the CVEs they exploit, they cannot change the fact that their exploitation of CVEs results in highly unusual patterns of activity.

Credit to Adam Potter, Cyber Analyst, Sam Lister, Senior Cyber Analyst

Appendices ‍

Pre-CVE-Release IoCs

38.54[.]104[.]14/3.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/1.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/co.sh
38.54[.]104[.]14/

Indicators of Compromise

Indicator – Type – Description

94.131.120[.]80 IP C2 Endpoint

94.131.120[.]80:53/?src=[REDACTED]=hour=root URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/?src=[REDACTED]min=root URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]mips64 URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]x86_64 URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?deer URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?host=IDS URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/ldr[.]sh URL Payload

91ebcea4e6d34fd6e22f99713eaf67571b51ab01 SHA1 File Hash Payload

185.243.115[.]250/snmpd2[.]elf URL Payload

23.163.0[.]111/com URL Payload

80.92.205[.]239/upload URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43/upload URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com Hostname C2 Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com:63869/snmpgp URL Payload

146.70.87[.]237 IP address C2 Endpoint

146.70.87[.]237:63867/snmpdd URL Payload

393c41b3ceab4beecf365285e8bdf0546f41efad SHA1 File Hash Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/r URL Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/clientr URL Payload

138.68.44[.]59/manage URL Payload

72.5.43[.]90/patch URL Payload

217.69.3[.]218 IP C2 Endpoint

5e8387c24b75c778c920f8aa38e4d3882cc6d306 SHA1 File Hash Payload

217.69.3[.]218/snmpd[.]elf URL Payload

958f13da6ccf98fcaa270a6e24f83b1a4832938a SHA1 File Hash Payload

6708dc41b15b892279af2947f143af95fb9efe6e SHA1 File Hash Payload

dc50c0de7f24baf03d4f4c6fdf6c366d2fcfbe6c SHA1 File Hash Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/data[.]txt URL Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/bin[.]txt URL Payload

bc9dc2e42654e2179210d98f77822723740a5ba6 SHA1 File Hash Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/123 URL Payload

65283921da4e8b5eabb926e60ca9ad3d087e67fa SHA1 File Hash Payload

img.dxyjg[.]com/6hiryXjZN0Mx[.]sh URL Payload

149.56.18[.]189/IC4nzNvf7w/2[.]txt URL Payload

228d05fd92ec4d19659d71693198564ae6f6b117 SHA1 File Hash Payload

54b892b8fdab7c07e1e123340d800e7ed0386600 SHA1 File Hash Payload

165.232.121[.]217/rules URL Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request URL Payload

938faec77ebdac758587bba999e470785253edaf SHA1 File Hash Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request63 URL Payload

165.232.121[.]217:4443/termite/165.232.121[.]217 URL Payload

92.118.112[.]60/snmpd2[.]elf URL Payload

2a90d481a7134d66e8b7886cdfe98d9c1264a386 SHA1 File Hash Payload

92.118.112[.]60/36shr[.]txt URL Payload

d6a33673cedb12811dde03a705e1302464d8227f SHA1 File Hash Payload

c712712a563fe09fa525dfc01ce13564e3d98d67 SHA1 File Hash Payload

091b3b33e0d1b55852167c3069afcdb0af5e5e79 SHA1 File Hash Payload

5eebf7518325e6d3a0fd7da2c53e7d229d7b74b6 SHA1 File Hash Payload

183be7a0c958f5ed4816c781a2d7d5aa8a0bca9f SHA1 File Hash Payload

e7d2f1224546b17d805617d02ade91a9a20e783e SHA1 File Hash Payload

e6137a15df66054e4c97e1f4b8181798985b480d SHA1 File Hash Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/sea[.]png URL Payload

95.164.7[.]33/rules URL Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/lb64 URL Payload

c2bc9a7657bea17792048902ccf2d77a2f50d2d7 SHA1 File Hash Payload

923369bbb86b9a9ccf42ba6f0d022b1cd4f33e9d SHA1 File Hash Payload

52972a971a05b842c6b90c581b5c697f740cb5b9 SHA1 File Hash Payload

95d45b455cf62186c272c03d6253fef65227f63a SHA1 File Hash Payload

322ec0942cef33b4c55e5e939407cd02e295973e SHA1 File Hash Payload

6335e08873b4ca3d0eac1ea265f89a9ef29023f2 SHA1 File Hash Payload

134.213.29[.]14 IP C2 Endpoint

185.243.115[.]250 IP C2 Endpoint

80.92.205[.]239 IP C2 Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43 IP C2 Endpoint

92.118.112[.]60 IP C2 Endpoint

109.120.178[.]253 IP C2 Endpoint

23.163.0[.]111 IP C2 Endpoint

72.5.43[.]90 IP C2 Endpoint

165.232.121[.]217 IP C2 Endpoint

8.210.242[.]112 IP C2 Endpoint

149.56.18[.]189 IP C2 Endpoint

95.164.7[.]33 IP C2 Endpoint

138.68.44[.]59 IP C2 Endpoint

Img[.]dxyjg[.]com Hostname C2 Endpoint

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Device / New User Agent (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

· Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

· Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

· Anomalous File / Suspicious Octet Stream Download

· Anomalous File / Numeric File Download

· Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

· Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

· Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

· Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

· Compromise / SSH Beacon

· Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

· Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

· Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

· Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

· Compromise / Connection to Suspicious SSL Server

· Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

· Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint

· Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon

· Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

· Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

· Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

· Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

· Device / Multiple C2 Model Breaches

MITRE ATTACK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

Initial Access T1190 – Exploiting Public-Facing Application

Execution T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

Persistence T1543.002 – Create or Modify System Processes: Systemd Service

Defense Evasion T1070.004 – Indicator Removal: File Deletion

Credential Access T1110.001 – Brute Force: Password Guessing

Discovery T1083 – File and System Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

Collection T1005 – Data From Local System

Command and Control

T1071.001 – Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols

T1573.002 – Encrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

Exfiltration

T1041 – Exfiltration over C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

References

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/china-nexus-espionage-orb-networks

[2] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cve-2024-3400/

^[i] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/products-on-your-perimeter

^[ii] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

^[iii] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[iv] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[v] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[vi] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

^[vii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/04/12/zero-day-exploitation-of-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-vulnerability-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[viii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/05/15/detecting-compromise-of-cve-2024-3400-on-palo-alto-networks-globalprotect-devices/

‍

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Director of Product, Cloud Security

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

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

Blog

Network

August 6, 2025

2025 Cyber Threat Landscape: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Review

cyberseucity 2025 half year threat report

2025: Threat landscape in review

The following is a retrospective of the first six months of 2025, highlighting key findings across the threat landscape impacting Darktrace customers.

Darktrace observed a wide range of tactics during this period, used by various types of threat actors including advanced persistent threats (APTs), Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) and Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) groups.

Methodology

Darktrace’s Analyst team conduct investigations and research into threats facing organizations and security teams across our customer base. This includes direct investigations with our 24/7 Security Operations Centre (SOC), via services such as Managed Detection and Response (MDR) and Managed Threat Detection, as well as broader cross-fleet research through our Threat Research function.

At the core of our research is Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection, which the Analyst team contextualizes and analyzes to provide additional support to customers and deepen our understanding of the threats they face.

Threat actors are incorporating AI into offensive operations

Threat actors are continuously evolving their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), posing an ongoing challenge to effective defense hardening. Increasingly, many threat actors are adopting AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), into their operations to enhance the scale, sophistication, and efficacy of their attacks.

The evolving functionality of malware, such as the recently reported LameHug malware by CERT-UA, which uses an open-source LLM, exemplifies this observation [1].

Threat landscape trends in 2025

Threat actors applying AI to Email attacks

LLMs present a clear opportunity for attackers to take advantage of AI and create effective phishing emails at speed. While Darktrace cannot definitively confirm the use of AI to create the phishing emails observed across the customer base, the high volume of phishing emails and notable shifts in tactic could potentially be explained by threat actors adopting new tooling such as LLMs.

