Explore strategies, services, and risks associated with mastering cloud migration. Learn more here about hybrid cloud model, benefits, and migration phases.
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 Stevens
Director of Product, Cloud Security
Share
12
Mar 2024
What is cloud migration?
Cloud migration, in its simplest form, refers to the process of moving digital assets, such as data, applications, and IT resources, from on-premises infrastructure or legacy systems to cloud computing environments. There are various flavours of migration and utilization, but according to a survey conducted by IBM, one of the most common is the 'Hybrid' approach, with around 77% of businesses adopting a hybrid cloud approach.
There are three key components of a hybrid cloud migration model:
On-Premises (On-Prem): Physical location with some amount of hardware and networking, traditionally a data centre.
Public Cloud: Third-party providers like AWS, Azure, and Google, who offer multiple services such as Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS).
Private Cloud: A cloud computing environment where resources are isolated for one customer.
Why does cloud migration matter for enterprises?
Cloud adoption provides many benefits to businesses, including:
Scalability: Cloud environments allow enterprises to scale resources up or down based on demand, enabling them to quickly adapt to changing business requirements.
Flexibility and Agility: Cloud platforms provide greater flexibility and agility, enabling enterprises to innovate and deploy new services more rapidly compared to traditional on-premises infrastructure.
Cost Efficiency: Pay-as-you-go model, allowing enterprises to reduce capital expenditures on hardware and infrastructure.
Enhanced Security: Cloud service providers invest heavily in security measures to protect data and infrastructure, offering advanced security features and compliance certifications.
The combination of these benefits provides significant potential for businesses to innovate and move quickly, ultimately allowing them to be flexible and adapt to changing market conditions, customer demands, and technological advancements with greater agility and efficiency.
Cloud migration strategy
There are multiple migration strategies a business can adopt, including:
Rehosting (Lift-and-shift): Quickly completed but may lead to increased costs for running workloads.
Refactoring (Cloud Native): Designed specifically for the cloud but requires a steep learning curve and staff training on new processes.
Hybrid Cloud: Mix of on-premises and public cloud use, offering flexibility and scalability while keeping data secure on-premises. This can introduce complexities in setup and management overhead and requires ensuring security and compliance in both environments.
It is important to note that each strategy has its trade-offs and there is no single gold standard for a one size fits all cloud migration strategy. Different businesses will prioritize and leverage different benefits, for instance while some might prefer a rehosting strategy as it gets them migrated the fastest, it typically ends up also being the most costly strategy as “lift-and-shift” doesn’t take advantage of many key benefits that the cloud has to offer. Conversely, refactoring is a strategy optimized at making the most of the benefits that cloud providers have to offer, however the process of redesigning applications requires cloud expertise and based on the scale of applications that are required to be refactored this strategy might not be the quickest when it comes to moving applications from being hosted on premise to in the cloud.
Phases of a cloud migration
At the highest level, there are four main steps in a successful migration:
Discover: Identify and categorize IT assets, applications, and critical dependencies.
Plan: Develop a detailed migration plan, including timelines, resource allocation, and risk management strategies.
Migrate: Execute the migration plan, minimizing disruption to business operations.
Optimize: Continuously optimize the cloud environment using automation, performance monitoring, and cost management tools to improve efficiency, performance, and scalability.
While it is natural to race towards the end goals of a cloud migration, most successful cloud migration strategies allocate the appropriate timelines to each phase.
The “Discover” phase specifically is where most businesses can set themselves up for success. Having a complete understanding of assets, applications, services, and dependencies needed to migrate however is much easier said than done. Given the pace of change and how laborious of a task inventorying everything can be to manage and maintain, most mistakes at this stage will propagate and amplify through the migration journey.
Risks and challenges of cloud migration
Though cloud migration offers a wealth of benefits, it also introduces new risks that need to be accounted for and managed effectively. Security should be considered a fundamental part of the process, not an additional measure that can be ‘bolted’ on at the end.
Let’s consider the most popular migration strategy, using a ‘Hybrid Cloud’. A recent report by the industry analyst group Forrester cited that Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools are just one facet of security, stating:
"No matter how good it is, using a CSPM solution alone will not provide you with full visibility, detection, and effective remediation capabilities for all threats. Your adversaries are also targeting operating systems, existing on-prem network infrastructure, and applications in their quest to steal valuable data".
Unpacking some of the risks here, it’s clear they fall into a range of categories, including:
Security Concerns: Ensuring security across both on-premises and cloud environments, addressing potential misconfigurations and vulnerabilities.
Contextual Understanding: Effective security requires a deep understanding of the organization's business processes and the context in which data and applications operate.
Threat Detection and Response: Identifying and responding to threats in real-time requires advanced capabilities such as AI and anomaly detection.
Platform Approach: Deploying integrated security solutions that provide end-to-end visibility, centralized management, and automated responses across hybrid infrastructure.
Since the cloud doesn’t operate in a vacuum, businesses will always have a myriad of 3rd party applications, users, endpoints, external services, and partners connecting and interacting with their cloud environments. From this perspective, being able to correlate and understand behaviors and activity both within the cloud and its surroundings becomes imperative.
It then follows that context from a business wide perspective is necessary. This has two distinct implications, the first is application or workload specific context (i.e. where do the assets, services, and functions alerted on reside within the cloud application) and the second is business wide context. Given the volume of alerts that security practitioners need to manage, findings that lack the appropriate context to fully understand and resolve the issue create additional strain on teams that are already managing a difficult challenge.
Conclusion
With that in mind, Darktrace’s approach to security, with its existing and new advances in Cloud Detection and Response capabilities, anomaly detection across SaaS applications, and native ability to leverage many AI techniques to understand the business context within your dynamic cloud environment and on-premises infrastructure. It provides you with the integrated building blocks to provide the ‘360’ degree view required to detect and respond to threats before, during, and long after your enterprise migrates to the cloud.
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Tracking CVE-2025-31324: Darktrace’s detection of SAP Netweaver exploitation before and after disclosure
Introduction: Exploiting SAP platforms
Global enterprises depend extensively on SAP platforms, such as SAP NetWeaver and Visual Composer, to run critical business processes worldwide. These systems; however, are increasingly appealing targets for well-resourced adversaries:
In March 2025, CISA issued an alert confirming active exploitation of a 2017 SAP NetWeaver vulnerability (CVE‑2017‑12637), enabling attackers to perform directory traversal and exfiltrate sensitive files, including credentials, from internet-facing systems
CVE-2025-31324 affects SAP’s NetWeaver Visual Composer, a web-based software modeling tool. SAP NetWeaver is an application server and development platform that runs and connects SAP and non-SAP applications across different technologies [2]. It is commonly used by process specialists to develop application components without coding in government agencies, large enterprises, and by critical infrastructure operators [4].
CVE-2025-31324 affects SAP’s Netweaver Visual Composer Framework 7.1x (all SPS) and above [4]. The vulnerability in a Java Servlet (/irj/servlet_jsp) would enable an unauthorized actor to upload arbitrary files to the /developmentserver/metadatauploader endpoint, potentially resulting in remote code execution (RCE) and full system compromise [3]. The issue stems from an improper authentication and authorization check in the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java systems [4].
What is the severity rating of CVE-2025-31324?
The vulnerability, first disclosed on April 24, 2025, carries the highest severity rating (CVSS v3 score: 10.0) and could allow remote attackers to upload malicious files without requiring authentication [1][5]. Although SAP released a workaround on April 8, many organizations are hesitant to take their business-critical SAP NetWeaver systems offline, leaving them exposed to potential exploitation [2].
How is CVE-2025-31324 exploited?
The vulnerability is exploitable by sending specifically crafted GET, POST, or HEAD HTTP requests to the /developmentserver/metadatauploader URL using either HTTP or HTTPS. Attackers have been seen uploading malicious files (.jsp, .java, or .class files to paths containing “\irj\servlet_jsp\irj\”), most of them being web shells, to publicly accessible SAP NetWeaver systems.
External researchers observed reconnaissance activity targeting this vulnerability in late January 2025, followed by a surge in exploitation attempts in February. The first confirmed compromise was reported in March [4].
Multiple threat actors have reportedly targeted the vulnerability, including Chinese Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) groups Chaya_004 [7], UNC5221, UNC5174, and CL-STA-0048 [8], as well as ransomware groups like RansomEXX, also known as Storm-2460, BianLian [4] or Qilin [6] (the latter two share the same indicators of compromise (IoCs)).
Following the initial workaround published on April 8, SAP released a security update addressing CVE-2025-31324 and subsequently issued a patch on May 13 (Security Note 3604119) to resolve the root cause of the vulnerability [4].
Darktrace’s coverage of CVE-2025-31324 exploitation
Darktrace has observed activity indicative of threat actors exploiting CVE-2025-31324, including one instance detected before the vulnerability was publicly disclosed.
In April 2025, the Darktrace Threat Research team investigated activity related to the CVE-2025-31324 on SAP devices and identified two cases suggesting active exploitation of the vulnerability. One case was detected prior to the public disclosure of the vulnerability, and the other just two days after it was published.
Early detection of CVE 2025-31324 by Darktrace
Figure 1: Timeline of events for an internet-facing system, believed to be a SAP device, exhibiting activity indicative of CVE-2025-31324 exploitation.
On April 18, six days prior to the public disclosure of CVE-2025-31324, Darktrace began to detect unusual activity on a device belonging to a logistics organization in the Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region. Multiple IoCs observed during this incident have since been linked via OSINT to the exploitation of CVE-2025-31324. Notably, however, this reporting was not available at the time of detection, highlighting Darktrace’s ability to detect threats agnostically, without relying on threat intelligence.
The device was observed making domain name resolution request for the Out-of-Band Application Security Testing (OAST) domain cvvr9gl9namk9u955tsgaxy3upyezhnm6.oast[.]online. OAST is often used by security teams to test if exploitable vulnerabilities exist in a web application but can similarly be used by threat actors for the same purpose [9].
Four days later, on April 22, Darktrace observed the same device, an internet-facing system believed to be a SAP device, downloading multiple executable (.exe) files from several Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3). Darktrace’s Threat Research team later found these files to be associated with the KrustyLoader malware [23][24][25].
KrustyLoader is known to be associated with the Chinese threat actor UNC5221, also known as UTA0178, which has been reported to aggressively target devices exposed to the internet [10] [14] [15]. It is an initial-stage malware which downloads and launches a second-stage payload – Sliver C2. Sliver is a similar tool to Cobalt Strike (an open-source post-exploitation toolkit). It is used for command-and-control (C2) connections [11][12]13]. After its successful download, KrustyLoader deletes itself to evade detection. It has been reported that multiple Chinese APT groups have deployed KrustyLoader on SAP Netweaver systems post-compromise [8].
The actors behind KrustyLoader have also been associated with the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in other enterprise systems, including Ivanti devices [12]. Notably, in this case, one of the Amazon S3 domains observed (abode-dashboard-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws[.]com ) had previously been investigated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team as part of their investigation into Ivanti Connect Secure (CS) and Policy Secure (PS) appliances.
In addition to the download of known malicious files, Darktrace also detected new IoCs, including several executable files that could not be attributed to any known malware families or previous attacks, and for which no corresponding OSINT reporting was available.
Post-CVE publication detection
Exploit Validation
Between April 27 and 29, Darktrace observed unusual activity from an SAP device on the network of a manufacturing customer in EMEA.
Figure 2: Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of an SAP device performing a large volume of suspicious activity between April 27 and April 29.
The device was observed making DNS requests for OAST domains (e.g. aaaaaaaa.d06qqn7pu5a6u25tv9q08p5xhbjzw33ge.oast[.]online and aaaaaaaaaaa.d07j2htekalm3139uk2gowmxuhapkijtp.oast[.]pro), suggesting that a threat actor was testing for exploit validation [9].
Figure 3: Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of a SAP device making suspicious domain name resolution requests for multiple OAST domains.
Privilege escalation tool download attempt
One day later, Darktrace observed the same device attempting to download an executable file from hxxp://23.95.123[.]5:666/xmrigCCall/s.exe (SHA-1 file hash: e007edd4688c5f94a714fee036590a11684d6a3a).
Darktrace / NETWORK identified the user agents Microsoft-CryptoAPI/10.0 and CertUtil URL Agent during the connections to 23.95.123[.]5. The connections were made over port 666, which is not typically used for HTTP connections.
Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors have identified the executable file as either JuicyPotato or SweetPotato, both Windows privilege escalation tools[16][17][18][19]. The file hash and the unusual external endpoint have been associated with the Chinese APT group Gelsemium in the past, however, many threat actors are known to leverage this tool in their attacks [20] [21].
Figure 4: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of a SAP device downloading a suspicious executable file from hxxp://23.95.123[.]5:666/xmrigCCall/s.exe on April 28, 2025.
Darktrace deemed this activity highly suspicious and triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert, a high-priority security model designed to detect activity likely indicative of compromise. As the customer was subscribed to the Managed Threat Detection service, Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) promptly investigated the alert and notified the customer for swift remediation. Additionally, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability automatically blocked connections to the suspicious IP, 23.95.123[.]5, effectively containing the compromise in its early stages.
Figure 5: Actions taken by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response to block connections to the suspicious external endpoint 23.95.123[.]5. This event log shows that the connections to 23.95.123[.]5 were made over a rare destination port for the HTTP protocol and that new user agents were used during the connections.
Conclusion
The exploitation of CVE-2025-31324 to compromise SAP NetWeaver systems highlights the persistent threat posed by vulnerabilities in public-facing assets. In this case, threat actors leveraged the flaw to gain an initial foothold, followed by attempts to deploy malware linked to groups affiliated with China [8][20].
Crucially, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect and respond to emerging threats even before they are publicly disclosed. Six days prior to the public disclosure of CVE-2025-31324, Darktrace detected unusual activity on a device believed to be a SAP system, which ultimately represented an early detection of the CVE. This detection was made possible through Darktrace’s behavioral analysis and anomaly detection, allowing it to recognize unexpected deviations in device behavior without relying on signatures, rules or known IoCs. Combined with its Autonomous Response capability, this allowed for immediate containment of suspicious activity, giving security teams valuable time to investigate and mitigate the threat.
Credit to Signe Zaharka (Principal Cyber Analyst), Emily Megan Lim, (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)
Appendices
List of IoCs
23.95.123[.]5:666/xmrigCCall/s.exe - URL- JuicyPotato/SweetPotato - high confidence
29274ca90e6dcf5ae4762739fcbadf01- MD5 file hash - JuicyPotato/SweetPotato - high confidence
Modernising UK Cyber Regulation: Implications of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
The need for security and continued cyber resilience
The UK government has made national security a key priority, and the new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (CSRB) is a direct reflection of that focus. In introducing the Bill, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, recognised that the UK is “desperately exposed” to cyber threats—from criminal groups to hostile nation-states that are increasingly targeting the UK's digital systems and critical infrastructure[1].
Context and timeline for the new legislation
First announced during the King’s Speech of July 2024, and elaborated in a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) policy statement published in April 2025, the CSRB is expected to be introduced in Parliament during the 2025-26 legislative session.
For now, organisations in the UK remain subject to the 2018 Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations – an EU-derived law which was drafted before today’s increasing digitisation of critical services, rise in cloud adoption and emergence of AI-powered threats.
Why modernisation is critical
Without modernisation, the Government believes UK’s infrastructure and economy risks falling behind international peers. The EU, which revised its cybersecurity regulation under the NIS2 Directive, already imposes stricter requirements on a broader set of sectors.
The urgency of the Bill is also underscored by recent high-impact incidents, including the Synnovis attack which targeted the National Health Service (NHS) suppliers and disrupted thousands of patient appointments and procedures[2]. The Government has argued that such events highlight a systemic failure to keep pace with a rapidly evolving threat landscape[3].
What the Bill aims to achieve
This Bill represents a decisive shift. According to the Government, it will modernise and future‑proof the UK’s cyber laws, extending oversight to areas where risk has grown but regulation has not kept pace[4]. While the legislation builds on previous consultations and draws lessons from international frameworks like the EU’s NIS2 directive, it also aims to tailor solutions to the UK’s unique threat environment.
Importantly, the Government is framing cybersecurity not as a barrier to growth, but as a foundation for it. The policy statement emphasises that strong digital resilience will create the stability businesses need to thrive, innovate, and invest[5]. Therefore, the goals of the Bill will not only be to enhance security but also act as an enabler to innovation and economic growth.
Recognition that AI changes cyber threats
The CSRB policy statement recognises that AI is fundamentally reshaping the threat landscape, with adversaries now leveraging AI and commercial cyber tools to exploit vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure and supply chains. Indeed, the NCSC has recently assessed that AI will almost certainly lead to “an increase in the frequency and intensity of cyber threats”[6]. Accordingly, the policy statement insists that the UK’s regulatory framework “must keep pace and provide flexibility to respond to future threats as and when they emerge”[7].
To address the threat, the Bill signals new obligations for MSPs and data centres, timely incident reporting and dynamic guidance that can be refreshed without fresh primary legislation, making it essential for firms to follow best practices.
What might change in day-to-day practice?
New organisations in scope of regulation
Under the existing Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations[8], the UK already supervises operators in five critical sectors—energy, transport, drinking water, health (Operators of Essential Services, OES) and digital infrastructure (Relevant Digital Service Providers, RDSPs).
The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill retains this foundation and adds Managed Service Providers (MSPs) and data centres to the scope of regulation to “better recognise the increasing reliance on digital services and the vulnerabilities posed by supply chains”[9]. It also grants the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology the power to add new sectors or sub‑sectors via secondary legislation, following consultation with Parliament and industry.
Managed service providers (MSPs)
MSPs occupy a central position within the UK’s enterprise information‑technology infrastructure. Because they remotely run or monitor clients’ systems, networks and data, they hold privileged, often continuous access to multiple environments. This foothold makes them an attractive target for malicious actors.
The Bill aims to bring MSPs in scope of regulation by making them subject to the same duties as those placed on firms that provide digital services under the 2018 NIS Regulations. By doing so, the Bill seeks to raise baseline security across thousands of customer environments and to provide regulators with better visibility of supply‑chain risk.
The proposed definition for MSPs is a service which:
Is provided to another organisation
Relies on the use of network and information systems to deliver the service
Relates to ongoing management support, active administration and/or monitoring of AI systems, IT infrastructure, applications, and/or IT networks, including for the purpose of activities relating to cyber security.
Involves a network connection and/or access to the customer’s network and information systems.
Data centres
Building on the September 2024 designation of data centres as critical national infrastructure, the CSRB will fold data infrastructure into the NIS-style regime by naming it an “relevant sector" and data centres as “essential service”[10].
About 182 colocation facilities run by 64 operators will therefore come under statutory duties to notify the regulator, maintain proportionate CAF-aligned controls and report significant incidents, regardless of who owns them or what workloads they host.
New requirements for regulated organisations
Incident reporting processes
There could be stricter timelines or broader definitions of what counts as a reportable incident. This might nudge organisations to formalise detection, triage, and escalation procedures.
The Government is proposing to introduce a new two-stage incident reporting process. This would include an initial notification which would be submitted within 24 hours of becoming aware of a significant incident, followed by a full incident report which should be submitted within 72 hours of the same.
Supply chain assurance requirements
Supply chains for the UK's most critical services are becoming increasingly complex and present new and serious vulnerabilities for cyber-attacks. The recent Synnovis ransomware attacks on the NHS[11] exemplify the danger posed by attacks against the supply chains of important services and organisations. This is concerning when reflecting on the latest Cyber Security Breaches survey conducted by DSIT, which highlights that fewer than 25% of large businesses review their supply chain risks[12].
Despite these risks, the UK’s legacy cybersecurity regulatory regime does not explicitly cover supply chain risk management. The UK instead relies on supporting and non-statutory guidance to close this gap, such as the NCSC’s Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF)[13].
The CSRB policy statement acts on this regulatory shortcoming and recognises that “a single supplier’s disruption can have far-reaching impacts on the delivery of essential or digital services”[14].
To address this, the Bill would make in-scope organisations (OES and RDPS) directly accountable for the cybersecurity of their supply chains. Secondary legislation would spell out these duties in detail, ensuring that OES and RDSPs systematically assess and mitigate third-party cyber risks.
Updated and strengthened security requirements
By placing the CAF into a firmer footing and backing it with a statutory Code of Practice, the Government is setting clearer expectations about government expectations on technical standards and methods organisations will need to follow to prove their resilience.
How Darktrace can help support affected organizations
Demonstrate resilience
Darktrace’s Self-Learning AITM continuously monitors your digital estate across cloud, network, OT, email, and endpoint to detect, investigate, and autonomously respond to emerging threats in real time. This persistent visibility and defense posture helps organizations demonstrate cyber resilience to regulators with confidence.
Streamline incident reporting and compliance
Darktrace surfaces clear alerts and automated investigation reports, complete with timeline views and root cause analysis. These insights reduce the time and complexity of regulatory incident reporting and support internal compliance workflows with auditable, AI-generated evidence.
Improve supply chain visibility
With full visibility across connected systems and third-party activity, Darktrace detects early indicators of lateral movement, account compromise, and unusual behavior stemming from vendor or partner access, reducing the risk of supply chain-originated cyber-attacks.
Ensure MSPs can meet new standards
For managed service providers, Darktrace offers native multi-tenant support and autonomous threat response that can be embedded directly into customer environments. This ensures consistent, scalable security standards across clients—helping MSPs address increasing regulatory obligations.
.jpg)
![Actions taken by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response to block connections to the suspicious external endpoint 23.95.123[.]5. This event log shows that the connections to 23.95.123[.]5 were made over a rare destination port for the HTTP protocol and that new user agents were used during the connections.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/685069596b6d07de173a8b51_Screenshot%202025-06-16%20at%2011.58.25%E2%80%AFAM.png)
