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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Share
07
Jul 2020
Introduction
The speed with which attackers can weaponize vulnerabilities is steadily increasing. While technology is rapidly evolving and cyber-attacks are becoming more sophisticated, the advantages of exploiting software vulnerabilities over devising a more elaborate and lengthy attack plan have not been overlooked by hackers. These vulnerabilities are also a quick way to gain access into a businesses’ infrastructure. In recent years, attackers have found great benefit and substantial success through quickly weaponizing vulnerabilities in web-facing systems.
Just recently, critical vulnerabilities in Citrix Gateway resulted in a spate of activity targeting Darktrace customers, as reported earlier this year. Without an immediate patch released upon the public announcement of the discovered flaws in Citrix, exploits quickly followed. Similarly, in late April, SaltStack developers reported vulnerabilities in Salt, an open source framework used to monitor and update the state of servers in cloud environments and data centers.
The vulnerabilities found in Salt would allow hackers to bypass authentication and authorization controls and execute code in Salt master servers exposed to the internet. The Salt master is responsible for sending commands to Salt minions and can manage thousands of minions at once. Due to this structure, one exposed Salt master can lead to a compromise of all underlying minions.
On May 2, Darktrace detected successful crypto-miner infections across a number of its customers exploiting the CVE-2020-11651 and CVE-2020-11652 vulnerabilities in SaltStack server management software. In the same weekend, LineageOS — an Android mobile operating system – and Ghost — a blogging platform – both reported suffering a crypto-mining attack due to exposed, unpatched Salt servers. Most notable about these attacks was the sheer speed from a vulnerability being published to a widespread attack campaign.
Timeline
Figure 1: A timeline of events identified by Darktrace on May 3
Technical analysis
Initial compromise
Darktrace initially detected that a number of customer servers running SaltStack were making external connections to endpoints previously not seen on the network. The connections used the curl or wget utilities to download and execute a bash script, which would install a secondary-stage payload containing a cryptocurrency miner.
The systems were targeted directly utilizing 2020-11651 and CVE-2020-11652 vulnerabilities in the ZeroMQ protocol running on SaltStack. These vulnerabilities would allow direct remote code execution as root on the targeted systems, allowing the script to be downloaded and executed successfully with highest system privileges.
The downloader script is almost identical to the one utilized in March in H2Miner infections targeting exposed Docker APIs and Redis instances.
Before downloading the secondary stage payload, the script cleans the target system of a number of pre-existing infections and miners, as well as disabling a number of known security tools and software.
Figure 2: The downloader script
Following the initial clean up, the script would iterate through three functions to download the crypto-miner payload — salt-storer
— from three different hard-coded servers. An MD5 check for the downloaded executable would be performed prior to execution. The below screenshot illustrates two out of the three downloader functions that would be invoked.
Figure 3: Two of the downloader functions
Second stage payload
Following the cryptographic checks, the downloaded ELF LSB executable kicks into action. No payload analysis was carried out, however it’s execution would result in a crypto-miner being installed and a C2 channel opened.
OSINT indicates that several new versions of the payload were observed carrying additional capabilities, including database dumping and advanced persistence methods. The variants detected by Darktrace’s AI included the more advanced “Version 5” payload purported to have worming capabilities, but in this case they were not observed directly.
Command and control
Upon the execution of an LSB executable, a plaintext HTTP C2 channel would be established, sending basic metadata about the infected host such as processor architecture, available resources, and whether root execution was achieved. This indicates that the C2 mechanisms were likely repurposed from other infections, as this particular infection would execute as root, making the respective component redundant.
Figure 4: A Command and control channel
The complete attack lifecycle was investigated and reported on by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst, which automatically surfaced some crucial details regarding the C2 communication, including other servers that were seen making similar communication patterns, as seen in the bottom right below.
Figure 5: The Cyber AI Analyst automatically generating a natural-language summary of the overall security incident
Figure 6: Further information on the suspicious endpoints
Actions on target
Lastly, devices began mining for cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency mining demands a substantial proportion of a device’s processing power, such as CPU and GPU, in order to calculate hashes. However, except for the occasional increase in CPU or RAM usage, it can go undetected for months as traditional security products do not normally detect its pattern of behavior as malicious.
Conclusion
Failing to patch vulnerabilities quickly and decisively can have serious consequences. Sometimes, however, the window of opportunity before an attack hits is too short for patching to be feasible. This example demonstrates how quickly unpatched vulnerabilities can be exploited following an initial public disclosure. And yet, even two months after SaltStack published the updates, many Salt servers remain unpatched and run the risk of becoming compromised.