The total number of malicious emails detected by Darktrace from January to May 2025 was over 12.6 million
VIP users continue to face significant threat, with over 25% of all phishing emails targeting these users in the first five months of 2025 ‍
QR code-based phishing emails have remained a consistent tactic, with a similar proportion observed in January-May 2024 and 2025. The highest numbers were observed in February 2025, with over 1 million detected in that month alone.
Shifts towards increased sophistication within phishing emails are emerging, with a year-on-year increase in the proportion of phishing emails containing either a high text volume or multistage payloads. In the first five months of 2025, 32% of phishing emails contained a high volume of text.

The increase in proportion of phishing emails with a high volume of text in particular could point towards threat actors leveraging LLMs to create phishing emails with large, but believable, text in an easy and efficient way.

_{The above email statistics are derived from analysis of monitored Darktrace / EMAIL model data for all customer deployments hosted in the cloud between January 1 and May 31, 2025.}

Campaign Spotlight: Simple, Quick - ClickFix

An interesting technique Darktrace observed multiple times throughout March and April was ClickFix social engineering, which exploits the intersection between humans and technology to trick users into executing malicious code on behalf of the attacker.

While this technique has been around since 2024, Darktrace observed campaign activity in the first half of 2025 suggesting a resurgence.
A range of threat actors – from APTs to MaaS and RaaS have adopted this technique to deliver secondary payloads, like information stealing malware.
Attackers use fraudulent or compromised legitimate websites to inject malicious plugins that masquerade as fake CAPTCHAs.
Targeted users believe they are completing human verification or resolving a website issue, unaware that they are being guided through a series of simple steps to execute PowerShell code on their system.
Darktrace observed campaign activity during the first half of 2025 across a range of sectors, including Government, Healthcare, Insurance, Retail and, Non-profit.

Not just AI: Automation is enabling Ransomware and SaaS exploitation

The rise of phishing kits like FlowerStorm and Mamba2FA, which enable phishing and abuse users’ trust by mimicking legitimate services to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA), highlight how the barriers to entry for sophisticated attacks continue to fall, enabling new threat actors. Combined with Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) account compromise, these techniques make up a substantial portion of cybercriminal activity observed by Darktrace so far this year.

Credentials remain the weak link

A key theme across multiple cases of ransomware was threat actors abusing compromised credentials to gain initial entry into networks via:

Unauthorized access to internet-facing technology such as RDP servers and virtual private networks (VPNs).
Unauthorized access to SaaS accounts.

SaaS targeted ransomware is on the rise

The encryption of files within SaaS environments observed by Darktrace demonstrates a continued trend of ransomware actors targeting these platforms over traditional networks, potentially driven by a higher return on investment.

SaaS accounts are often less protected than traditional systems because of Single Sign-On (SSO). Additionally, platforms like Salesforce often host sensitive data, including emails, financial records, customer information, and network configuration details. This stresses the need for robust identity management practices and continuous monitoring.

RaaS is adding complexity and speed to cyber attacks

RaaS has dominated the attack landscape, with groups like Qilin, RansomHub, and Lynx all appearing multiple times in cases across Darktrace’s customer base over the past six months. Detecting ransomware attacks before the encryption stage remains a significant challenge, particularly in RaaS operations where different affiliates often use varying techniques for initial entry and earlier stages of the attack. Darktrace’s recent analysis of Scattered Spider underscores the challenge of hardening defenses against such varying techniques.

CVE exploitation continues despite available patches

Darktrace has also observed ransomware gangs exploiting known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), including the Medusa ransomware group’s use of the SimpleHelp vulnerabilities: CVE-2024-57727 and CVE-2024-57728 in March, despite patches being made available in January [2].

Misused tools + delayed patches = growing cyber risk

The exploitation of common remote management tools like SimpleHelp highlights the serious challenges defenders face when patch management cycles are suboptimal. As threat actors continue to abuse legitimate services for malicious purposes, the challenges facing defenders will only grow more complex.

Edge exploitation

It comes as no surprise that exploitation of internet-facing devices continued to feature prominently in Darktrace’s Threat Research investigations during the first half of 2025.

