October 29, 2025

WSUS Exploited: Darktrace’s Analysis of Post-Exploitation Activities Related to CVE-2025-59287

In October 2025, Microsoft disclosed a critical vulnerability in its Windows Server Update Service (WSUS). This blog details Darktrace’s analysis of the vulnerability, focusing on two US customers where active exploitation was detected.

Written by

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Written by

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

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

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Written by

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

WSUS Exploited: Darktrace’s Analysis of Post-Exploitation Activities Related to CVE-2025-59287

Oct 2025

Introduction

On October 14, 2025, Microsoft disclosed a new critical vulnerability affecting the Windows Server Update Service (WSUS), CVE-2025-59287. Exploitation of the vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated attacker to remotely execute code [1][6].

WSUS allows for centralized distribution of Microsoft product updates [3]; a server running WSUS is likely to have significant privileges within a network making it a valuable target for threat actors. While WSUS servers are not necessarily expected to be open to the internet, open-source intelligence (OSINT) has reported thousands of publicly exposed instances that may be vulnerable to exploitation [2].

Microsoft’s initial ‘Patch Tuesday’ update for this vulnerability did not fully mitigate the risk, and so an out-of-band update followed on October 23 [4][5] . Widespread exploitation of this vulnerability started to be observed shortly after the security update [6], prompting CISA to add CVE-2025-59287 to its Known Exploited Vulnerability Catalog (KEV) on October 24 [7].

Attack Overview

The Darktrace Threat Research team have recently identified multiple potential cases of CVE-2025-59287 exploitation, with two detailed here. While the likely initial access method is consistent across the cases, the follow-up activities differed, demonstrating the variety in which such a CVE can be exploited to fulfil each attacker’s specific goals.

The first signs of suspicious activity across both customers were detected by Darktrace on October 24, the same day this vulnerability was added to CISA’s KEV. Both cases discussed here involve customers based in the United States.

Case Study 1

The first case, involving a customer in the Information and Communication sector, began with an internet-facing device making an outbound connection to the hostname webhook[.]site. Observed network traffic indicates the device was a WSUS server.

OSINT has reported abuse of the workers[.]dev service in exploitation of CVE-2025-59287, where enumerated network information gathered through running a script on the compromised device was exfiltrated using this service [8].

In this case, the majority of connectivity seen to webhook[.]site involved a PowerShell user agent; however, cURL user agents were also seen with some connections taking the form of HTTP POSTs. This connectivity appears to align closely with OSINT reports of CVE-2025-59287 post-exploitation behaviour [8][9].

Connections to webhook[.]site continued until October 26. A single URI was seen consistently until October 25, after which the connections used a second URI with a similar format.

Later on October 26, an escalation in command-and-control (C2) communication appears to have occurred, with the device starting to make repeated connections to two rare workers[.]dev subdomains (royal-boat-bf05.qgtxtebl.workers[.]dev & chat.hcqhajfv.workers[.]dev), consistent with C2 beaconing. While workers[.]dev is associated with the legitimate Cloudflare Workers service, the service is commonly abused by malicious actors for C2 infrastructure. The unusual connections to both webhook[.]site and workers[.]dev triggered multiple alerts in Darktrace, including high-fidelity Enhanced Monitoring alerts and Autonomous Response actions.

‍

Infrastructure insight

Hosted on royal-boat-bf05.qgtxtebl.workers[.]dev is a Microsoft Installer file (MSI) named v3.msi.

Contained in the MSI file is two Cabinet files named “Sample.cab” and “part2.cab”. After extracting the contents of the cab files, a file named “Config” and a binary named “ServiceEXE”. ServiceEXE is the legitimate DFIR tool Velociraptor, and “Config” contains the configuration details, which include chat.hcqhajfv.workers[.]dev as the server_url, suggesting that Velociraptor is being used as a tunnel to the C2. Additionally, the configuration points to version 0.73.4, a version of Velociraptor that is vulnerable to CVE-2025-6264, a privilege escalation vulnerability.

Velociraptor, a legitimate security tool maintained by Rapid7, has been used recently in malicious campaigns. A vulnerable version of tool has been used by threat actors for command execution and endpoint takeover, while other campaigns have used Velociraptor to create a tunnel to the C2, similar to what was observed in this case [10] .

The workers[.]dev communication continued into the early hours of October 27. The most recent suspicious behavior observed on the device involved an outbound connection to a new IP for the network - 185.69.24[.]18/singapure - potentially indicating payload retrieval.

The payload retrieved from “/singapure” is a UPX packed Windows binary. After unpacking the binary, it is an open-source Golang stealer named “Skuld Stealer”. Skuld Stealer has the capabilities to steal crypto wallets, files, system information, browser data and tokens. Additionally, it contains anti-debugging and anti-VM logic, along with a UAC bypass [11].

Figure 3: A timeline outlining suspicious activity on the device alerted by Darktrace.

Case Study 2

The second case involved a customer within the Education sector. The affected device was also internet-facing, with network traffic indicating it was a WSUS server

Suspicious activity in this case once again began on October 24, notably only a few seconds after initial signs of compromise were observed in the first case. Initial anomalous behaviour also closely aligned, with outbound PowerShell connections to webhook[.]site, and then later connections, including HTTP POSTs, to the same endpoint with a cURL user agent.

While Darktrace did not observe any anomalous network activity on the device after October 24, the customer’s security integration resulted in an additional alert on October 27 for malicious activity, suggesting that the compromise may have continued locally.

By leveraging Darktrace’s security integrations, customers can investigate activity across different sources in a seamless manner, gaining additional insight and context to an attack.

‍

Conclusion

Exploitation of a CVE can lead to a wide range of outcomes. In some cases, it may be limited to just a single device with a focused objective, such as exfiltration of sensitive data. In others, it could lead to lateral movement and a full network compromise, including ransomware deployment. As the threat of internet-facing exploitation continues to grow, security teams must be prepared to defend against such a possibility, regardless of the attack type or scale.

By focussing on detection of anomalous behaviour rather than relying on signatures associated with a specific CVE exploit, Darktrace is able to alert on post-exploitation activity regardless of the kind of behaviour seen. In addition, leveraging security integrations provides further context on activities beyond the visibility of Darktrace / NETWORK^TM, enabling defenders to investigate and respond to attacks more effectively.

With adversaries weaponizing even trusted incident response tools, maintaining broad visibility and rapid response capabilities becomes critical to mitigating post-exploitation risk.

Credit to Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Tara Gould (Threat Research Lead), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO),

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

[related-resource]

Appendices

References

1. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59287

2. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-now-exploiting-critical-windows-server-wsus-flaw-in-attacks/

3. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-server-update-services/get-started/windows-server-update-services-wsus

4. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2025/10/24/microsoft-releases-out-band-security-update-mitigate-windows-server-update-service-vulnerability-cve

5. https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-59287

6. https://thehackernews.com/2025/10/microsoft-issues-emergency-patch-for.html

7. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

8. https://www.huntress.com/blog/exploitation-of-windows-server-update-services-remote-code-execution-vulnerability

9. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/microsoft-cve-2025-59287/

10. https://blog.talosintelligence.com/velociraptor-leveraged-in-ransomware-attacks/

11. https://github.com/hackirby/skuld

Darktrace Model Detections

· Device / New PowerShell User Agent

· Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External

· Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

· Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

· Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

· Device / New User Agent

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

· Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

· Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)

· Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

· Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)

· Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

· Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection

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

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

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

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

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

o royal-boat-bf05.qgtxtebl.workers[.]dev – Hostname – Likely C2 Infrastructure

o royal-boat-bf05.qgtxtebl.workers[.]dev/v3.msi - URI – Likely payload

o chat.hcqhajfv.workers[.]dev – Hostname – Possible C2 Infrastructure

o 185.69.24[.]18 – IP address – Possible C2 Infrastructure

o 185.69.24[.]18/bin.msi - URI – Likely payload

o 185.69.24[.]18/singapure - URI – Likely payload

^{The content provided in this blog is published by Darktrace for general informational purposes only and reflects our understanding of cybersecurity topics, trends, incidents, and developments at the time of publication. While we strive to ensure accuracy and relevance, the information is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Darktrace makes no guarantees regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information presented and expressly disclaims all warranties.}

^{Nothing in this blog constitutes legal, technical, or professional advice, and readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein. Any references to third-party organizations, technologies, threat actors, or incidents are for informational purposes only and do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or recommendation.}

^{Darktrace, its affiliates, employees, or agents shall not be held liable for any loss, damage, or harm arising from the use of or reliance on the information in this blog.}

^{The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content}

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2026.

Download now

Written by

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Written by

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Inside the SOC

Written by

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Written by

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

•

March 24, 2026

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

In today's threat landscape, blending in to normal activity is the key to success for attackers and the growing reliance on residential proxies shows a significant shift in how threat actors are attempting to bypass IP detection tools.

The increasing dependency on residential proxies has exposed how prevalent proxy services are and how reliant a diverse range of threat actors are on them. From cybercriminal groups to state‑sponsored actors, the need to bypass IP detection tools is fundamental to the success of these groups. One malware that has quietly become notorious for its ability to avoid anomaly detection is GhostSocks, a malware that turns compromised devices into residential proxies.

What is GhostSocks?

Originally marketed on the Russian underground forum xss[.]is as a Malware‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS), GhostSocks enables threat actors to turn compromised devices into residential proxies, leveraging the victim's internet bandwidth to route malicious traffic through it.

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

The malware offers the threat actor a “clean” IP address, making it look like it is coming from a household user. This enables the bypassing of geographic restrictions and IP detection tools, a perfect tool for avoiding anomaly detection. It wasn’t until 2024, when a partnership was announced with the infamous information stealer Lumma Stealer, that GhostSocks surged into widespread adoption and alluded to who may be the author of the proxy malware.

Written in GoLang, GhostSocks utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy protocol, creating a SOCKS5 connection on infected devices. It uses a relay‑based C2 implementation, where an intermediary server sits in between the real command-and-control (C2) server and the infected device.

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

To further increase evasion, the Ghostsocks malware wraps its SOCKS5 tunnels in TLS encryption, allowing its malicious traffic to blend into normal network traffic.

Early variants of GhostSocks do not implement a persistence mechanism; however, later versions achieve persistence via registry run keys, ensuring sustained proxy operational time [1].

While proxying is its primary purpose, GhostSocks also incorporates backdoor functionality, enabling malicious actors to run arbitrary commands and download and deploy additional malicious payloads. This was evident with the well‑known ransomware group Black Basta, which reportedly used GhostSocks as a way of maintaining long‑term access to victims’ networks [1].

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Darktrace observed a steady increase in GhostSocks activity across its customer base from late 2025, with its Threat Research team identifying multiple incidents involving the malware. In one notable case from December 2025, Darktrace detected GhostSocks operating alongside Lumma Stealer, reinforcing that the partnership between Lumma and GhostSocks remains active despite recent attempts to disrupt Lumma’s infrastructure.

Darktrace’s first detection of GhostSocks‑related activity came when a device on the network of a customer in the education sector began making connections to an endpoint with a suspicious self‑signed certificate that had never been seen on the network before.

The endpoint in question, 159.89.46[.]92 with the hostname retreaw[.]click, has been flagged by multiple open‑source intelligence (OSINT) sources as being associated with Lumma Stealer’s C2 infrastructure [2], indicating its likely role in the delivery of malicious payloads.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious SSL connections to retreaw[.]click, indicating an attempted link to Lumma C2 infrastructure.

Less than two minutes later, Darktrace observed the same device downloading the executable (.exe) file “Renewable.exe” from the IP 86.54.24[.]29, which Darktrace recognized as 100% rare for this network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device downloading the unusual executable file “Renewable.exe”.

Both the file MD5 hash and the executable itself have been identified by multiple OSINT vendors as being associated with the GhostSocks malware [3], with the executable likely the backdoor component of the GhostSocks malware, facilitating the distribution of additional malicious payloads [4].

Following this detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability recommended a blocking action for the device in an early attempt to stop the malicious file download. In this instance, Darktrace was configured in Human Confirmation Mode, meaning the customer’s security team was required to manually apply any mitigative response actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled at the time of the attack, the connections to 86.54.24[.]29 would have been blocked, rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its C2 infrastructure and halting any further malicious communication.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability suggesting blocking the suspicious connections to the unusual endpoint from which the malicious executable was downloaded.

As the attack was able to progress, two days later the device was detected downloading additional payloads from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site (23.106.58[.]48), including “Setup.exe”, “,.exe”, and “/vp6c63yoz.exe”.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a malicious payload being downloaded from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site.

Once again, Darktrace recognized the anomalous nature of these downloads and suggested that a “group pattern of life” be enforced on the offending device in an attempt to contain the activity. By enforcing a pattern of life on a device, Darktrace restricts its activity to connections and behaviors similar to those performed by peer devices within the same group, while still allowing it to carry out its expected activity, effectively preventing deviations indicative of compromise while minimizing disruption. As mentioned earlier, these mitigative actions required manual implementation, so the activity was able to continue. Darktrace proceeded to suggest further actions to contain subsequent malicious downloads, including an attempt to block all outbound traffic to stop the attack from progressing.

Figure 5: An overview of download activity and the Autonomous Response actions recommended by Darktrace to block the downloads.

Around the same time, a third executable download was detected, this time from the hostname hxxp[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront.net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe, along with the file “udppump.exe”.While GhostSocks may have been present only to facilitate the delivery of additional payloads, there is no indication that these CloudFront endpoints or files are functionally linked to GhostSocks. Rather, the evidence points to broader malicious file‑download activity.

Shortly after the multiple executable files had been downloaded, Darktrace observed the device initiating a series of repeated successful connections to several rare external endpoints, behavior consistent with early-stage C2 beaconing activity.

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of additional malicious file downloads from malicious CloudFront endpoints.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst carried out its own autonomous investigation, piecing together seemingly separate events into one wider incident encompassing the first suspicious downloads beginning on December 4, the unusual connectivity to many suspicious IPs that followed, and the successful beaconing activity observed two days later. By analyzing these events in real-time and viewing them as part of the bigger picture, Cyber AI Analyst was able to construct an in‑depth breakdown of the attack to aid the customer’s investigation and remediation efforts.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the sequence of events on the compromised device, highlighting its extensive connectivity to rare endpoints, the related malicious file‑download activity, and finally the emergence of C2 beaconing behavior.

Conclusion

The versatility offered by GhostSocks is far from new, but its ability to convert compromised devices into residential proxy nodes, while enabling long‑term, covert network access—illustrates how threat actors continue to maximise the value of their victims’ infrastructure. Its growing popularity, coupled with its ongoing partnership with Lumma, demonstrates that infrastructure takedowns alone are insufficient; as long as threat actors remain committed to maintaining anonymity and can rapidly rebuild their ecosystems, related malware activity is likely to persist in some form.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Gernice Lee (Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead – APJ)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)