In the case of Citrix, some exploits led to a ransomware attack. Darktrace’s AI-powered Immune System technology not only detected every stage of these ransomware attacks, but its autonomous response was able to halt any anomalous event and contain further damage.
Because new vulnerabilities are, by nature, unexpected, traditional security tools relying on rules and signatures don’t know to look for malicious activity that arises as a result. However, with its constantly evolving understanding of ‘normal’, Darktrace’s AI detects and investigates any unusual behavior, regardless of its origin or whether an attack has been seen before.
Crypto-mining is still favored among many threat actors due to its ability to generate profits, and a successfully infection can have a serious impact on the confidentiality and integrity of the corporate network. The need for Cyber AI that can detect new vulnerabilities and novel threats, and autonomously respond to stop an attack in its tracks, are critical to ensuring businesses remain secure in the face of cyber-criminals who are mobilizing to exploit vulnerabilities more quickly than ever.
IoCs:
IoCComment144.217.129[.]111Likely C2, URIs: /ms /h /s91.215.152[.]69Likely C2, URI: /h89.223.121[.]139Download of payload sa.sh217.12.210[.]192Download of payload sa.sh45.147.201[.]62Destination for crypto-mining217.12.210[.]245Download of payload salt_storer
Darktrace model breaches:
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Script from Rare External
Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Destination
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.
Tracking CVE-2025-31324: Darktrace’s detection of SAP Netweaver exploitation before and after disclosure
Introduction: Exploiting SAP platforms
Global enterprises depend extensively on SAP platforms, such as SAP NetWeaver and Visual Composer, to run critical business processes worldwide. These systems; however, are increasingly appealing targets for well-resourced adversaries:
In March 2025, CISA issued an alert confirming active exploitation of a 2017 SAP NetWeaver vulnerability (CVE‑2017‑12637), enabling attackers to perform directory traversal and exfiltrate sensitive files, including credentials, from internet-facing systems
CVE-2025-31324 affects SAP’s NetWeaver Visual Composer, a web-based software modeling tool. SAP NetWeaver is an application server and development platform that runs and connects SAP and non-SAP applications across different technologies [2]. It is commonly used by process specialists to develop application components without coding in government agencies, large enterprises, and by critical infrastructure operators [4].
CVE-2025-31324 affects SAP’s Netweaver Visual Composer Framework 7.1x (all SPS) and above [4]. The vulnerability in a Java Servlet (/irj/servlet_jsp) would enable an unauthorized actor to upload arbitrary files to the /developmentserver/metadatauploader endpoint, potentially resulting in remote code execution (RCE) and full system compromise [3]. The issue stems from an improper authentication and authorization check in the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java systems [4].
What is the severity rating of CVE-2025-31324?
The vulnerability, first disclosed on April 24, 2025, carries the highest severity rating (CVSS v3 score: 10.0) and could allow remote attackers to upload malicious files without requiring authentication [1][5]. Although SAP released a workaround on April 8, many organizations are hesitant to take their business-critical SAP NetWeaver systems offline, leaving them exposed to potential exploitation [2].
How is CVE-2025-31324 exploited?
The vulnerability is exploitable by sending specifically crafted GET, POST, or HEAD HTTP requests to the /developmentserver/metadatauploader URL using either HTTP or HTTPS. Attackers have been seen uploading malicious files (.jsp, .java, or .class files to paths containing “\irj\servlet_jsp\irj\”), most of them being web shells, to publicly accessible SAP NetWeaver systems.
External researchers observed reconnaissance activity targeting this vulnerability in late January 2025, followed by a surge in exploitation attempts in February. The first confirmed compromise was reported in March [4].
Multiple threat actors have reportedly targeted the vulnerability, including Chinese Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) groups Chaya_004 [7], UNC5221, UNC5174, and CL-STA-0048 [8], as well as ransomware groups like RansomEXX, also known as Storm-2460, BianLian [4] or Qilin [6] (the latter two share the same indicators of compromise (IoCs)).
Following the initial workaround published on April 8, SAP released a security update addressing CVE-2025-31324 and subsequently issued a patch on May 13 (Security Note 3604119) to resolve the root cause of the vulnerability [4].
Darktrace’s coverage of CVE-2025-31324 exploitation
Darktrace has observed activity indicative of threat actors exploiting CVE-2025-31324, including one instance detected before the vulnerability was publicly disclosed.
In April 2025, the Darktrace Threat Research team investigated activity related to the CVE-2025-31324 on SAP devices and identified two cases suggesting active exploitation of the vulnerability. One case was detected prior to the public disclosure of the vulnerability, and the other just two days after it was published.
Early detection of CVE 2025-31324 by Darktrace
Figure 1: Timeline of events for an internet-facing system, believed to be a SAP device, exhibiting activity indicative of CVE-2025-31324 exploitation.
On April 18, six days prior to the public disclosure of CVE-2025-31324, Darktrace began to detect unusual activity on a device belonging to a logistics organization in the Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region. Multiple IoCs observed during this incident have since been linked via OSINT to the exploitation of CVE-2025-31324. Notably, however, this reporting was not available at the time of detection, highlighting Darktrace’s ability to detect threats agnostically, without relying on threat intelligence.
The device was observed making domain name resolution request for the Out-of-Band Application Security Testing (OAST) domain cvvr9gl9namk9u955tsgaxy3upyezhnm6.oast[.]online. OAST is often used by security teams to test if exploitable vulnerabilities exist in a web application but can similarly be used by threat actors for the same purpose [9].
Four days later, on April 22, Darktrace observed the same device, an internet-facing system believed to be a SAP device, downloading multiple executable (.exe) files from several Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3). Darktrace’s Threat Research team later found these files to be associated with the KrustyLoader malware [23][24][25].
KrustyLoader is known to be associated with the Chinese threat actor UNC5221, also known as UTA0178, which has been reported to aggressively target devices exposed to the internet [10] [14] [15]. It is an initial-stage malware which downloads and launches a second-stage payload – Sliver C2. Sliver is a similar tool to Cobalt Strike (an open-source post-exploitation toolkit). It is used for command-and-control (C2) connections [11][12]13]. After its successful download, KrustyLoader deletes itself to evade detection. It has been reported that multiple Chinese APT groups have deployed KrustyLoader on SAP Netweaver systems post-compromise [8].
The actors behind KrustyLoader have also been associated with the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in other enterprise systems, including Ivanti devices [12]. Notably, in this case, one of the Amazon S3 domains observed (abode-dashboard-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws[.]com ) had previously been investigated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team as part of their investigation into Ivanti Connect Secure (CS) and Policy Secure (PS) appliances.
In addition to the download of known malicious files, Darktrace also detected new IoCs, including several executable files that could not be attributed to any known malware families or previous attacks, and for which no corresponding OSINT reporting was available.
Post-CVE publication detection
Exploit Validation
Between April 27 and 29, Darktrace observed unusual activity from an SAP device on the network of a manufacturing customer in EMEA.
Figure 2: Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of an SAP device performing a large volume of suspicious activity between April 27 and April 29.
The device was observed making DNS requests for OAST domains (e.g. aaaaaaaa.d06qqn7pu5a6u25tv9q08p5xhbjzw33ge.oast[.]online and aaaaaaaaaaa.d07j2htekalm3139uk2gowmxuhapkijtp.oast[.]pro), suggesting that a threat actor was testing for exploit validation [9].
Figure 3: Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of a SAP device making suspicious domain name resolution requests for multiple OAST domains.
Privilege escalation tool download attempt
One day later, Darktrace observed the same device attempting to download an executable file from hxxp://23.95.123[.]5:666/xmrigCCall/s.exe (SHA-1 file hash: e007edd4688c5f94a714fee036590a11684d6a3a).
Darktrace / NETWORK identified the user agents Microsoft-CryptoAPI/10.0 and CertUtil URL Agent during the connections to 23.95.123[.]5. The connections were made over port 666, which is not typically used for HTTP connections.
Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors have identified the executable file as either JuicyPotato or SweetPotato, both Windows privilege escalation tools[16][17][18][19]. The file hash and the unusual external endpoint have been associated with the Chinese APT group Gelsemium in the past, however, many threat actors are known to leverage this tool in their attacks [20] [21].
Figure 4: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of a SAP device downloading a suspicious executable file from hxxp://23.95.123[.]5:666/xmrigCCall/s.exe on April 28, 2025.
Darktrace deemed this activity highly suspicious and triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert, a high-priority security model designed to detect activity likely indicative of compromise. As the customer was subscribed to the Managed Threat Detection service, Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) promptly investigated the alert and notified the customer for swift remediation. Additionally, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability automatically blocked connections to the suspicious IP, 23.95.123[.]5, effectively containing the compromise in its early stages.
Figure 5: Actions taken by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response to block connections to the suspicious external endpoint 23.95.123[.]5. This event log shows that the connections to 23.95.123[.]5 were made over a rare destination port for the HTTP protocol and that new user agents were used during the connections.
Conclusion
The exploitation of CVE-2025-31324 to compromise SAP NetWeaver systems highlights the persistent threat posed by vulnerabilities in public-facing assets. In this case, threat actors leveraged the flaw to gain an initial foothold, followed by attempts to deploy malware linked to groups affiliated with China [8][20].
Crucially, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect and respond to emerging threats even before they are publicly disclosed. Six days prior to the public disclosure of CVE-2025-31324, Darktrace detected unusual activity on a device believed to be a SAP system, which ultimately represented an early detection of the CVE. This detection was made possible through Darktrace’s behavioral analysis and anomaly detection, allowing it to recognize unexpected deviations in device behavior without relying on signatures, rules or known IoCs. Combined with its Autonomous Response capability, this allowed for immediate containment of suspicious activity, giving security teams valuable time to investigate and mitigate the threat.
Credit to Signe Zaharka (Principal Cyber Analyst), Emily Megan Lim, (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)
Appendices
List of IoCs
23.95.123[.]5:666/xmrigCCall/s.exe - URL- JuicyPotato/SweetPotato - high confidence
29274ca90e6dcf5ae4762739fcbadf01- MD5 file hash - JuicyPotato/SweetPotato - high confidence
Modernising UK Cyber Regulation: Implications of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
The need for security and continued cyber resilience
The UK government has made national security a key priority, and the new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (CSRB) is a direct reflection of that focus. In introducing the Bill, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, recognised that the UK is “desperately exposed” to cyber threats—from criminal groups to hostile nation-states that are increasingly targeting the UK's digital systems and critical infrastructure[1].
Context and timeline for the new legislation
First announced during the King’s Speech of July 2024, and elaborated in a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) policy statement published in April 2025, the CSRB is expected to be introduced in Parliament during the 2025-26 legislative session.
For now, organisations in the UK remain subject to the 2018 Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations – an EU-derived law which was drafted before today’s increasing digitisation of critical services, rise in cloud adoption and emergence of AI-powered threats.
Why modernisation is critical
Without modernisation, the Government believes UK’s infrastructure and economy risks falling behind international peers. The EU, which revised its cybersecurity regulation under the NIS2 Directive, already imposes stricter requirements on a broader set of sectors.
The urgency of the Bill is also underscored by recent high-impact incidents, including the Synnovis attack which targeted the National Health Service (NHS) suppliers and disrupted thousands of patient appointments and procedures[2]. The Government has argued that such events highlight a systemic failure to keep pace with a rapidly evolving threat landscape[3].
What the Bill aims to achieve
This Bill represents a decisive shift. According to the Government, it will modernise and future‑proof the UK’s cyber laws, extending oversight to areas where risk has grown but regulation has not kept pace[4]. While the legislation builds on previous consultations and draws lessons from international frameworks like the EU’s NIS2 directive, it also aims to tailor solutions to the UK’s unique threat environment.
Importantly, the Government is framing cybersecurity not as a barrier to growth, but as a foundation for it. The policy statement emphasises that strong digital resilience will create the stability businesses need to thrive, innovate, and invest[5]. Therefore, the goals of the Bill will not only be to enhance security but also act as an enabler to innovation and economic growth.
Recognition that AI changes cyber threats
The CSRB policy statement recognises that AI is fundamentally reshaping the threat landscape, with adversaries now leveraging AI and commercial cyber tools to exploit vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure and supply chains. Indeed, the NCSC has recently assessed that AI will almost certainly lead to “an increase in the frequency and intensity of cyber threats”[6]. Accordingly, the policy statement insists that the UK’s regulatory framework “must keep pace and provide flexibility to respond to future threats as and when they emerge”[7].
To address the threat, the Bill signals new obligations for MSPs and data centres, timely incident reporting and dynamic guidance that can be refreshed without fresh primary legislation, making it essential for firms to follow best practices.
What might change in day-to-day practice?
New organisations in scope of regulation
Under the existing Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations[8], the UK already supervises operators in five critical sectors—energy, transport, drinking water, health (Operators of Essential Services, OES) and digital infrastructure (Relevant Digital Service Providers, RDSPs).
The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill retains this foundation and adds Managed Service Providers (MSPs) and data centres to the scope of regulation to “better recognise the increasing reliance on digital services and the vulnerabilities posed by supply chains”[9]. It also grants the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology the power to add new sectors or sub‑sectors via secondary legislation, following consultation with Parliament and industry.
Managed service providers (MSPs)
MSPs occupy a central position within the UK’s enterprise information‑technology infrastructure. Because they remotely run or monitor clients’ systems, networks and data, they hold privileged, often continuous access to multiple environments. This foothold makes them an attractive target for malicious actors.
The Bill aims to bring MSPs in scope of regulation by making them subject to the same duties as those placed on firms that provide digital services under the 2018 NIS Regulations. By doing so, the Bill seeks to raise baseline security across thousands of customer environments and to provide regulators with better visibility of supply‑chain risk.
The proposed definition for MSPs is a service which:
Is provided to another organisation
Relies on the use of network and information systems to deliver the service
Relates to ongoing management support, active administration and/or monitoring of AI systems, IT infrastructure, applications, and/or IT networks, including for the purpose of activities relating to cyber security.
Involves a network connection and/or access to the customer’s network and information systems.
Data centres
Building on the September 2024 designation of data centres as critical national infrastructure, the CSRB will fold data infrastructure into the NIS-style regime by naming it an “relevant sector" and data centres as “essential service”[10].
About 182 colocation facilities run by 64 operators will therefore come under statutory duties to notify the regulator, maintain proportionate CAF-aligned controls and report significant incidents, regardless of who owns them or what workloads they host.
New requirements for regulated organisations
Incident reporting processes
There could be stricter timelines or broader definitions of what counts as a reportable incident. This might nudge organisations to formalise detection, triage, and escalation procedures.
The Government is proposing to introduce a new two-stage incident reporting process. This would include an initial notification which would be submitted within 24 hours of becoming aware of a significant incident, followed by a full incident report which should be submitted within 72 hours of the same.
Supply chain assurance requirements
Supply chains for the UK's most critical services are becoming increasingly complex and present new and serious vulnerabilities for cyber-attacks. The recent Synnovis ransomware attacks on the NHS[11] exemplify the danger posed by attacks against the supply chains of important services and organisations. This is concerning when reflecting on the latest Cyber Security Breaches survey conducted by DSIT, which highlights that fewer than 25% of large businesses review their supply chain risks[12].
Despite these risks, the UK’s legacy cybersecurity regulatory regime does not explicitly cover supply chain risk management. The UK instead relies on supporting and non-statutory guidance to close this gap, such as the NCSC’s Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF)[13].
The CSRB policy statement acts on this regulatory shortcoming and recognises that “a single supplier’s disruption can have far-reaching impacts on the delivery of essential or digital services”[14].
To address this, the Bill would make in-scope organisations (OES and RDPS) directly accountable for the cybersecurity of their supply chains. Secondary legislation would spell out these duties in detail, ensuring that OES and RDSPs systematically assess and mitigate third-party cyber risks.
Updated and strengthened security requirements
By placing the CAF into a firmer footing and backing it with a statutory Code of Practice, the Government is setting clearer expectations about government expectations on technical standards and methods organisations will need to follow to prove their resilience.
How Darktrace can help support affected organizations
Demonstrate resilience
Darktrace’s Self-Learning AITM continuously monitors your digital estate across cloud, network, OT, email, and endpoint to detect, investigate, and autonomously respond to emerging threats in real time. This persistent visibility and defense posture helps organizations demonstrate cyber resilience to regulators with confidence.
Streamline incident reporting and compliance
Darktrace surfaces clear alerts and automated investigation reports, complete with timeline views and root cause analysis. These insights reduce the time and complexity of regulatory incident reporting and support internal compliance workflows with auditable, AI-generated evidence.
Improve supply chain visibility
With full visibility across connected systems and third-party activity, Darktrace detects early indicators of lateral movement, account compromise, and unusual behavior stemming from vendor or partner access, reducing the risk of supply chain-originated cyber-attacks.
Ensure MSPs can meet new standards
For managed service providers, Darktrace offers native multi-tenant support and autonomous threat response that can be embedded directly into customer environments. This ensures consistent, scalable security standards across clients—helping MSPs address increasing regulatory obligations.
.jpg)
![Actions taken by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response to block connections to the suspicious external endpoint 23.95.123[.]5. This event log shows that the connections to 23.95.123[.]5 were made over a rare destination port for the HTTP protocol and that new user agents were used during the connections.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/685069596b6d07de173a8b51_Screenshot%202025-06-16%20at%2011.58.25%E2%80%AFAM.png)