Observed CVE exploitation included:

‍CVE-2025-0282, Ivanti Connect Secure & Ivanti Policy Secure‍
CVE-2025-0994, Trimble Cityworks
CVE-2024-57727 & CVE-2024-57728, SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring & Management (RMM)‍
CVE-2025-31324, SAP NetWeaver‍
CVE-2025-4427 & CVE-2025-4428, Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM)

Many of Darktrace’s observations of CVE exploitation so far in 2025 align with wider industry reporting, which suggests that Chinese-nexus threat actors were deemed to likely have exploited these technologies prior to public disclosure. In the case of CVE-2025-0994 - a vulnerability affecting Trimble Cityworks, an asset management system designed for use by local governments, utilities, airports, and public work agencies [3].

Darktrace observed signs of exploitation as early as January 19, well before vulnerability’s public disclosure on February 6 [4]. Darktrace’s early identification of the exploitation stemmed from the detection of a suspicious file download from 192.210.239[.]172:3219/z44.exe - later linked to Chinese-speaking threat actors in a campaign targeting the US government [5].

This case demonstrates the risks posed by the exploitation of internet-facing devices, not only those hosting more common technologies, but also software associated specifically tied to Critical National Infrastructure (CNI); a lucrative target for threat actors. This also highlights Darktrace’s ability to detect exploitation of internet-facing systems, even without a publicly disclosed CVE. Further examples of how Darktrace’s anomaly detection can uncover malicious activity ahead of public vulnerability disclosures can be found here.

New threats and returning adversaries

In the first half of 2025, Darktrace observed a wide range of threats, from sophisticated techniques employed by APT groups to large-scale campaigns involving phishing and information stealers.

BlindEagle (APT-C-36)

Among the observed APT activity, BlindEagle (APT-C-36) was seen targeting customers in Latin America (LATM), first identified in February, with additional cases seen as recently as June.

Darktrace also observed a customer targeted in a China-linked campaign involving the LapDogs ORB network, with activity spanning from December 2024 and June 2025. These likely nation-state attacks illustrate the continued adoption of cyber and AI capabilities into the national security goals of certain countries.

Sophisticated malware functionality

Further sophistication has been observed within specific malware functionality - such as the malicious backdoor Auto-Color, which has now been found to employ suppression tactics to cover its tracks if it is unable to complete its kill chain - highlighting the potential for advanced techniques across every layer of an attack.‍

Familiar foes

Alongside new and emerging threats, previously observed and less sophisticated tools, such as worms, Remote Access Trojans (RATs), and information stealers, continue to impact Darktrace customers.

The Raspberry Robin worm... First seen in 2021, has been repeatedly identified within Darktrace’s customer base since 2022. Most recently, Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified cases in April and May this year. Recent open-source intelligence (OSINT) reporting suggests that Raspberry Robin continues to evolve its role as an Initial Access Broker (IAB), paving the way for various attacks and remaining a concern [6].

RATs also remain a threat, with examples like AsyncRAT and Gh0st RAT impacting Darktrace customers.

In April multiple cases of MaaS were observed in Darktrace’s customer base, with information stealers Amadey and Stealc, as well as GhostSocks being distributed as a follow up payload after an initial Amadey infection.

Conclusion

As cyber threats evolve, attackers are increasingly harnessing AI to craft highly convincing email attacks, automating phishing campaigns at unprecedented scale and speed. This, coupled with rapid exploitation of vulnerabilities and the growing sophistication of ransomware gangs operating as organized crime syndicates, makes today’s threat landscape more dynamic and dangerous than ever. Cyber defenders collaborate to combat these threats – the coordinated takedown of Lumma Stealer in May was a notable win for both industry and law-enforcement [7], however OSINT suggests that this threat persists [8], and new threats will continue to arise.

Traditional security tools that rely on static rules or signature-based detection often struggle to keep pace with these fast-moving, adaptive threats. In this environment, anomaly-based detection tools are no longer optional—they are essential. By identifying deviations in normal user and system behavior, tools like Darktrace provide a proactive layer of defense capable of detecting novel and emerging threats, even those that bypass conventional security measures. Investing in anomaly-based detection is critical to staying ahead of attackers who now operate with automation, intelligence, and global coordination.

Credit to Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead), Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst), Nicole Wong (Principal Cyber Analyst), Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Matthew John (Director of Operations, SOC), Sam Lister (Specialist Security Researcher), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead) and the Darktrace Incident Management team.

_{The information contained in this blog post is provided for general informational purposes only and represents the views and analysis of Darktrace as of the date of publication. While efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information, the cybersecurity landscape is dynamic, and new threats or vulnerabilities may have emerged since this report was compiled.}

_{This content is provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind, either express or implied. Darktrace makes no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or suitability of the information, and expressly disclaims all warranties.}

_{Nothing in this blog post should be interpreted as legal, technical, or professional advice. Users of this information assume full responsibility for any actions taken based on its content, and Darktrace shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on this material. Reference to any specific products, companies, or services does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or affiliation.}

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type - Description + Probability

LapDogs ORB network, December 2024-June 2025

www.northumbra[.]com – Hostname – Command and Control (C2) server

103.131.189[.]2 – IP Address - C2 server, observed December 2024 & June 2025

103.106.230[.]31 – IP Address - C2 server, observed December 2024

154.223.20[.]56 – IP Address – Possible C2 server, observed December 2024

38.60.214[.]23 – IP Address – Possible C2 server, observed January & February 2025

154.223.20[.]58:1346/systemd-log – URL – Possible ShortLeash payload, observed December 2024

CN=ROOT,OU=Police department,O=LAPD,L=LA,ST=California,C=US - TLS certificate details for C2 server

CVE-2025-0994, Trimble Cityworks exploitation, January 2025

192.210.239[.]172:3219/z44.exe – URL - Likely malicious file download

AsyncRAT, February-March 2025

windows-cam.casacam[.]net – Hostname – Likely C2 server

88.209.248[.]141 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

207.231.105[.]51 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

163.172.125[.]253 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

microsoft-download.ddnsfree[.]com – Hostname – Likely C2 server

95.217.34[.]113 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

vpnl[.]net – Hostname – Likely C2 server

157.20.182[.]16 – IP Address - Likely C2 server

185.81.157[.]19 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

dynamic.serveftp[.]net – IP Address – Likely C2 server

158.220.96.15 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

CVE-2024-57727 & CVE-2024-57728, SimpleHelp RMM exploitation, March 2025

213.183.63[.]41 – IP Address - C2 server

213.183.63[.]41/access/JWrapper-Windows64JRE-version.txt?time=3512082867 – URL - C2 server

213.183.63[.]41/access/JWrapper-Windows64JRE-00000000002-archive.p2.l2 – URL - C2 server

pruebas.pintacuario[.]mx – Hostname – Possible C2 server

144.217.181[.]205 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

erp.ranasons[.]com – Hostname – Possible destination for exfiltration

143.110.243[.]154 – IP Address – Likely destination for exfiltration

Blind Eagle, April-June 2025

sostenermio2024.duckdns[.]org/31agosto.vbs – URL – Possible malicious file download

Stealc, April 2025

88.214.48[.]93/ea2cb15d61cc476f[.]php – URL – C2 server

Amadey & GhostSocks, April 2025

195.82.147[.]98 – IP Address - Amadey C2 server

195.82.147[.]98/0Bdh3sQpbD/index.php – IP Address – Likely Amadey C2 activity

194.28.226.181 – IP Address – Likely GhostSocks C2 server

RaspberryRobin, May 2025

4j[.]pm – Hostname – C2 server

4xq[.]nl – Hostname – C2 server

8t[.]wf – Hostname – C2 server

Gh0stRAT, May 2025

lu.dssiss[.]icu - Hostname – Likely C2 server

192.238.133[.]162:7744/1-111.exe – URL – Possible addition payload

8e9dec3b028f2406a8c546a9e9ea3d50609c36bb - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

f891c920f81bab4efbaaa1f7a850d484 - MD5 – Possible additional payload

192.238.133[.]162:7744/c3p.exe – URL - Possible additional payload

03287a15bfd67ff8c3340c0bae425ecaa37a929f - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

02aa02aee2a6bd93a4a8f4941a0e6310 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

192.238.133[.]162:7744/1-1111.exe – URL - Possible additional payload

1473292e1405882b394de5a5857f0b6fa3858fd1 - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

69549862b2d357e1de5bab899ec0c817 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

192.238.133[.]162:7744/1-25.exe – URL - Possible additional payload

20189164c4cd5cac7eb76ba31d0bd8936761d7a7 - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

f42aa5e68b28a3f335f5ea8b6c60cb57 – MD5 - Possible additional payload

192.238.133[.]162:7744/Project1_se.exe – URL - Possible additional payload

fea1e30dfafbe9fa9abbbdefbcbe245b6b0628ad - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

5ea622c630ef2fd677868cbe8523a3d5 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

192.238.133[.]162:7744/Project1_se.exe - URL - Possible additional payload

aa5a5d2bd610ccf23e58bcb17d6856d7566d71b9 - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

9d33029eaeac1c2d05cf47eebb93a1d0 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

References and further reading

1. https://cip.gov.ua/en/news/art28-atakuye-sektor-bezpeki-ta-oboroni-za-dopomogoyu-programnogo-zasobu-sho-vikoristovuye-shtuchnii-intelekt?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=113619842&utm_content=113619842&utm_source=hs_email

2. https://www.s-rminform.com/latest-thinking/cyber-threat-advisory-medusa-and-the-simplehelp-vulnerability

3. https://assetlifecycle.trimble.com/en/products/software/cityworks

4. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0994

5. https://blog.talosintelligence.com/uat-6382-exploits-cityworks-vulnerability/

6. https://www.silentpush.com/blog/raspberry-robin/

7. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2025/05/21/microsoft-leads-global-action-against-favored-cybercrime-tool/

8. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_sg/research/25/g/lumma-stealer-returns.html

Related Darktrace investigations

- RansomHub Ransomware

- RansomHub Revisited

- Lynx Ransomware

- Scattered Spider

- Medusa Ransomware

- Legitimate Services Malicious Intentions

- CVE-2025-0282 and CVE-2025-0283 – Ivanti CS, PS and ZTA

- CVE-2025-31324 – SAP Netweaver

- Pre-CVE Threat Detection

- BlindEagle (APT-C-36)

- Raspberry Robin Worm

- AsyncRAT

- Amadey

- Lumma Stealer

About the author

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Introduction

CVE-2024-3400

Campaign Analysis

1. Exploit Validation and Further Vulnerability Enumeration

2. Command and Payload Transmission

a) Shell Script Retrieval

b) Executable File Retrieval

3. Configuration Data Exfiltration and Unusual HTTP POST Activity

4. Ongoing C2 and Miscellaneous Activity

Conclusion

Appendices ‍

Pre-CVE-Release IoCs

Indicators of Compromise

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage

MITRE ATTACK Mapping

References

2025 Cyber Threat Landscape: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Review

How CDR & Automated Forensics Transform Cloud Incident Response

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

2025 Cyber Threat Landscape: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Review

Auto-Color Backdoor: How Darktrace Thwarted a Stealthy Linux Intrusion

Untangling the web: Darktrace’s investigation of Scattered Spider’s evolving tactics

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?

Blog

Network

August 6, 2025

2025 Cyber Threat Landscape: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Review

2025: Threat landscape in review

Methodology

Threat actors are incorporating AI into offensive operations

Threat landscape trends in 2025

Threat actors applying AI to Email attacks

Campaign Spotlight: Simple, Quick - ClickFix

Not just AI: Automation is enabling Ransomware and SaaS exploitation

Credentials remain the weak link

SaaS targeted ransomware is on the rise

RaaS is adding complexity and speed to cyber attacks

CVE exploitation continues despite available patches

Misused tools + delayed patches = growing cyber risk

Edge exploitation

New threats and returning adversaries

BlindEagle (APT-C-36)

Sophisticated malware functionality

Familiar foes

Conclusion

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

LapDogs ORB network, December 2024-June 2025

CVE-2025-0994, Trimble Cityworks exploitation, January 2025

AsyncRAT, February-March 2025

CVE-2024-57727 & CVE-2024-57728, SimpleHelp RMM exploitation, March 2025

Blind Eagle, April-June 2025

Stealc, April 2025

Amadey & GhostSocks, April 2025

RaspberryRobin, May 2025

Gh0stRAT, May 2025

References and further reading

Related Darktrace investigations