October 30, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities on Fortinet Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

This blog explores recent findings from Darktrace's Threat Research team on active exploitation campaigns targeting Fortinet appliances. This analysis focuses on the September 2024 exploitation of FortiManager via CVE-2024-47575, alongside related malicious activity observed in June 2024.

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber 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

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Oct 2024

Introduction: Uncovering active exploitation of Fortinet vulnerabilities

As part of the Darktrace Threat Research team's routine analysis of October's Patch Tuesday vulnerabilities, the team began searching for signs of active exploitation of a critical vulnerability (CVE-2024-23113) affecting the FortiGate to FortiManager (FGFM) protocol.^[1]

Although the investigation was prompted by an update regarding CVE 2024-23113, results of the inquiry yielded evidence of widespread exploitation of Fortinet devices in both June and September 2024 potentially via multiple vulnerabilities including CVE 2024-47575. Analysts identified two clusters of activity involving overlapping indicators of compromise (IoCs), likely constituting unique campaigns targeting Fortinet appliances.

This blog will first highlight the finding and analysis of the network-based indicators of FortiManager post-exploitation activity in September, likely involving CVE 2024-47575. The article will then briefly detail a similar pattern of malicious activity observed in June 2024 that involved similar IoCs that potentially comprises a distinct campaign targeting Fortinet perimeter devices.

Fortinet CVE Disclosures

FortiManager devices allow network administrators to manage Fortinet devices on organizations’ networks.^[2] One such subset of devices managed through this method are Fortinet firewalls known as FortiGate. These manager and firewall devices communicate with each other via a custom protocol known as FortiGate to FortiManager (FGFM), whereby devices can perform reachability tests and configuration-related actions and reporting.^[3] By default, FortiManager devices operate this protocol via port 541.^[4]

Fortinet Product Security Incident Response Team released multiple announcements revealing vulnerabilities within the daemon responsible for implementing operability of the FGFM service. Specifically, CVE 2024-23113 enables attackers to potentially perform arbitrary remote command execution through the use of a specially crafted format string to a FortiGate device running the “fgfm daemon”.^[5][6] Similarly, the exploitation of CVE 2024-47575 could also allow remote command execution due to a missing authentication mechanism when targeting specifically FortiManager devices.^[7][8] Given how prolific both FortiGate and FortiManager devices are within the global IT security ecosystem, Darktrace analysts hypothesized that there may have been specific targeting of such devices within the customer base using these vulnerabilities throughout mid to late 2024.

Campaign Analysis

In light of these vulnerability disclosures, Darktrace’s Threat Research team began searching for signs of active exploitation by investigating file download, lateral movement or tooling activity from devices that had previously received suspicious connections on port 541. The team first noticed increases in suspicious activity involving Fortinet devices particularly in mid-September 2024. Further analysis revealed a similar series of activities involving some overlapping devices identified in June 2024. Analysis of these activity clusters revealed a pattern of malicious activity against likely FortiManager devices, including initial exploitation, payload retrieval, and exfiltration of probable configuration data.

Below is an overview of malicious activity we have observed by sector and region:

Sector and region affected by malicious activity on fortigate devices — *The sectors of affected customers listed above are categorized according to the United Kingdom’s Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).*

Initial Exploitation of FortiManager Devices

Across many of the observed cases in September, activity began with the initial exploitation of FortiManager devices via incoming connectivity over TLS/SSL. Such activity was detected due to the rarity of the receiving devices accepting connections from external sources, particularly over destination port 541. Within nearly all investigated incidents, connectivity began with the source IP, 45.32.41[.]202, establishing an SSL session with likely FortiManager devices. Device types were determined through a combination of the devices’ hostnames and the noted TLS certificate issuer for such encrypted connections.

Due to the encrypted nature of the connection, it was not possible to ascertain the exploit used in the analyzed cases. However, given the similarity of activities targeting FortiManager devices and research conducted by outside firms, attackers likely utilized CVE 2024-47575.^[9] For example, the source IP initiating the SSL sessions also has been referenced by Mandiant as engaging in CVE 2024-47575 exploitation. In addition to a consistent source IP for the connections, a similar JA3 hash was noted across multiple examined accounts, suggesting a similarity in source process for the activity.

In most cases observed by Darktrace, the incoming connectivity was followed by an outgoing connection on port 443 to the IP 45.32.41[.]202. Uncommon reception of encrypted connections over port 541, followed by the initiation of outgoing SSL connections to the same endpoint would suggest probable successful exploitation of FortiManager CVEs during this time.

Figure 1: Model alert logs highlighting the incoming connectivity over port 541 to the FortiManager devices followed by outgoing connection to the external IP.

Payload Retrieval

Investigated devices commonly retrieved some form of additional content after incoming connectivity over port 541. Darktrace’s Threat Research team noted how affected devices would make HTTP GET requests to the initial exploitation IP for the URI: /dom.js. This URI, suggestive of JavaScript content retrieval, was then validated by the HTTP response content type. Although Darktrace could see the HTTP content of the connections, usage of destination port 443 featured prominently during these HTTP requests, suggesting an attempt at encryption of the session payload details.

‍

Figure 2: Advanced Search HTTP log to the exploitation IP noting the retrieval of JavaScript content using the curl user agent.

‍

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst investigation into the initial exploitation activity. This incident emphasizes the rare external connectivity over port 443 requesting JavaScript content following the incoming connections over port 541.

The operators of the campaign also appear to have used a consistent user agent for payload retrieval: curl 8.4.0. Usage of an earlier version of the curl (version 7 .86.0) was only observed in one instance. The incorporation of curl utility to establish HTTP connections therefore suggests interaction with command-line utilities on the inspected Fortinet hosts. Command-line interaction also adds validity to the usage of exploits such as CVE 2024-47575 which enable unauthenticated remote command execution. Moreover, given the egress of data seen by the devices receiving this JavaScript content, Darktrace analysts concluded that this payload likely resulted in the configuration aggregation activity noted by external researchers.

Data Exfiltration

Nearly all devices investigated during the September time period performed some form of data exfiltration using the HTTP protocol. Most frequently, devices would initiate these HTTP requests using the same curl user agent already observed during web callback activity. Again, usage of this tool heavily suggests interaction with the command-line interface and therefore command execution.

The affected device typically made an HTTP POST request to one or both of the following two rare external IPs: 104.238.141[.]143 and 158.247.199[.]37. One of the noted IPs, 104.238.141[.]143, features prominently within external research conducted by Mandiant during this time. These HTTP POST requests nearly always sent data to the /file endpoint on the destination IPs. Analyzed connections frequently noted an HTTP mime type suggestive of compressed archive content. Some investigations also revealed specific filenames for the data sent externally: “.tm”. HTTP POST requests occurred without a specified hostname. This would suggest the IP address may have already been cached locally on the device from a running process or the IP address was hardcoded into the details of unwarranted code running on the system. Moreover, many such POSTs occurred without a GET request, which can indicate exfiltration activity.

Figure 4: Model alert logs noting both the connection to the IP 158.247.199[.]37 over port 443 without a hostname, and the unusual activity metric describing how the request was made without a prior HTTP GET request. Such activity can indicate malicious data exfiltration.

Interestingly, in many investigations, analysts noticed a lag period between the initial access and exploitation, and the exfiltration of data via HTTP. Such a pause, sometimes over several hours to over a day, could reflect the time needed to aggregate data locally on the host or as a strategic pause in activity to avoid detection. While not present within every compromise activity logs inspected, the delay could represent slight adjustments in behavior during the campaign by the threat actor.

Figure 5: Advanced search logs showing both the payload retrieval and exfiltration activity, emphasizing the gap in time between payload retrieval and exfiltration via HTTP POST request.

HTTP and file identification details identified during this time also directly correspond to research conducted by Mandiant. Not only do we see overlap in IPs identified as receiving the posted data (104.238.141[.]143) we also directly observed an overlap in filenames for the locally aggregated configuration data. Moreover, the gzip mime type identified in multiple customer investigations also corresponds directly to exfiltration activity noted by Mandiant researchers.

Figure 6: Advanced search logs noting the filename and URL of the posted data to one of the exfiltration IPs. The .tm filename corresponds to the locally stored file on affected FortiManager devices analyzed by external researchers.

Activity detected in June 2024

Common indicators

Analysts identified a similar pattern of activity between June 23 and June 25. Activity in this period involved incoming connections from the aforementioned IP 45.32.41[.]202 on either port 541 or port 443 followed by an outgoing connection to the source. This behavior was then followed by HTTP POSTs to the previously mentioned IP address 158.247.199[.]37 in addition to the novel IP: 195.85.114[.]78 using same URI ‘/file’ noted above. Given the commonalties in indicators, time period, and observed behaviors, this grouping of exploitation attempts appears to align closely with the campaign described by Mandiant and may represent exploitation of CVE 2024-47575 in June 2024. The customers targeted in June fall into the same regions and sectors as seen those in the September campaign.

Deviations in behavior

Notably, Darktrace detected a different set of actions during the same June timeframe despite featuring the same infrastructure. This activity involved an initial incoming connection from 158.247.199[.]37 to an internal device on either port 541 or port 443. This was then followed by an outgoing HTTP connection to 158.247.199[.]37 on port 443 with a URI containing varying external IPs. Upon further review, analysts noticed the IPs listed may be the public IPs of the targeted victim, suggesting a potential form device registration by the threat actor or exploit validation. While the time period and infrastructure closely align with the previous campaign described, the difference in activity may suggest another threat actor sharing infrastructure or the same threat actor carrying out a different campaign at the same time. Although the IP 45.32.41[.]202 was contacted, paralleling activity seen in September, analysts did notice a different payload received from the external host, a shell script with the filename ver.sh.

‍

Figure 7: AI Analyst timeline noting the suspicious HTTP behavior from a FortiManager device involving the IP 158.247.199[.] 37.

Darktrace's depth of detection and investigation

Darktrace detected spikes in anomalous behavior from Fortinet devices within the customer base between September 22 and 23, 2024. Following an in-depth investigation into affected accounts and hosts, Darktrace identified a clear pattern where one, or multiple, threat actors leveraged CVEs affecting likely FortiManager devices to execute commands on the host, retrieve malicious content, and exfiltrate sensitive data. During this investigation, analysts then identified possibly related activity in June 2024 highlighted above.

The gathering and exfiltration of configuration data from network security management or other perimeter hosts is a technique that can enable future access by threat actors. This parallels activity previously discussed by Darktrace focused on externally facing devices, such as Palo Alto Networks firewall devices. Malicious entities could utilize stolen configuration data and potentially stored passwords/hashes to gain initial access in the future, irrespective of the state of device patching. This data can also be potentially sold by initial access brokers on illicit sites. Moreover, groups can leverage this information to establish persistence mechanisms within devices and host networks to enable more impactful compromise activity.

Uncover threat pattens before they strike your network

Network and endpoint management services are essential tools for network administrators and will remain a critical part of IT infrastructure. However, these devices are often configured as internet-facing systems, which can unintentionally expose organizations networks' to attacks. Internet exposure provides malicious groups with novel entry routes into target environments. Although threat actors can swap vulnerabilities to access target networks, the exploitation process leaves behind unusual traffic patterns, making their presence detectable with the right network detection tools.

By detecting the unusual patterns of network traffic which inevitably ensue from exploitation of novel vulnerabilities, Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection and response approach can continue to identify and inhibit such intrusion activities irrespective of exploit used. Eulogizing the principle of least privilege, configuration and asset management, and maintaining the CIA Triad across security operations will continue to help security teams boost their defense posture. ‍

See how anomaly-based detection can enhance your security operations—schedule a personalized demo today.

Credit to Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Principal Cyber Analyst), Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst), Hyeongyung Yeom (Principal Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead, East Asia), Sam Lister (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Appendix

Model Alerts

Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP without Hostname
Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
Anomalous Server Activity / New Internet Facing Server
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

Possible HTTP Command and Control
Possible HTTP Command and Control to Multiple Endpoints

IoCs

Indicator – Type - Description

104.238.141[.]143 - IP Address - C2 infrastructure

158.247.199[.]37 - IP Address - C2 infrastructure

45.32.41[.]202 - IP Address - C2 infrastructure

104.238.141[.]143/file – URL - C2 infrastructure

158.247.199[.]37/file - URL - C2 infrastructure

45.32.41[.]202/dom.js – URL - C2 infrastructure

.tm – Filename - Gzip file

MITRE Attack Framework

Initial Access:
T1190 Exploiting Public-Facing Application
Execution:
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter (Sub-Techniques: T1059.004 Unix Shell, T1059.008 Network Device CLI)
Discovery:
T1083 File and System Discovery
T1057 Process Discovery
Collection:
T1005 Data From Local System
Command and Control:
T1071 Application Layer Protocols (Sub-Technique:
T1071.001 Web Protocols)
T1573 Encrypted Channel
T1573.001 Symmetric Cryptography
T1571 Non-Standard Port
T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer
T1572 Protocol Tunnelling
Exfiltration:
T1048.003 Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol

‍

References

{1} https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/fortimanager-zero-day-exploitation-cve-2024-47575/‍

{2} https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortimanager/6.4.0/ports-and-protocols/606094/fortigate-fortimanager-protocol#:~:text=The%20FortiGate%2DFortiManager%20(FGFM),by%20using%20the%20FGFM%20protocol.

{3)https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/6.4.0/ports-and-protocols/373486/fgfm-fortigate-to-fortimanager-protocol
{4} https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-029
{5} https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-423
{6}https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/data-sheets/fortimanager.pdf

{7} https://doublepulsar.com/burning-zero-days-fortijump-fortimanager-vulnerability-used-by-nation-state-in-espionage-via-msps-c79abec59773

{8} https://darktrace.com/blog/post-exploitation-activities-on-pan-os-devices-a-network-based-analysis

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Malware Research Lead

Product Marketing Specialist

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

January 9, 2026

Maduro Arrest Used as a Lure to Deliver Backdoor

maduro arrest used as lure to deliver backdoor

Introduction

Threat actors frequently exploit ongoing world events to trick users into opening and executing malicious files. Darktrace security researchers recently identified a threat group using reports around the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolàs Maduro on January 3, 2025, as a lure to deliver backdoor malware.

Technical Analysis

While the exact initial access method is unknown, it is likely that a spear-phishing email was sent to victims, containing a zip archive titled “US now deciding what’s next for Venezuela.zip”. This file included an executable named “Maduro to be taken to New York.exe” and a dynamic-link library (DLL), “kugou.dll”.

The binary “Maduro to be taken to New York.exe” is a legitimate binary (albeit with an expired signature) related to KuGou, a Chinese streaming platform. Its function is to load the DLL “kugou.dll” via DLL search order. In this instance, the expected DLL has been replaced with a malicious one with the same name to load it.

Once the DLL is executed, a directory is created C:\ProgramData\Technology360NB with the DLL copied into the directory along with the executable, renamed as “DataTechnology.exe”. A registry key is created for persistence in “HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Lite360” to run DataTechnology.exe --DATA on log on.

Figure 2. Registry key added for persistence.

Figure 3: Folder “Technology360NB” created.

During execution, a dialog box appears with the caption “Please restart your computer and try again, or contact the original author.”

Figure 4. Message box prompting user to restart.

Prompting the user to restart triggers the malware to run from the registry key with the command --DATA, and if the user doesn't, a forced restart is triggered. Once the system is reset, the malware begins periodic TLS connections to the command-and-control (C2) server 172.81.60[.]97 on port 443. While the encrypted traffic prevents direct inspection of commands or data, the regular beaconing and response traffic strongly imply that the malware has the ability to poll a remote server for instructions, configuration, or tasking.

Conclusion

Threat groups have long used geopolitical issues and other high-profile events to make malicious content appear more credible or urgent. Since the onset of the war in Ukraine, organizations have been repeatedly targeted with spear-phishing emails using subject lines related to the ongoing conflict, including references to prisoners of war [1]. Similarly, the Chinese threat group Mustang Panda frequently uses this tactic to deploy backdoors, using lures related to the Ukrainian war, conventions on Tibet [2], the South China Sea [3], and Taiwan [4].

The activity described in this blog shares similarities with previous Mustang Panda campaigns, including the use of a current-events archive, a directory created in ProgramData with a legitimate executable used to load a malicious DLL and run registry keys used for persistence. While there is an overlap of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs), there is insufficient information available to confidently attribute this activity to a specific threat group. Users should remain vigilant, especially when opening email attachments.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

172.81.60[.]97
8f81ce8ca6cdbc7d7eb10f4da5f470c6 - US now deciding what's next for Venezuela.zip
722bcd4b14aac3395f8a073050b9a578 - Maduro to be taken to New York.exe
aea6f6edbbbb0ab0f22568dcb503d731 - kugou.dll

References

[1] https://cert.gov.ua/article/6280422

[2] https://www.ibm.com/think/x-force/hive0154-mustang-panda-shifts-focus-tibetan-community-deploy-pubload-backdoor

[3] https://www.ibm.com/think/x-force/hive0154-targeting-us-philippines-pakistan-taiwan

[4] https://www.ibm.com/think/x-force/hive0154-targeting-us-philippines-pakistan-taiwan

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Blog

Network

January 9, 2026

Under Medusa’s Gaze: How Darktrace Uncovers RMM Abuse in Ransomware Campaigns

What is Medusa Ransomware in 2025?

In 2025, the Medusa Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) emerged as one of the top 10 most active ransomware threat actors [1]. Its growing impact prompted a joint advisory from the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) [3]. As of January 2026, more than 500 organizations have fallen victim to Medusa ransomware [2].

Darktrace previously investigated Medusa in a 2024 blog, but the group’s rapid expansion and new intelligence released in late 2025 has lead Darktrace’s Threat Research team to investigate further. Recent findings include Microsoft’s research on Medusa actors exploiting a vulnerability in Fortra’s GoAnywhere MFT License Servlet (CVE-2025-10035)[4] and Zencec’s report on Medusa’s abuse of flaws in SimpleHelp’s remote support software (CVE-2024-57726, CVE-2024-57727, CVE-2024-57728) [5].

Reports vary on when Medusa first appeared in the wild. Some sources mention June 2021 as the earliest sightings, while others point to late 2022, when its developers transitioned to the RaaS model, as the true beginning of its operation [3][11].

Madusa Ransomware history and background

The group behind Medusa is known by several aliases, including Storm-1175 and Spearwing [4] [7]. Like its mythological namesake, Medusa has many “heads,” collaborating with initial access brokers (IABs) and, according to some evidence, affiliating with Big Game Hunting (BGH) groups such as Frozen Spider, as well as the cybercriminal group UNC7885 [3][6][13].

Use of Cyrillic in its scripts, activity on Russian-language cybercrime forums, slang unique to Russian criminal subcultures, and avoidance of targets in Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries suggest that Medusa operates from Russia or an allied state [11][12].

Medusa ransomware should not be confused with other similarly named malware, such as the Medusa Android Banking Trojan, the Medusa Botnet/Medusa Stealer, or MedusaLocker ransomware. It is easily distinguishable from these variants because it appends the extension .MEDUSA to encrypted files and drops the ransom note !!!READ_ME_MEDUSA!!!.txt on compromised systems [8].

Who does Madusa Ransomware target?

The group appears to show little restraint, indiscriminately attacking organizations across all sectors, including healthcare, and is known to employ triple extortion tactics whereby sensitive data is encrypted, victims are threatened with data leaks, and additional pressure is applied through DDoS attacks or contacting the victim’s customers, rather than the more common double extortion model [13].

Madusa Ransomware TTPs

To attain initial access, Medusa actors typically purchase access to already compromised devices or accounts via IABs that employ phishing, credential stuffing, or brute-force attacks, and also target vulnerable or misconfigured Internet-facing systems.

