December 16, 2024

Cleo File Transfer Vulnerability: Patch Pitfalls and Darktrace’s Detection of Post-Exploitation Activities

File transfer applications are prime targets for ransomware groups due to their critical role in business operations. Recent vulnerabilities in Cleo's MFT software, namely CVE-2024-50623 and CVE-2024-55956, highlight ongoing risks. Read more about the Darktrace Threat Research team’s investigation into these vulnerabilities.

Written by

Maria Geronikolou

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

Maria Geronikolou

Cyber Analyst

Dec 2024

File transfer applications: A target for ransomware

File transfer applications have been a consistent target, particularly for ransomware groups, in recent years because they are key parts of business operations and have trusted access across different parts of an organization that include potentially confidential and personal information about an organization and its employees.

Recent targets of ransomware criminals includes applications like Acellion, Moveit, and GoAnywhere [1]. This seems to have been the case for Cleo’s managed file transfer (MFT) software solutions and the vulnerability CVE-2024-50623.

Threat overview: Understanding Cleo file transfer vulnerability

This vulnerability was believed to have been patched with the release of version 5.8.0.21 in late October 2024. However, open-source intelligence (OSINT) reported that the Clop ransomware group had managed to bypass the initial patch in late November, leading to the successful exploitation of the previously patched CVE.

In the last few days Cleo has published a new vulnerability, CVE-2024-55956, which is not a patch bypass of the CVE-2024-50623 but rather another vulnerability. This is also an unauthenticated file write vulnerability but while CVE-2024-50623 allows for both reading and writing arbitrary files, the CVE-2024-55956 only allows for writing arbitrary files and was addressed in version 5.8.0.24 [2].

Darktrace Threat Research analysts have already started investigating potential signs of devices running the Cleo software with network traffic supporting this initial hypothesis.

Comparison of CVE-2024-50623 and CVE-2024-55956

While CVE-2024-50623 was initially listed as a cross-site scripting issue, it was updated on December 10 to reflect unrestricted file upload and download. This vulnerability could lead to remote code execution (RCE) in versions of Cleo’s Harmony, VLTrader, and LexiCom products prior to 5.8.0.24. Attackers could leverage the fact that files are placed in the "autorun" sub-directory within the installation folder and are immediately read, interpreted, and evaluated by the susceptible software [3].

CVE-2024-55956, refers to an unauthenticated user who can import and execute arbitrary Bash or PowerShell commands on the host system by leveraging the default settings of the Autorun directory [4]. Both CVEs have occurred due to separate issues in the “/Synchronization” endpoint.

Investigating post exploitation patterns of activity on Cleo software

Proof of exploitation

Darktrace’s Threat Research analysts investigated multiple cases where devices identified as likely running Cleo software were detected engaging in unusual behavior. Analysts also attempted to identify any possible association between publicly available indicators of compromise (IoCs) and the exploitation of the vulnerability, using evidence of anomalous network traffic.

One case involved an Internet-facing device likely running Cleo VLTrader software (based on its hostname) reaching out to the 100% rare Lithuanian IP 181.214.147[.]164 · AS 15440 (UAB Baltnetos komunikacijos).

This activity occurred in the early hours of December 8 on the network of a customer in the energy sector. Darktrace detected a Cleo server transferring around over 500 MB of data over multiple SSL connections via port 443 to the Lithuanian IP. External research reported that this IP appears to be a callback IP observed in post-exploitation activity of vulnerable Cleo devices [3].

While this device was regularly observed sending data to external endpoints, this transfer represented a small increase in data sent to public IPs and coupled with the rarity of the destination, triggered a model alert as well as a Cyber AI Analyst Incident summarizing the transfer. Unfortunately, due to the encrypted connection no further analysis of the transmitted data was possible. However, due to the rarity of the activity, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response intervened and prevented any further connections to the IP.

Figure 1: Model Alert Event Log show repeated connections to the rare IP, filtered with the rarity metric.

Figure 2: Shows connections to 181.214.147[.]164 and the amount of data transferred.

On the same day, external connections were observed to the external IP 45.182.189[.]225, along with inbound SSL connections from the same endpoint. OSINT has also linked this IP to the exploitation of Cleo software vulnerabilities [5].

Figure 3: Outgoing connections from a Cleo server to an anomalous endpoint.

Figure 4: Incoming SSL connections from the external IP 45.182.189[.]225.

Hours after the last connection to 181.214.147[.]164, the integration detection tool from CrowdStrike, which the customer had integrated with Darktrace, issued an alert. This alert provided additional visibility into host-level processes and highlighted the following command executed on the Cleo server:

“D:\VLTrader\jre\bin\java.exe" -jar cleo.4889

Three days later, on December 11, another CrowdStrike integration alert was generated, this time following encoded PowerShell command activity on the server. This is consistent with post-exploitation activity where arbitrary PowerShell commands are executed on compromised systems leveraging the default settings of the Autorun directory, as highlighted by Cleo support [6]. According to external researchers , this process initiates connections to an external IP to retrieve JAR files with webshell-like functionality for continued post-exploitation [3]. The IP embedded in both commands observed by Darktrace was 38.180.242[.]122, hosted on ASN 58061(Scalaxy B.V.). There is no OSINT associating this IP with Cleo vulnerability exploitation at the time of writing.

Another device within the same customer network exhibited similar data transfer and command execution activity around the same time, suggesting it had also been compromised through this vulnerability. However, this second device contacted a different external IP, 5.45.74[.]137, hosted on AS 58061 (Scalaxy B.V.).

Like the first device, multiple connections to this IP were detected, with almost 600 MB of data transferred over the SSL protocol.

Figure 6: The Security Integration Detection Model that was triggered and the PowerShell command observed

Figure 7: Incoming connections from the external IP 38.180.242[.]122.

Figure 8: Connections to the external IP 5.45.74[.]137.

Figure 9: Autonomous Response Actions triggered during the suspicious activities

While investigating potential Cleo servers involved in similar outgoing data activity, Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified two additional instances of likely Cleo vulnerability exploitation used to exfiltrate data outside the network. In those two instances, unusual outgoing data transfers were observed to the IP 176.123.4[.]22 (AS 200019, AlexHost SRL), with around 500 MB of data being exfiltrated over port 443 in one case (the exact volume could not be confirmed in the other instance). This IP was found embedded in encoded PowerShell commands examined by external researchers in the context of Cleo vulnerability exploitation investigations.

Conclusion

Overall, Cleo software represents a critical component of many business operations, being utilized by over 4,000 organizations worldwide. This renders the software an attractive target for threat actors who aim at exploiting internet-facing devices that could be used to compromise the software’s direct users but also other dependent industries resulting in supply chain attacks.

Darktrace / NETWORK was able to capture traffic linked to exploitation of CVE-2024-50623 within models that triggered such as Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint while its Autonomous Response capability successfully blocked the anomalous connections and exfiltration attempts.

Information on new CVEs, how they're being exploited, and whether they've been patched can be fast-changing, sometimes limited and often confusing. Regardless, Darktrace is able to identify and alert to unusual behavior on these systems, indicating exploitation.

Credit to Maria Geronikolou, Alexandra Sentenac, Emma Fougler, Signe Zaharka and the Darktrace Threat Research team

[related-resource]

Appendices

References

[1] https://blog.httpcs.com/en/file-sharing-and-transfer-software-the-new-target-of-hackers/

[2] https://attackerkb.com/topics/geR0H8dgrE/cve-2024-55956/rapid7-analysis

[3] https://www.huntress.com/blog/threat-advisory-oh-no-cleo-cleo-software-actively-being-exploited-in-the-wild

[4] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-55956

[5] https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/cleopatras-shadow-a-mass-exploitation-campaign/

[6] https://support.cleo.com/hc/en-us/articles/28408134019735-Cleo-Product-Security-Advisory-CVE-Pending

[7] https://support.cleo.com/hc/en-us/articles/360034260293-Local-HTTP-Users-Configuration

Darktrace Model Alerts

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Security Integration / High Severity Integration Incident

Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection

Autonomous Response Model Detections

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

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

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

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

Unusual External Data Transfer

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

INITIAL ACCESS – Exploit Public-Facing Application

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Application Layer Protocol (Web Protocols)

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Encrypted Channel

PERSISTENCE – Web Shell

EXFILTRATION - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

IoC List

IoC Type Description + Probability

181.214.147[.]164 IP Address Likely C2 Infrastructure

176.123.4[.]22 IP Address Likely C2 Infrastructure

5.45.74[.]137 IP Address Possible C2 Infrastructure

38.180.242[.]122 IP Address Possible C2 Infrastructure

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Attackers are adapting, are you ready? This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know.

Inside the SOC

Written by

Maria Geronikolou

Cyber Analyst

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Identity

July 3, 2025

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

The latest on the identity security landscape

Following the mass adoption of remote and hybrid working patterns, more critical data than ever resides in cloud applications – from Salesforce and Google Workspace, to Box, Dropbox, and Microsoft 365.

On average, a single organization uses 130 different Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications, and 45% of organizations reported experiencing a cybersecurity incident through a SaaS application in the last year.

As SaaS applications look set to remain an integral part of the digital estate, organizations are being forced to rethink how they protect their users and data in this area.

What is SaaS security?

SaaS security is the protection of cloud applications. It includes securing the apps themselves as well as the user identities that engage with them.

Below are the top eight threats that target SaaS security and user identities.

1. Account Takeover (ATO)

Attackers gain unauthorized access to a user’s SaaS or cloud account by stealing credentials through phishing, brute-force attacks, or credential stuffing. Once inside, they can exfiltrate data, send malicious emails, or escalate privileges to maintain persistent access.

2. Privilege escalation

Cybercriminals exploit misconfigurations, weak access controls, or vulnerabilities to increase their access privileges within a SaaS or cloud environment. Gaining admin or superuser rights allows attackers to disable security settings, create new accounts, or move laterally across the organization.

3. Lateral movement

Once inside a network or SaaS platform, attackers move between accounts, applications, and cloud workloads to expand their foot- hold. Compromised OAuth tokens, session hijacking, or exploited API connections can enable adversaries to escalate access and exfiltrate sensitive data.

4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking

Threat actors bypass MFA through SIM swapping, push bombing, or exploiting session cookies. By stealing an active authentication session, they can access SaaS environments without needing the original credentials or MFA approval.

5. OAuth token abuse

Attackers exploit OAuth authentication mechanisms by stealing or abusing tokens that grant persistent access to SaaS applications. This allows them to maintain access even if the original user resets their password, making detection and mitigation difficult.

6. Insider threats

Malicious or negligent insiders misuse their legitimate access to SaaS applications or cloud platforms to leak data, alter configurations, or assist external attackers. Over-provisioned accounts and poor access control policies make it easier for insiders to exploit SaaS environments.

7. Application Programming Interface (API)-based attacks

SaaS applications rely on APIs for integration and automation, but attackers exploit insecure endpoints, excessive permissions, and unmonitored API calls to gain unauthorized access. API abuse can lead to data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and service disruption.

8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS

Adversaries compromise SaaS-based email platforms (e.g., Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace) to send phishing emails, conduct invoice fraud, or steal sensitive communications. BEC attacks often involve financial fraud or data theft by impersonating executives or suppliers.

BEC heavily uses social engineering techniques, tailoring messages for a specific audience and context. And with the growing use of generative AI by threat actors, BEC is becoming even harder to detect. By adding ingenuity and machine speed, generative AI tools give threat actors the ability to create more personalized, targeted, and convincing attacks at scale.

Protecting against these SaaS threats

Traditionally, security leaders relied on tools that were focused on the attack, reliant on threat intelligence, and confined to a single area of the digital estate.

However, these tools have limitations, and often prove inadequate for contemporary situations, environments, and threats. For example, they may lack advanced threat detection, have limited visibility and scope, and struggle to integrate with other tools and infrastructure, especially cloud platforms.

AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape

New, more effective approaches involve AI-powered defense solutions that understand the digital business, reveal subtle deviations that indicate cyber-threats, and action autonomous, targeted responses.

[related-resource]

‍

About the author

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Blog

July 2, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

‍

Vulnerabilities are weaknesses in a system that can be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access or to disrupt normal operations. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (or CVEs) are a list of publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities that can be tracked and mitigated by the security community.

When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.

With a record-breaking 40,000 CVEs reported for 2024 and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) [1], anomaly-detection is essential for identifying these potential risks. The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems. Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.

‍For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.

Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.

Below are ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

Often, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender: attack vs patch.

Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security. After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.

Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].

The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].

Autonomous Response

Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.

For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.

This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.

In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.

For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.

Conclusion

By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.

Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Cleo File Transfer Vulnerability: Patch Pitfalls and Darktrace’s Detection of Post-Exploitation Activities

Cleo File Transfer Vulnerability: Patch Pitfalls and Darktrace’s Detection of Post-Exploitation Activities

File transfer applications: A target for ransomware

Threat overview: Understanding Cleo file transfer vulnerability

Comparison of CVE-2024-50623 and CVE-2024-55956

Investigating post exploitation patterns of activity on Cleo software

Proof of exploitation

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Alerts

Autonomous Response Model Detections

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

IoC List

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)

Customer Case Study: Leading Petrochemical Manufacturer

Tracking CVE-2025-31324: Darktrace’s detection of SAP Netweaver exploitation before and after disclosure

Blog

Identity

July 3, 2025

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

The latest on the identity security landscape

What is SaaS security?

1. Account Takeover (ATO)

2. Privilege escalation

3. Lateral movement

4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking

5. OAuth token abuse

6. Insider threats

7. Application Programming Interface (API)-based attacks

8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS

Protecting against these SaaS threats

AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape

Blog

July 2, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Below are ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

Autonomous Response

Conclusion

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs: