April 4, 2022

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Read about 2021's top four incidents and how Darktrace's advanced threat detection technology identified and mitigated vulnerabilities. Learn more.

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

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

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Apr 2022

By virtue of their exposure, Internet-facing systems (i.e., systems which have ports open/exposed to the wider Internet) are particularly susceptible to compromise. Attackers typically compromise Internet-facing systems by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in applications they run. During 2021, critical zero-day vulnerabilities in the following applications were publicly disclosed:

Microsoft Exchange
Confluence
GitLab
Log4j-using applications

Internet-facing systems running these applications were consequently heavily targeted by attackers. In this post, we will provide examples of compromises of these systems observed by Darktrace’s SOC team in 2021. As will become clear, successful exploitation of weaknesses in Internet-facing systems inevitably results in such systems doing things which they do not normally do. Rather than focusing on identifying attempts to exploit these weaknesses, Darktrace focuses on identifying the unusual behaviors which inevitably ensue. The purpose of this post is to highlight the effectiveness of this approach.

Exchange server compromise

In January, researchers from the cyber security company DEVCORE reported a series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyLogon’.^[1] ProxyLogon consists of a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26855) and a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-27065). Attackers were observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild from as early as January 6.^[2] In April, DEVCORE researchers reported another series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyShell’.^[3] ProxyShell consists of a pre-authentication path confusion vulnerability (CVE-2021-34473), a privilege elevation vulnerability (CVE-2021-34523), and a post-authentication RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-31207). Attackers were first observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild in August.^[4] In many cases, attackers exploited the ProxyShell and ProxyLogon vulnerabilities in order to create web shells on the targeted Exchange servers. The presence of these web shells provided attackers with the means to remotely execute commands on the compromised servers.

In early August 2021, by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerabilities, an attacker gained the rights to remotely execute PowerShell commands on an Internet-facing Exchange server within the network of a US-based transportation company. The attacker subsequently executed a number of PowerShell commands on the server. One of these commands caused the server to make a 28-minute-long SSL connection to a highly unusual external endpoint. Within a couple of hours, the attacker managed to strengthen their foothold within the network by installing AnyDesk and CobaltStrike on several internal devices. In mid-August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed Cobalt Strike to conduct network reconnaissance and to transfer terabytes of data to the cloud storage service, MEGA. At the end of August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed AnyDesk to execute Conti ransomware and to spread executable files and script files to further internal devices.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of ProxyShell immediately resulted in the Exchange Server making a long SSL connection to an unusual external endpoint. This connection caused the model Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint to breach. The subsequent reconnaissance, lateral movement, C2, external data transfer, and encryption behavior brought about by the attacker were also picked up by Darktrace’s models.

A non-exhaustive list of the models that breached as a result of the behavior brought about by the attacker:

Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint
Device / ICMP Address Scan
Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days
Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
Compliance / SMB Drive Write
Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB
Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Data Volume as Client or Server
Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares
Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
Anomalous File / Internal / Masqueraded Executable SMB Write
Device / SMB Lateral Movement
Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Confluence server compromise

Atlassian’s Confluence is an application which provides the means for building collaborative, virtual workspaces. In the era of remote working, the value of such an application is undeniable. The public disclosure of a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) in Confluence in August 2021 thus provided a prime opportunity for attackers to cause havoc. The vulnerability, which arises from the use of Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL) in Confluence’s tag system, provides attackers with the means to remotely execute code on vulnerable Confluence server by sending a crafted HTTP request containing a malicious parameter.^[5] Attackers were first observed exploiting this vulnerability towards the end of August, and in the majority of cases, attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable servers.^[6]

At the beginning of September 2021, an attacker was observed exploiting CVE-2021-26084 in order to install the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as a shell script, onto an Internet-facing Confluence server within the network of an EMEA-based television and broadcasting company. Within a couple of hours, the attacker installed files associated with the crypto-mining malware, Kinsing, onto the server. The Kinsing-infected server then immediately began to communicate over HTTP with the attacker’s C2 infrastructure. Around the time of this activity, the server was observed using the MinerGate crypto-mining protocol, indicating that the server had begun to mine cryptocurrency.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of CVE-2021-26084 immediately resulted in the Confluence server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with curl in this case) to a rare external IP. This behavior caused the models Device / New User Agent, Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname, and Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location to breach. The subsequent file downloads, C2 traffic and crypto-mining activity also resulted in several models breaching.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

Device / New User Agent
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

GitLab server compromise

GitLab is an application providing services ranging from project planning to source code management. Back in April 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-22205) in GitLab was publicly reported by a cyber security researcher via the bug bounty platform, HackerOne.^[7] The vulnerability, which arises from GitLab’s use of ExifTool for removing metadata from image files, ^[8] enables attackers to remotely execute code on vulnerable GitLab servers by uploading specially crafted image files.^[9] Attackers were first observed exploiting CVE-2021-22205 in the wild in June/July.^[10] A surge in exploitations of the vulnerability was observed at the end of October, with attackers exploiting the flaw in order to assemble botnets.^[11] Darktrace observed a significant number of cases in which attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable GitLab servers.

On October 29, an attacker successfully exploited CVE-2021-22205 on an Internet-facing GitLab server within the network of a UK-based education provider. The organization was trialing Darktrace when this incident occurred. The attacker installed several executable files and shell scripts onto the server by exploiting the vulnerability. The attacker communicated with the compromised server (using unusual ports) for several days, before making the server transfer large volumes of data externally and download the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as the botnet malware, Mirai. The server was consequently observed making connections to the crypto-mining pool, C3Pool.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the vulnerability in GitLab immediately resulted in the server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Wget in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname and Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location breached as a result of this behavior. The attacker’s subsequent activity on the server over the next few days resulted in frequent model breaches.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the attacker’s activity on the server:

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
Anomalous File / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New IPs
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device
Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
Compliance / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
Compromise / Monero Mining
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download

Log4j server compromise

On December 9 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (dubbed ‘Log4Shell’) in version 2 of Apache’s Log4j was publicly disclosed by researchers at LunaSec.^[12] As a logging library present in potentially millions of Java applications,^[13] Log4j constitutes an obscured, yet ubiquitous feature of the digital world. The vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228), which arises from Log4j’s Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) Lookup feature, enables an attacker to make a vulnerable server download and execute a malicious Java class file. To exploit the vulnerability, all the attacker must do is submit a specially crafted JNDI lookup request to the server. The fact that Log4j is present in so many applications and that the exploitation of this vulnerability is so simple, Log4Shell has been dubbed the ‘most critical vulnerability of the last decade’.^[14] Attackers have been exploiting Log4Shell in the wild since at least December 1.^[15] Since then, attackers have been observed exploiting the vulnerability to install crypto-mining tools, Cobalt Strike, and RATs onto vulnerable servers.^[16]

On December 10, one day after the public disclosure of Log4Shell, an attacker successfully exploited the vulnerability on a vulnerable Internet-facing server within the network of a US-based architecture company. By exploiting the vulnerability, the attacker managed to get the server to download and execute a Java class file named ‘Exploit69ogQNSQYz.class’. Executing the code in this file caused the server to download a shell script file and a file related to the Kinsing crypto-mining malware. The Kinsing-infected server then went on to communicate over HTTP with a C2 server. Since the customer was using the Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, they were immediately alerted to this activity, and the server was subsequently quarantined, preventing crypto-mining activity from taking place.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the zero-day vulnerability immediately resulted in the vulnerable server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Java in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device and Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname breached as a result of this behavior. The device’s subsequent file downloads and C2 activity caused several Darktrace models to breach.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Round-up

It is inevitable that attackers will attempt to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in applications running on Internet-facing devices. Whilst identifying these attempts is useful, the fact that attackers regularly exploit new zero-days makes the task of identifying attempts to exploit them akin to a game of whack-a-mole. Whilst it is uncertain which zero-day vulnerability attackers will exploit next, what is certain is that their exploitation of it will bring about unusual behavior. No matter the vulnerability, whether it be a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, Confluence, GitLab, or Log4j, Darktrace will identify the unusual behaviors which inevitably result from its exploitation. By identifying unusual behaviors displayed by Internet-facing devices, Darktrace thus makes it almost impossible for attackers to successfully exploit zero-day vulnerabilities without being detected.

For Darktrace customers who want to find out more about detecting potential compromises of internet-facing devices, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

Thanks to Andy Lawrence for his contributions.

Footnotes

1. https://devco.re/blog/2021/08/06/a-new-attack-surface-on-MS-exchange-part-1-ProxyLogon/

2. https://www.volexity.com/blog/2021/03/02/active-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-zero-day-vulnerabilities/

3. https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2021/8/17/from-pwn2own-2021-a-new-attack-surface-on-microsoft-exchange-proxyshell

4. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/12/proxyshell-more-widespread-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-servers/

5. https://www.kaspersky.co.uk/blog/confluence-server-cve-2021-26084/23376/

6. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/atlassian-confluence-flaw-actively-exploited-to-install-cryptominers/

7. https://hackerone.com/reports/1154542

8. https://security.humanativaspa.it/gitlab-ce-cve-2021-22205-in-the-wild/

9.https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2021/04/14/security-release-gitlab-13-10-3-released/

10. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/11/01/gitlab-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-cve-2021-22205-exploited-in-the-wild/

11. https://www.hackmageddon.com/2021/12/16/1-15-november-2021-cyber-attacks-timeline/

12. https://www.lunasec.io/docs/blog/log4j-zero-day/

13. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3644472/apache-log4j-vulnerability-actively-exploited-impacting-millions-of-java-based-apps.html

14. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/10/software-flaw-most-critical-vulnerability-log-4-shell

15. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/12/15/the-everypersons-guide-to-log4shell-cve-2021-44228/

16. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/12/11/guidance-for-preventing-detecting-and-hunting-for-cve-2021-44228-log4j-2-exploitation/

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Inside the SOC

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

November 27, 2025

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

What is TAG-150?

TAG-150, a relatively new Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) operator, has been active since March 2025, demonstrating rapid development and an expansive, evolving infrastructure designed to support its malicious operations. The group employs two custom malware families, CastleLoader and CastleRAT, to compromise target systems, with a primary focus on the United States [1]. TAG-150’s infrastructure included numerous victim-facing components, such as IP addresses and domains functioning as command-and-control (C2) servers associated with malware families like SecTopRAT and WarmCookie, in addition to CastleLoader and CastleRAT [2].

As of May 2025, CastleLoader alone had infected a reported 469 devices, underscoring the scale and sophistication of TAG-150’s campaign [1].

What are CastleLoader and CastleRAT?

CastleLoader is a loader malware, primarily designed to download and install additional malware, enabling chain infections across compromised systems [3]. TAG-150 employs a technique known as ClickFix, which uses deceptive domains that mimic document verification systems or browser update notifications to trick victims into executing malicious scripts. Furthermore, CastleLoader leverages fake GitHub repositories that impersonate legitimate tools as a distribution method, luring unsuspecting users into downloading and installing malware on their devices [4].

CastleRAT, meanwhile, is a remote access trojan (RAT) that serves as one of the primary payloads delivered by CastleLoader. Once deployed, CastleRAT grants attackers extensive control over the compromised system, enabling capabilities such as keylogging, screen capturing, and remote shell access.

TAG-150 leverages CastleLoader as its initial delivery mechanism, with CastleRAT acting as the main payload. This two-stage attack strategy enhances the resilience and effectiveness of their operations by separating the initial infection vector from the final payload deployment.

How are they deployed?

Castleloader uses code-obfuscation methods such as dead-code insertion and packing to hinder both static and dynamic analysis. After the payload is unpacked, it connects to its command-and-control server to retrieve and running additional, targeted components.

Its modular architecture enables it to function both as a delivery mechanism and a staging utility, allowing threat actors to decouple the initial infection from payload deployment. CastleLoader typically delivers its payloads as Portable Executables (PEs) containing embedded shellcode. This shellcode activates the loader’s core module, which then connects to the C2 server to retrieve and execute the next-stage malware.[6]

Following this, attackers deploy the ClickFix technique, impersonating legitimate software distribution platforms like Google Meet or browser update notifications. These deceptive sites trick victims into copying and executing PowerShell commands, thereby initiating the infection kill chain. [1]

When a user clicks on a spoofed Cloudflare “Verification Step” prompt, a background request is sent to a PHP script on the distribution domain (e.g., /s.php?an=0). The server’s response is then automatically copied to the user’s clipboard using the ‘unsecuredCopyToClipboard()’ function. [7].

The Python-based variant of CastleRAT, known as “PyNightShade,” has been engineered with stealth in mind, showing minimal detection across antivirus platforms [2]. As illustrated in Figure 1, PyNightShade communicates with the geolocation API service ip-api[.]com, demonstrating both request and response behavior

Figure 1: Packet Capture (PCAP) of PyNightShade, the Python-based variant of CastleRAT, communicating with the geolocation API service ip-api[.]com.

Darktrace Coverage

In mid-2025, Darktrace observed a range of anomalous activities across its customer base that appeared linked to CastleLoader, including the example below from a US based organization.

The activity began on June 26, when a device on the customer’s network was observed connecting to the IP address 173.44.141[.]89, a previously unseen IP for this network along with the use of multiple user agents, which was also rare for the user. It was later determined that the IP address was a known indicator of compromise (IoC) associated with TAG-150’s CastleRAT and CastleLoader operations [2][5].

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device making unusual connections to the malicious endpoint 173.44.141[.]89.

The device was observed downloading two scripts from this endpoint, namely ‘/service/download/data_5x.bin’ and ‘/service/download/data_6x.bin’, which have both been linked to CastleLoader infections by open-source intelligence (OSINT) [8]. The archives contains embedded shellcode, which enables attackers to execute arbitrary code directly in memory, bypassing disk writes and making detection by endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools significantly more difficult [2].

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of two scripts from the malicious endpoint.

In addition to this, the affected device exhibited a high volume of internal connections to a broad range of endpoints, indicating potential scanning activity. Such behavior is often associated with reconnaissance efforts aimed at mapping internal infrastructure.

Darktrace / NETWORK correlated these behaviors and generated an Enhanced Monitoring model, a high-fidelity security model designed to detect activity consistent with the early stages of an attack. These high-priority models are continuously monitored and triaged by Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) as part of the Managed Threat Detection and Managed Detection & Response services, ensuring that subscribed customers are promptly alerted to emerging threats.

Figure 4: Darktrace detected an unusual ZIP file download alongside the anomalous script, followed by internal connectivity. This activity was correlated under an Enhanced Monitoring model.

Darktrace Autonomous Response

Fortunately, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was fully configured, enabling it to take immediate action against the offending device by blocking any further connections external to the malicious endpoint, 173.44.141[.]89. Additionally, Darktrace enforced a ‘group pattern of life’ on the device, restricting its behavior to match other devices in its peer group, ensuring it could not deviate from expected activity, while also blocking connections over 443, shutting down any unwanted internal scanning.

Figure 5: Actions performed by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response to contain the ongoing attack.

Conclusion

The rise of the MaaS ecosystem, coupled with attackers’ growing ability to customize tools and techniques for specific targets, is making intrusion prevention increasingly challenging for security teams. Many threat actors now leverage modular toolkits, dynamic infrastructure, and tailored payloads to evade static defenses and exploit even minor visibility gaps. In this instance, Darktrace demonstrated its capability to counter these evolving tactics by identifying early-stage attack chain behaviors such as network scanning and the initial infection attempt. Autonomous Response then blocked the CastleLoader IP delivering the malicious ZIP payload, halting the attack before escalation and protecting the organization from a potentially damaging multi-stage compromise

Credit to Ahmed Gardezi (Cyber Analyst) Tyler Rhea (Senior Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Connections
Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
Initial Attack Chain Activity (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

T15588.001 - Resource Development – Malware
TG1599 – Defence Evasion – Network Boundary Bridging
T1046 – Discovery – Network Service Scanning
T1189 – Initial Access

List of IoCs
IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

173.44.141[.]89 – IP – CastleLoader C2 Infrastructure
173.44.141[.]89/service/download/data_5x.bin – URI – CastleLoader Script
173.44.141[.]89/service/download/data_6x.bin – URI - CastleLoader Script
wsc.zip – ZIP file – Possible Payload

References

[1] - https://blog.polyswarm.io/castleloader

[2] - https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/from-castleloader-to-castlerat-tag-150-advances-operations

[3] - https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/34160-castleloader-malware

[4] - https://www.scworld.com/brief/malware-loader-castleloader-targets-devices-via-fake-github-clickfix-phishing

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/173.44.141.89/community

[6] https://thehackernews.com/2025/07/castleloader-malware-infects-469.html

[7] https://www.cryptika.com/new-castleloader-attack-using-cloudflare-themed-clickfix-technique-to-infect-windows-computers/

[8] https://www.cryptika.com/castlebot-malware-as-a-service-deploys-range-of-payloads-linked-to-ransomware-attacks/

About the author

Ahmed Gardezi

Cyber Analyst

Blog

Compliance

November 26, 2025

UK Cyber Security & Resilience Bill: What Organizations Need to Know

Why the Bill has been introduced

The UK’s cyber threat landscape has evolved dramatically since the 2018 NIS regime was introduced. Incidents such as the Synnovis attack against hospitals and the British Library ransomware attack show how quickly operational risk can become public harm. In this context, the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology estimates that cyber-attacks cost UK businesses around £14.7 billion each year.

At the same time, the widespread adoption of AI has expanded organisations’ attack surfaces and empowered threat actors to launch more effective and sophisticated activities, including crafting convincing phishing campaigns, exploiting vulnerabilities and initiating ransomware attacks at unprecedented speed and scale.

The CSRB responds to these challenges by widening who is regulated, accelerating incident reporting and tightening supply chain accountability, while enabling rapid updates that keep pace with technology and emerging risks.

Key provisions of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill

A wider set of organisations in scope

The Bill significantly broadens the range of organisations regulated under the NIS framework.

Managed service providers (MSPs) - medium and large MSPs, including MSSPs, managed SOCs, SIEM providers and similar services,will now fall under NIS obligations due to their systemic importance and privileged access to client systems. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will act as the regulator. Government analysis anticipates that a further 900 to 1,100 MSPs will be in scope.
Data infrastructure is now recognised as essential to the functioning of the economy and public services. Medium and large data centres, as well as enterprise facilities meeting specified thresholds, will be required to implement appropriate and proportionate measures to manage cyber risk. Oversight will be shared between DSIT and Ofcom, with Ofcom serving as the operational regulator.
Organisations that manage electrical loads for smart appliances, such as those supporting EV charging during peak times, are now within scope.

These additions sit alongside existing NIS-regulated sectors such as transport, energy, water, health, digital infrastructure, and certain digital services (including online marketplaces, search engines, and cloud computing).

Stronger supply chain requirements

Under the CSRB, regulators can now designate third-party suppliers as ‘designated critical suppliers’ (DCS) when certain threshold criteria are met and where disruption could have significant knock-on effects. Designated suppliers will be subject to the same security and incident-reporting obligations as Operators of Essential Services (OES) and Relevant Digital Service Providers (RDSPs).

Government will scope the supply chain duties for OES and RDSPs via secondary legislation, following consultation. infrastructure incidents where a single supplier’s compromise caused widespread disruption.

Faster incident reporting

Sector-specific regulators, 12 in total, will be responsible for implementing the CSRB, allowing for more effective and consistent reporting. In addition, the CSRB introduces a two-stage reporting process and expands incident reporting criteria. Regulated entities must submit an initial notification within 24 hours of becoming aware of a significant incident, followed by an incident report within 72 hours. Incident reporting criteria are also broadened to capture incidents beyond those which actually resulted in an interruption, ensuring earlier visibility for regulators and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). The importance of information sharing across agencies, law enforcement and regulators is also facilitated by the CSRB.

The reforms also require data centres and managed service providers to notify affected customers where they are likely to have been impacted by a cyber incident.

An agile regulatory framework

To keep pace with technological change, the CSRB will enable the Secretary of State to update elements of the framework via secondary legislation. Supporting materials such as the NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF) are to be "put on a stronger footing” allowing for requirements to be more easily followed, managed and updated. Regulators will also now be able to recover full costs associated with NIS duties meaning they are better resourced to carry out their associated responsibilities.

Relevant Managed Service Providers must identify and take appropriate and proportionate measures to manage risks to the systems they rely on for providing services within the UK. Importantly, these measures must, having regard to the state of the art, ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk posed, and prevent or minimise the impact of incidents.

The Secretary of State will also be empowered to issue a Statement of Strategic Priorities, setting cross-regime outcomes to drive consistency across the 12 competent authorities responsible for implementation.

Penalties

The enforcement framework will be strengthened, with maximum fines aligned with comparable regimes such as the GDPR, which incorporate maximums tied to turnover. Under the CSRB, maximum penalties for more serious breaches could be up to £17 million or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher.

Next steps

The Bill is expected to progress through Parliament over the course of 2025 and early 2026, with Royal Assent anticipated in 2026. Once enacted, most operational measures will not take immediate effect. Instead, Government will bring key components into force through secondary legislation following further consultation, providing regulators and industry with time to adjust practices and prepare for compliance.

Anticipated timeline

2025-2026: Parliamentary scrutiny and passage;
2026: Royal Assent;
2026 consultation: DSIT intends to consult on detailed implementation;
From 2026 onwards: Phased implementation via secondary legislation, following further consultation led by DSIT.

How Darktrace can help

The CSRB represents a step change in how the UK approaches digital risk, shifting the focus from compliance to resilience.

Darktrace can help organisations operationalise this shift by using AI to detect, investigate and respond to emerging threats at machine speed, before they escalate into incidents requiring regulatory notification. Proactive tools which can be included in the Darktrace platform allow security teams to stress-test defences, map supply chain exposure and rehearse recovery scenarios, directly supporting the CSRB’s focus on resilience, transparency and rapid response. If an incident does occur, Darktrace’s autonomous agent, Cyber AI Analyst, can accelerate investigations and provide a view of every stage of the attack chain, supporting timely reporting.

Darktrace’s AI can provide organisations with a vital lens into both internal and external cyber risk. By continuously learning patterns of behaviour across interconnected systems, Darktrace can flag potential compromise or disruption to detect supply chain risk before it impacts your organisation.

In a landscape where compliance and resilience go hand in hand, Darktrace can equip organisations to stay ahead of both evolving threats and evolving regulatory requirements.

[related-resource]

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Exchange server compromise

Confluence server compromise

GitLab server compromise

Log4j server compromise

Round-up

Footnotes

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

UK Cyber Security & Resilience Bill: What Organizations Need to Know

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

How a Major Civil Engineering Company Reduced MTTR across Network, Email and the Cloud with Darktrace

One-Person Security Team, Enterprise-Wide Protection: A Utility Company’s Darktrace Success Story

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

Blog

Network

November 27, 2025

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

What is TAG-150?

What are CastleLoader and CastleRAT?

How are they deployed?

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace Autonomous Response

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Blog

Compliance

November 26, 2025

UK Cyber Security & Resilience Bill: What Organizations Need to Know

Why the Bill has been introduced

Key provisions of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill

A wider set of organisations in scope

Stronger supply chain requirements

Faster incident reporting

An agile regulatory framework

Penalties

Next steps

Anticipated timeline

How Darktrace can help