In addition to the GoAnywhere MFT and SimpleHelp RMM flaws, other vulnerabilities exploited in Medusa attacks include ConnectWise ScreenConnect RMM (CVE-2024-1709), Microsoft Exchange Server (CVE-2021-34473, also known as ProxyShell), and Fortinet Enterprise Management Servers (CVE-2023-48788) [18][19][20][21][24][25].

Darktrace’s Coverage of Medusa Ransomware

Between December 2023 and November 2025, Darktrace observed multiple cases of file encryption related to Medusa ransomware across its customer base. When enabled, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability intervened early in the attack chain, blocking malicious activity before file encryption could begin.

Some of the affected were based in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA), others in the Americas (AMS), and the remainder in the Asia-Pacific and Japan region. The most impacted sectors were financial services and the automotive industry, followed by healthcare, and finally organizations in arts, entertainment and recreation, ICT, and manufacturing.

Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tool abuse

In most customer environments where Medusa file encryption attempts were observed, and in one case where the compromise was contained before encryption, unusual external HTTP connections associated with JWrapper were also detected. JWrapper is a legitimate tool designed to simplify the packaging, distribution, and management of Java applications, enabling the creation of executables that run across different operating systems. Many of the destination IP addresses involved in this activity were linked to SimpleHelp servers or associated with Atera.

Medusa actors appear to favor RMM tools such as SimpleHelp. Unpatched or misconfigured SimpleHelp RMM servers can serve as an initial access vector to the victims’ infrastructure. After gaining access to SimpleHelp management servers, the threat actors edit server configuration files to redirect existing SimpleHelp RMM agents to communicate with unauthorized servers under their control.

The SimpleHelp tool is not only used for command-and-control (C2) and enabling persistence but is also observed during lateral movement within the network, downloading additional attack tools, data exfiltration, and even ransomware binary execution. Other legitimate remote access tools abused by Medusa in a similar manner to evade detection include Atera, AnyDesk, ScreenConnect, eHorus, N-able, PDQ Deploy/Inventory, Splashtop, TeamViewer, NinjaOne, Navicat, and MeshAgent [4][5][15][16][17].

Data exfiltration

Another correlation among Darktrace customers affected by Medusa was observed during the data exfiltration phase. In several environments, data was exfiltrated to the endpoints erp.ranasons[.]com or pruebas.pintacuario[.]mx (143.110.243[.]154, 144.217.181[.]205) over ports 443, 445, and 80. erp.ranasons[.]com was seemingly active between November 2024 and September 2025, while pruebas.pintacuario[.]mx was seen from November 2024 to March 2025. Evidence suggests that pruebas.pintacuario[.]mx previously hosted a SimpleHelp server [22][23].

Apart from RMM tools, Medusa is also known to use Rclone and Robocopy for data exfiltration [3][19]. During one Medusa compromise detected in mid-2024, the customer’s data was exfiltrated to external destinations associated with the Ngrok proxy service using an SSH-2.0-rclone client.

Medusa Compromise Leveraging SimpleHelp

In Q4 2025, Darktrace assisted a European company impacted by Medusa ransomware. The organization had partial Darktrace / NETWORK coverage and had configured Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability to require manual confirmation for all actions. Despite these constraints, data received through the customer’s security integration with CrowdStrike Falcon enabled Darktrace analysts to reconstruct the attack chain, although the initial access vector remains unclear due to limited visibility.

In late September 2025, a device out of the scope of Darktrace's visibility began scanning the network and using RDP, NTLM/SMB, DCE_RPC, and PowerShell for lateral movement.

CrowdStrike “Defense Evasion: Disable or Modify Tools” alerts related to a suspicious driver (c:\windows\[0-9a-b]{4}.exe) and a PDQ Deploy executable (share=\\<device_hostname>\ADMIN$ file=AdminArsenal\PDQDeployRunner\service-1\exec\[0-9a-b]{4}.exe) suggest that the attackers used the Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) technique to terminate antivirus processes on network devices, leveraging tools such as KillAV or AbyssWorker along with the PDQ Software Deployment solution [19][26].

A few hours later, Darktrace observed the same device that had scanned the network writing Temp\[a-z]{2}.exe over SMB to another device on the same subnet. According to data from the CrowdStrike alert, this executable was linked to an RMM application located at C:\Users\<compromised_user>\Documents\[a-z]{2}.exe. The same compromised user account later triggered a CrowdStrike “Command and Control: Remote Access Tools” alert when accessing C:\ProgramData\JWrapper-Remote Access\JWrapper-Remote Access Bundle-[0-9]{11}\JWrapperTemp-[0-9]{10}-[0-9]{1}-app\bin\windowslauncher.exe [27].

Figure 1: An executable file associated with the SimpleHelp RMM tool being written to other devices using the SMB protocol, as detected by Darktrace.

Soon after, the destination device and multiple other network devices began establishing connections to 31.220.45[.]120 and 213.183.63[.]41, both of which hosted malicious SimpleHelp RMM servers. These C2 connections continued for more than 20 days after the initial compromise.

CrowdStrike integration alerts for the execution of robocopy . "c:\windows\\" /COPY:DT /E /XX /R:0 /W:0 /NP /XF RunFileCopy.cmd /IS /IT commands on several Windows servers, suggested that this utility was likely used to stage files in preparation for data exfiltration [19].

Around two hours later, Darktrace detected another device connecting to the attacker’s SimpleHelp RMM servers. This internal server had ‘doc’ in its hostname, indicating it was likely a file server. It was observed downloading documents from another internal server over SMB and uploading approximately 70 GiB of data to erp.ranasons[.]com (143.110.243[.]154:443).

Figure 2: Data uploaded to erp.ranasons[.]com and the number of model alerts from the exfiltrating device, represented by yellow and orange dots.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst autonomously investigated the unusual connectivity, correlating the separate C2 and data exfiltration events into a single incident, providing greater visibility into the ongoing attack.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst identified a file server making C2 connections to an attacker-controlled SimpleHelp server (213.183.63[.]41) and exfiltrating data to erp.ranasons[.]com.

Figure 4: The same file server that connected to 213.183.63[.]41 and exfiltrated data to erp.ranasons[.]com was also observed attempting to connect to an IP address associated with Moscow, Russia (193.37.69[.]154:7070).

One of the devices connecting to the attacker's SimpleHelp RMM servers was also observed downloading 35 MiB from [0-9]{4}.filemail[.]com. Filemail, a legitimate file-sharing service, has reportedly been abused by Medusa actors to deliver additional malicious payloads [11].

Figure 5: A device controlled remotely via SimpleHelp downloading additional tooling from the Filemail file-sharing service.

Finally, integration alerts related to the ransomware binary, such as c:\windows\system32\gaze.exe and <device_hostname>\ADMIN$ file=AdminArsenal\PDQDeployRunner\service-1\exec\gaze.exe, along with “!!!READ_ME_MEDUSA!!!.txt” ransom notes were observed on network devices. This indicates that file encryption in this case was most likely carried out directly on the victim hosts rather than via the SMB protocol [3].

Conclusion

Threat actors, including nation-state actors and ransomware groups like Medusa, have long abused legitimate commercial RMM tools, typically used by system administrators for remote monitoring, software deployment, and device configuration, instead of relying on remote access trojans (RATs).

Attackers employ existing authorized RMM tools or install new remote administration software to enable persistence, lateral movement, data exfiltration, and ingress tool transfer. By mimicking legitimate administrative behavior, RMM abuse enables attackers to evade detection, as security software often implicitly trusts these tools, allowing attackers to bypass traditional security controls [28][29][30].

To mitigate such risks, organizations should promptly patch publicly exposed RMM servers and adopt anomaly-based detection solutions, like Darktrace / NETWORK, which can distinguish legitimate administrative activity from malicious behavior, applying rapid response measures through its Autonomous Response capability to stop attacks in their tracks.

Darktrace delivers comprehensive network visibility and Autonomous Response capabilities, enabling real-time detection of anomalous activity and rapid mitigation, even if an organization fall under Medusa’s gaze.

Credit to Signe Zaharka (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence + Time Observed

185.108.129[.]62 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - March 7, 2023

185.126.238[.]119 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - November 26-27, 2024

213.183.63[.]41 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - November 28, 2024 - Sep 30, 2025

213.183.63[.]42 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - July 4 -9 , 2024

31.220.45[.]120 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - September 12 - Oct 20 , 2025

91.92.246[.]110 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - May 24, 2024

45.9.149[.]112:15330 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - June 21, 2024

89.36.161[.]12 IP address Malicious SimpleHelp server observed during Medusa attacks (High confidence) - June 26-28, 2024

193.37.69[.]154:7070 IP address Suspicious RU IP seen on a device being controlled via SimpleHelp and exfiltrating data to a Medusa related endpoint - September 30 - October 20, 2025

erp.ranasons[.]com·143.110.243[.]154 Hostname Data exfiltration destination - November 27, 2024 - September 30, 2025

pruebas.pintacuario[.]mx·144.217.181[.]205 - Hostname Data exfiltration destination - November 27, 2024 - March 26, 2025

lirdel[.]com · 44.235.83[.]125/a.msi (1b9869a2e862f1e6a59f5d88398463d3962abe51e19a59) File & hash Atera related file downloaded with PowerShell - June 20, 2024

wizarr.manate[.]ch/108.215.180[.]161:8585/$/1dIL5 File Suspicious file observed on one of the devices exhibiting unusual activity during a Medusa compromise - February 28, 2024

!!!READ_ME_MEDUSA!!!.txt" File - Ransom note

*.MEDUSA - File extension File extension added to encrypted files

gaze.exe – File - Ransomware binary

Darktrace Model Coverage

Darktrace / NETWORK model detections triggered during connections to attacker controlled SimpleHelp servers:

Anomalous Connection/Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

Anomalous Connection/Multiple Connections to New External UDP Port

Anomalous Connection/New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection/Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous Connection/Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

Anomalous File/EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity/Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Anomalous Server Activity/New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous Server Activity/Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Server Activity/Rare External from Server

Compromise/High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Compromise/Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise/Ransomware/High Risk File and Unusual SMB

Device/New User Agent

Unusual Activity/Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

Unusual Activity/Unusual External Data Transfer

Darktrace / NETWORK Model Detections during the September/October 2025 Medusa attack:

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Anomalous Connection / Download and Upload

Anomalous Connection / Low and Slow Exfiltration

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Incoming Long Remote Desktop Session

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Long SSH Session

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Internal/Unusual Internal EXE File Transfer

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Compliance / Default Credential Usage

Compliance / High Priority Compliance Model Alert

Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

Compliance / Possible Unencrypted Password File On Server

Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Ransomware/High Risk File and Unusual SMB

Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

Device / ICMP Address Scan

Device / Increase in New RPC Services

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

Device / Large Number of Model Alert

Device / Large Number of Model Alerts from Critical Network Device

Device / Lateral Movement and C2 Activity

Device / Multiple C2 Model Alert

Device / Network Scan

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

Device / Spike in LDAP Activity

Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Security Integration / High Severity Integration Incident

Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Incident

Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Internal Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Activity

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Autonomous Response Actions

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

Antigena / Network/External Threat/Antigena Ransomware Block

Antigena / Network/External Threat/Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

Antigena / Network/External Threat/Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network/Insider Threat/Antigena Internal Anomalous File Activity

Antigena / Network/Insider Threat/Antigena Internal Data Transfer Block

Antigena / Network/Insider Threat/Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

Antigena / Network/Insider Threat/Antigena Network Scan Block

Antigena / Network/Insider Threat/Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

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

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

Antigena / Network/Significant Anomaly/Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Server Block

Antigena / Network/Significant Anomaly/Antigena Significant Server Anomaly Block

Antigena / Network/Significant Anomaly/Repeated Antigena Alerts

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Technique Name, Tactic, ID, Sub-Technique

Application Layer Protocol , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1071

Automated Collection , COLLECTION , T1119

Automated Exfiltration , EXFILTRATION , T1020

Brute Force , CREDENTIAL ACCESS , T1110

Client Configurations , RECONNAISSANCE , T1592.004 , T1592

Cloud Accounts , DEFENSE EVASION , PERSISTENCE , PRIVILEGE ESCALATION , INITIAL ACCESS , T1078.004 , T1078

Command-Line Interface , EXECUTION ICS , T0807

Credential Stuffing , CREDENTIAL ACCESS , T1110.004 , T1110

Data Encrypted for Impact , IMPACT , T1486

Data from Network Shared Drive , COLLECTION , T1039

Data Obfuscation , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1001

Data Staged , COLLECTION , T1074

Data Transfer Size Limits , EXFILTRATION , T1030

Default Accounts , DEFENSE EVASION , PERSISTENCE , PRIVILEGE ESCALATION , INITIAL ACCESS , T1078.001 , T1078

Default Credentials , LATERAL MOVEMENT ICS , T0812

Distributed Component Object Model , LATERAL MOVEMENT , T1021.003 , T1021

Drive-by Compromise , INITIAL ACCESS ICS , T0817

Drive-by Compromise , INITIAL ACCESS , T1189

Email Collection , COLLECTION , T1114

Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol , EXFILTRATION , T1048

Exfiltration Over C2 Channel , EXFILTRATION , T1041

Exfiltration to Cloud Storage , EXFILTRATION , T1567.002 , T1567

Exploit Public-Facing Application , INITIAL ACCESS , T1190

Exploitation for Privilege Escalation , PRIVILEGE ESCALATION , T0890

Exploitation of Remote Services , LATERAL MOVEMENT , T1210

Exploits , RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT , T1588.005 , T1588

File and Directory Discovery , DISCOVERY , T1083

File Deletion , DEFENSE EVASION , T1070.004 , T1070

Graphical User Interface , EXECUTION ICS , T0823

Ingress Tool Transfer , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1105

Lateral Tool Transfer , LATERAL MOVEMENT , T1570

LLMNR/NBT-NS Poisoning and SMB Relay , CREDENTIAL ACCESS , COLLECTION , T1557.001 , T1557

Malware , RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT , T1588.001 , T1588

Network Service Scanning , DISCOVERY , T1046

Network Share Discovery , DISCOVERY , T1135

Non-Application Layer Protocol , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1095

Non-Standard Port , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1571

One-Way Communication , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1102.003 , T1102

Pass the Hash , DEFENSE EVASION , LATERAL MOVEMENT , T1550.002 , T1550

Password Cracking , CREDENTIAL ACCESS , T1110.002 , T1110

Password Guessing , CREDENTIAL ACCESS , T1110.001 , T1110

Password Spraying , CREDENTIAL ACCESS , T1110.003 , T1110

Program Download , LATERAL MOVEMENT ICS , T0843

Program Upload , COLLECTION ICS , T0845

Remote Access Software , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1219

Remote Desktop Protocol , LATERAL MOVEMENT , T1021.001 , T1021

Remote System Discovery , DISCOVERY , T1018

Scanning IP Blocks , RECONNAISSANCE , T1595.001 , T1595

Scheduled Transfer , EXFILTRATION , T1029

Spearphishing Attachment , INITIAL ACCESS ICS , T0865

Standard Application Layer Protocol , COMMAND AND CONTROL ICS , T0869

Supply Chain Compromise , INITIAL ACCESS ICS , T0862

User Execution , EXECUTION ICS , T0863

Valid Accounts , DEFENSE EVASION , PERSISTENCE , PRIVILEGE ESCALATION , INITIAL ACCESS , T1078

Valid Accounts , PERSISTENCE ICS , LATERAL MOVEMENT ICS , T0859

Vulnerabilities , RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT , T1588.006 , T1588

Vulnerability Scanning , RECONNAISSANCE , T1595.002 , T1595

Web Protocols , COMMAND AND CONTROL , T1071.001 , T1071

References

1. https://www.intel471.com/blog/threat-hunting-case-study-medusa-ransomware

2. https://www.ransomware.live/group/medusa

3. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa25-071a

4. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/10/06/investigating-active-exploitation-of-cve-2025-10035-goanywhere-managed-file-transfer-vulnerability/

5. https://zensec.co.uk/blog/how-rmm-abuse-fuelled-medusa-dragonforce-attacks/

6. https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/threat-prevention/ransomware/medusa-ransomware-group/

7. https://cyberpress.org/medusa-ransomware-attacks-spike-42/

8. https://blog.barracuda.com/2025/02/25/medusa-ransomware-and-its-cybercrime-ecosystem

10. https://www.cyberdaily.au/security/10021-more-monster-than-myth-unpacking-the-medusa-ransomware-operation

11. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/medusa-ransomware-escalation-new-leak-site/

12. https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/businessinsights/medusa-ransomware-a-growing-threat-with-a-bold-online-presence

13. https://redpiranha.net/news/medusa-ransomware-everything-you-need-know

14. https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/13/medusa_ransomware_infects_300_critical/

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

16. https://nagomisecurity.com/medusa-ransomware-us-cert-alert

17. https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/arctic-wolf-observes-campaign-exploiting-simplehelp-rmm-software-for-initial-access/

18. https://securityboulevard.com/2025/04/medusa-ransomware-inside-the-2025-resurgence-of-one-of-the-internets-most-aggressive-threats/

19. https://thehackernews.com/2025/03/medusa-ransomware-hits-40-victims-in.html

20. https://www.quorumcyber.com/threat-intelligence/critical-alert-medusa-ransomware-threat-highlighted-by-fbi-cisa-and-ms-isac/

21. https://brandefense.io/blog/stone-gaze-in-depth-analysis-of-medusa-ransomware/

22. https://www.darktrace.com/ja/blog/2025-cyber-threat-landscape-darktraces-mid-year-review

23. https://www.joesandbox.com/analysis/1576447/0/html

24. https://blog.barracuda.com/2025/02/25/medusa-ransomware-and-its-cybercrime-ecosystem

25. https://shassit.mit.edu/news/medusa-ransomware-attacks-on-gmail/

26. https://thehackernews.com/2025/03/medusa-ransomware-uses-malicious-driver.html

27. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa25-163a

28. https://www.catonetworks.com/blog/cato-ctrl-investigation-of-rmm-tools/

29. https://redcanary.com/threat-detection-report/trends/rmm-tools/

30. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/remote-monitoring-and-management-rmm-tooling-increasingly-attackers-first-choice

About the author

Signe Zaharka

Principal Cyber Analyst

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Post-Exploitation Activities on Fortinet Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Post-Exploitation Activities on Fortinet Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Introduction: Uncovering active exploitation of Fortinet vulnerabilities

Fortinet CVE Disclosures

Campaign Analysis

Initial Exploitation of FortiManager Devices

Payload Retrieval

Data Exfiltration

Activity detected in June 2024

Common indicators

Deviations in behavior

Darktrace's depth of detection and investigation

Uncover threat pattens before they strike your network

Appendix

Model Alerts

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

IoCs

MITRE Attack Framework

References

Maduro Arrest Used as a Lure to Deliver Backdoor

How a leading bank is prioritizing risk management to power a resilient future

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Maduro Arrest Used as a Lure to Deliver Backdoor

Under Medusa’s Gaze: How Darktrace Uncovers RMM Abuse in Ransomware Campaigns

React2Shell: How Opportunist Attackers Exploited CVE-2025-55182 Within Hours

Blog

Network

January 9, 2026

Maduro Arrest Used as a Lure to Deliver Backdoor

Introduction

Technical Analysis

Conclusion

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

References

Blog

Network

January 9, 2026

Under Medusa’s Gaze: How Darktrace Uncovers RMM Abuse in Ransomware Campaigns

What is Medusa Ransomware in 2025?

Madusa Ransomware history and background

Who does Madusa Ransomware target?

Madusa Ransomware TTPs

Darktrace’s Coverage of Medusa Ransomware

Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tool abuse

Data exfiltration

Medusa Compromise Leveraging SimpleHelp

Conclusion

Appendices

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Darktrace Model Coverage

Autonomous Response Actions

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References