Blog
/
Cloud
/
March 6, 2025

From Containment to Remediation: Darktrace / CLOUD & Cado Reducing MTTR

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
06
Mar 2025
Darktrace / CLOUD combines with Cado’s automated forensics capture to achieve rapid containment and deep investigative capabilities. Learn more about accelerating MTTR here.

Cloud environments operate at speed, with workloads spinning up and down in seconds. This agility is great for business and is one of the main reasons for cloud adoption. But this same agility and speed presents new challenges for security teams. When a threat emerges, every second counts—yet many organizations struggle with slow Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) due to operational bottlenecks, outdated tooling, and the complexity of modern cloud infrastructure.

To minimize disruption and potential damage, containment is a critical step in incident response. By effectively responding to contain a threat, organizations can help prevent lateral movement limiting an attack’s impact.

However, containment is not the end goal. Full remediation requires a deep understanding of exactly what happened, how far the threat spread, and what assets were involved and what changes may be needed to prevent it from happening again.

This is why Darktrace’s recent acquisition of Cado is so exciting. Darktrace / CLOUD provides real-time threat detection and automated cloud native response for containment. With Cado, Darktrace / CLOUD ensures security teams have the forensic insights that are required to fully remediate and strengthen their defenses.

Why do organizations struggle with MTTR in the cloud?

Many security teams experience delays in fully responding to cloud threats due to several key challenges:

1. Limited access to cloud resources

Security teams often don’t have direct access to cloud environments because often infrastructure is managed by a separate operations team—or even an outsourced provider. When a threat is detected, analysts must submit access requests or escalate to another team, slowing down investigations.

This delay can be particularly costly in cloud environments where attacks unfold rapidly. Without immediate access to affected resources, the time to contain, investigate, and remediate an incident can increase significantly.

2. The cloud’s ephemeral nature

Cloud workloads are often dynamic and short-lived. Serverless functions, containers, and auto-scaling resources can exist for minutes or even seconds. If a security event occurs in one of these ephemeral resources and it disappears before forensic data is captured, understanding the full scope of the attack becomes nearly impossible.

Traditional forensic methods, which rely on static endpoints, fail in these environments—leaving security teams blind to what happened.

3. Containment is critical, but businesses require more

Automated cloud native response for containment is essential for stopping an attack in progress. However, regulatory frameworks underline the need for a full understanding to prove the extent of an incident and determine the root cause, this goes beyond just containing a threat.

Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA): [1] Enacted by the European Union, DORA requires financial entities to establish robust incident reporting mechanisms. Organizations must detect, manage, and notify authorities of significant ICT-related incidents, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of each event's impact. This includes detailed analysis and documentation to enhance operational resilience and compliance.

Network and Information Security Directive 2 (NIS2): [2]This EU directive imposes advanced reporting obligations on essential and important entities, requiring them to report significant cybersecurity incidents to relevant authorities. Organizations must conduct thorough post-incident analysis to understand the incident's scope and prevent future occurrences.

Forensic analysis plays a critical role in full remediation, particularly when organizations need to:

  • Conduct post-incident investigations for compliance and reporting.
  • Identify affected data and impacted users.
  • Understand attacker behavior to prevent repeat incidents.

Without a clear forensic understanding, security teams are at risk of incomplete remediation, potentially leaving gaps that adversaries can exploit in a future attack.

How Darktrace / CLOUD & Cado reduce MTTR and enable full remediation

By combining Darktrace / CLOUD’s AI-driven platform with Cado’s automated forensics capture, organizations can achieve rapid containment and deep investigative capabilities, accelerating MTTR metrics while ensuring full remediation in complex cloud environments.

Darktrace / CLOUD: Context-aware anomaly detection & cloud native response

Darktrace / CLOUD provides deep visibility into hybrid cloud environments, by understanding the relationships between assets, identity behaviours, combined with misconfiguration data and runtime anomaly activity. Enabling customers to:

  • Detect and contain anomalous activity before threats escalate.
  • Understand how cloud identities, permissions, and configurations contribute to organizational risk.
  • Provide visibility into deployed cloud assets and services logically grouped into architectures.

Even in containerized services like AWS Fargate, where traditional endpoint security tools often struggle due to the lack of persistent accessible infrastructure, Darktrace / CLOUD monitors for anomalous behavior. If a threat is detected, security teams can launch a Cado forensic investigation from the Darktrace platform, ensuring rapid evidence collection and deeper analysis.

Ensuring:

  • Complete timeline reconstruction to understand the full impact.
  • Identification of persistence mechanisms that attackers may have left behind.
  • Forensic data preservation to meet compliance mandates like DORA, NIS2, and ISO 27001.

The outcome: Faster, smarter incident response

Darktrace / CLOUD with Cado enables organizations to detect, contain and forensically analyse activity across hybrid cloud environments

  • Reduce MTTR by automating containment and enabling forensic analysis.
  • Seamlessly pivot to a forensic investigation when needed—right from the Darktrace platform.
  • Ensure full remediation with deep forensic insights—even in ephemeral environments.

Stopping an attack is only the first step—understanding its impact is what prevents it from happening again. Together, Darktrace / CLOUD and Cado empower security teams to investigate, respond, and remediate cloud threats with speed and confidence.

References

[1] eiopa.europa.eu

[2] https://zcybersecurity.com/eu-nis2-requirements

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.
Author
Adam Stevens
Director of Product, Cloud Security
Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
Share this article

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

March 25, 2025

Survey Findings: AI Cybersecurity Priorities and Objectives in 2025

Default blog imageDefault blog image

AI is changing the cybersecurity field, both on the offensive and defensive sides. We surveyed over 1,500 cybersecurity professionals from around the world to uncover their attitudes, understanding, and priorities when it comes to AI cybersecurity in 2025. Our full report, unearthing some telling trends, is available now.  

Download the full report to explore these findings in depth

It is clear that security professionals know their field is changing fast, and that AI will continue to influence those changes. Our survey results show that they are aware that the rise of AI will require them to adopt new tools and learn to use them effectively. Still, they aren’t always certain about how to plan for the future, or what to invest in.

The top priorities of security stakeholders for improving their defenses against AI-powered threats include augmenting their existing tool stacks with AI-powered solutions and improving integration among their security tools.

Figure 1: Year-over-year changes to the priorities of securitystakeholders.

Increasing cybersecurity staff

As was also the case last year, security stakeholders are less interested in hiring additional staff than in adding new AI-powered tools onto their existing security stacks, with only with 11% (and only 8% of executives) planning to increase cybersecurity staff in 2025.

This suggests that leaders are looking for new methods to overcome talent resource shortages.

Adding AI-powered security tools to supplement existing solutions

Executives are particularly enthusiastic about adopting AI-driven tools. Within that goal, there is consensus about the qualities cyber professionals are looking for when purchasing new security capabilities or replacing existing products.

  • 87% of survey respondents prefer solutions that are part of a broader platform over individual point products

These results are similar to last year’s, where again, almost nine out of ten agreed that a platform-oriented security solution was more effective at stopping cyber threats than a collection of individual products.

  • 88% of survey respondents agree that the use of AI within the security stack is critical to freeing up time for security teams to become more proactive, compared to reactive

AI itself can contribute to this shift from reactive to proactive security, improving risk prioritization and automating preventative strategies like Attack Surface Management (ASM) and proactive exposure management.

  • 84% of survey respondents prefer defensive AI solutions that do not require the organization’s data to be shared externally

This preference may reflect increasing attention to the data privacy and security risks posed by generative AI (gen AI) adoption. It may also reflect growing awareness of data residency requirements and other restrictions that regulators are imposing.

Improving cybersecurity awareness training for end users

Based on the survey results, practitioners in SecOps are more interested in improving security awareness training.

This goal is not necessarily mutually exclusive from the addition of AI tools. For example, teams can leverage AI to build more effective security awareness training programs, and as gen AI tools are adopted, users will need to be taught about data privacy and associated security risks.

Looking towards the future

One conclusion we can draw from the attitudinal shifts from last year’s survey to this year’s: while hiring more security staff might be a nice-to-have, implementing AI-powered tools so that existing employees can work smarter is increasingly viewed as a must-have.

However, trending goals are not just about managing resources, whether headcount or AI investments, to keep up with workloads. Existing end users must also be trained to follow safe practices while using established and newly adopted tools.

Security professionals, including executives, SecOps, and every role in between, continue to shift their identified challenges and priorities as they gear up for the coming year in the Era of AI.

State of AI report

Download the full report to explore these findings in depth

The full report for Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity is out now. Download the paper to dig deeper into these trends, and see how results differ by industry, region, organization size, and job title.  

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community

Blog

/

Network

/

March 21, 2025

Cyberhaven Supply Chain Attack: Exploiting Browser Extensions

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The evolution of supply chain attacks

Supply chain attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated. As network defenses improve, threat actors continuously adapt and refine their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to achieve their goals. In recent years, this has led to a rise in the exploitation of trusted services and software, including legitimate browser extensions. Exploitation of these extensions can provide adversaries with a stealthy means to infiltrate target networks and access high-value accounts undetected.

A notable example of this trend was the compromise of the Cyberhaven Chrome extension at the end of 2024. This incident appeared to be part of a broader campaign targeting multiple Chrome browser extensions, highlighting the evolving nature of supply chain attacks [1].

What is Cyberhaven?

Cyberhaven, a US-based data security organization, experienced a security breach on December 24, 2024, when a phishing attack reportedly compromised one of their employee's credentials [2]. This allowed attackers to publish a malicious version of the Cyberhaven Chrome extension, which exfiltrated cookies and authenticated sessions from targeted websites. The malicious extension was active from December 25 to December 26 – a time when most businesses and employees were out of office and enjoying the festive period, a fact not lost on threat actors. The attackers, likely a well-organized and financially motivated group, compromised more than 30 additional Chrome extensions, affecting more than 2.6 million users [3]. They used sophisticated phishing techniques to authorize malicious OAuth applications, bypassing traditional security measures and exploiting vulnerabilities in OAuth authorizations. The primary motive appeared to be financial gain, targeting high-value platforms like social media advertising and AI services [4].

In late December 2024, multiple Darktrace customers were compromised via the Cyberhaven Chrome extension; this blog will primarily focus on Darktrace / NETWORK detections from one affected customer.

Darktrace’s coverage of Cyberhaven compromises

On December 26, 2024, Darktrace identified a series of suspicious activities across multiple customer environments, uncovering a structured attack sequence that progressed from initial intrusion to privilege escalation and data exfiltration. The attack was distributed through a malicious update to the Cyberhaven Chrome extension [2]. The malicious update established a foothold in customer environments almost immediately, leading to further anomalies.

As with other Chrome browser extensions, Cyberhaven Chrome extensions were updated automatically with no user interaction required. However, in this instance, the automatic update included a malicious version which was deployed to customer environments. This almost immediately introduced unauthorized activity, allowing attackers to establish a foothold in customer networks. The update allowed attackers to execute their objectives in the background, undetected by traditional security tools that rely on known indicators of compromise (IoCS) rather than identifying anomalies.

While multiple customer devices were seen connecting to cyberhaven[.]io, a legitimate Cyberhaven domain, Darktrace detected persistent beaconing behavior to cyberhavenext[.]pro, which appeared to be attempting to masquerade as another legitimate Cyberhaven domain. Darktrace recognized this activity as unusual, triggering several model alerts in Darktrace / NETWORK to highlight the persistent outbound connections to the suspicious domain.

Further analysis of external connectivity patterns indicated  an increase in anomalous HTTP requests alongside this beaconing activity. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources also suggest that the cyberhavenext[.]pro endpoint is associated with malicious activities [5].

Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of beaconing activity to cyberhavenext[.]pro
Figure 1: Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of beaconing activity to cyberhavenext[.]pro

Analysis using Darktrace’s Advanced Search revealed that some of these connections were directed to the suspicious external IP address 149.28.124[.]84. Further investigation confirmed that the IP correlated with two SSL hostnames, including the malicious cyberhavenext[.]pro, further reinforcing its connection to the attack infrastructure.

Darktrace Advanced Search analysis showing the IP address 149.28.124[.]84 correlating to two SSL hostnames, one of which is cyberhavenext[.]pro.
Figure 2: Darktrace Advanced Search analysis showing the IP address 149.28.124[.]84 correlating to two SSL hostnames, one of which is cyberhavenext[.]pro.

Between December 23 and December 27, Darktrace observed sustained beaconing-like activity from affected devices on the customer’s network.

Darktrace’s detection of beaconing activities from a customer device to the endpoint 149.28.124[.]84 between December 23 and December 27.
Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of beaconing activities from a customer device to the endpoint 149.28.124[.]84 between December 23 and December 27.

Darktrace observed 27 unique devices connecting to the malicious command-and-control (C2) infrastructure as far back as December 3. While most connections were brief, they represented an entry point for malicious activity. Over a two-day period, two devices transmitted 5.57 GiB of incoming data and 859.37 MiB of outgoing data, generating over 3 million log events across SSL, HTTP, and connection data.

Subsequent analysis identified a significant increase in unauthorized data transfers to the aforementioned 149.28.124[.]84 IP on another customer network, highlighting the potential broader impact of this compromise. The volume and frequency of these transfers suggested that attackers were leveraging automated data collection techniques, further underscoring the sophistication of the attack.

Darktrace’s detection of the likely exfiltration of 859.37 MiB to the endpoint 149.28.124[.]84.
Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of the likely exfiltration of 859.37 MiB to the endpoint 149.28.124[.]84.

External research suggested that once active, the Cyberhaven extension would begin silently collecting session cookies and authentication tokens, specifically targeting high-value accounts such as Facebook Ads accounts [4]. Darktrace’s analysis of another affected customer noted many HTTP POST connections directed to a specific URI ("ai-cyberhaven"), while GET requests contained varying URIs prefixed with "/php/urlblock?args=AAAh....--redirect." This activity indicated an exfiltration mechanism, consistent with techniques observed in other compromised Chrome extensions. By compromising session cookies, attackers could potentially gain administrative access to connected accounts, further escalating their privileges [4].

Conclusion

This incident highlights the importance of monitoring not just endpoint security, but also cloud and browser-based security solutions, as attackers increasingly target these trusted and oft overlooked vectors.

Ultimately, by focusing on anomaly detection and behavioral analysis rather than static signatures and lists of ‘known bads’, Darktrace was able to successfully detect devices affected by the Cyberhaven Chrome browser extension compromise, by identifying activity that would likely have been considered legitimate and benign by traditional security solutions.

This compromise also serves as a reminder that supply chain attacks are not limited to traditional software vendors. Browser extensions, cloud-based applications, and SaaS services are equally vulnerable, as evidenced by Darktrace's detection of Balada Injector malware exploiting WordPress vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized network access [6]. Therefore, increased targeting of browser-based security tools, and a greater exploitation of OAuth and session hijacking techniques are to be expected. Attackers will undoubtedly refine their methods to infiltrate legitimate vendors and distribute malicious updates through trusted channels. By staying informed, vigilant, and proactive, organizations can mitigate exposure to evolving supply chain threats and safeguard their critical assets from emerging browser-based attack techniques.

Credit to Rajendra Rushanth (Cyber Analyst) Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

·       Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Device / Suspicious Domain (AP: C2 Comms, AP: Tooling)

·       Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Email Nexus / Connection to Hijacked Correspondent Link

·       Compromise / Suspicious TLS Beaconing To Rare External (AP: C2 Comms)

·       Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing (AP: C2 Comms)

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

cyberhavenext[.]pro - Hostname - Used for C2 communications and data exfiltration (cookies and session tokens)

149.28.124[.]84 - IP - Associated with malicious infrastructure

45.76.225[.]148 - IP - Associated with malicious infrastructure

136.244.115[.]219 - IP - Associated with malicious infrastructure

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

INITIAL ACCESS - T1176 - Browser Extensions

EXECUTION - T1204.002 - Malicious Browser Extensions

PERSISTENCE - T1176 - Browser Extensions

COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - Web Protocols

COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1001 - Data Obfuscation

CREDENTIAL ACCESS - T1539 - Steal Web Session Cookie

DISCOVERY - T1518.001 - Security Software Discovery

LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1557.003 - Man-in-the-Browser

EXFILTRATION - T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - Exfiltration to Cloud Storage

IMPACT - T1583.006 - Session Hijacking

References

[1] https://thehackernews.com/2024/12/16-chrome-extensions-hacked-exposing.html

[2] https://www.cyberhaven.com/blog/cyberhavens-chrome-extension-security-incident-and-what-were-doing-about-it

[3] https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/chrome-browser-extensions-hijacked/

[4] https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/28/24330758/chrome-extension-cyberhaven-hijack-phishing-cyberattack-facebook-ads-authentication-theft

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/cyberhavenext.pro

[6] https://darktrace.com/blog/balada-injector-darktraces-investigation-into-the-malware-exploiting-wordpress-vulnerabilities

Continue reading
About the author
Rajendra Rushanth
Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI