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

SOC 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

Sam Lister

SOC Analyst

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

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Sam Lister

SOC Analyst

Director of Product, Cloud Security

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

August 8, 2025

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

ivanti cve exploitation edge infrastructure

Ivanti & Edge infrastructure exploitation

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

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

Vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darktrace Coverage

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

Exploit Validation

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

Payload Delivery via AWS

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

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

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

Later-stage script file payload delivery

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Appendices

Mid-High Confidence IoCs

(IoC – Type - Description)

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

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

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

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

- c47abdb1651f9f6d96d34313872e68fb132f39f5 - SHA1 File Hash – Payload

- 4abfaeadcd5ab5f2c3acfac6454d1176 - MD5 File Hash - Payload

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

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

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

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

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

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

- d8d6fe1a268374088fb6a5dc7e5cbb54 – MD5 File Hash – Payload

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

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

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

Darktrace Model Detections

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

- Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

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

- Compliance / Pastebin

- Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

- Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device

- Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

- Anomalous File / Incoming ELF File

- Device / Suspicious Domain

- Device / New User Agent

- Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

- Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

- Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

- Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download

- Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

- Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

- Device / Attack and Recon Tools

- Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

- Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Blog

August 7, 2025

How CDR & Automated Forensics Transform Cloud Incident Response

cloud security investigation guy on computer doing work

Introduction: Cloud investigations

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

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

The Problem: Cloud incidents are hard to investigate

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

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

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

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

How Darktrace augments cloud investigations‍

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

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

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

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

Once the incident is created, more questions are raised.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Automated forensic capture — No expertise required

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

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

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

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

Darktrace even gives the ability to:

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

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

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

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

Figure 6: Traverse the full file system of the asset

Why this matters?

This workflow solves the hardest parts of cloud investigation:

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

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

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

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

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

[related-resource]

About the author

Adam Stevens

Director of Product, Cloud Security

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Exchange server compromise

Confluence server compromise

GitLab server compromise

Log4j server compromise

Round-up

Footnotes

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

How CDR & Automated Forensics Transform Cloud Incident Response

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Blog

Network

August 8, 2025

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

Ivanti & Edge infrastructure exploitation

Vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM

Darktrace Coverage

Exploit Validation

Payload Delivery via AWS

Later-stage script file payload delivery

Conclusion

Appendices

Blog

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?