July 18, 2023

How Darktrace SOC Thwarted a BEC Attack

Discover how Darktrace's SOC detected and stopped a Business Email Compromise in a customer's SaaS environment.

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

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Jul 2023

What is Business Email Compromise (BEC)?

Business Email Compromise (BEC) is the practice of tricking an organization into transferring funds or sensitive data to a malicious actor.

Although at face value this type of attack may not carry the same gravitas as the more blockbuster, cloak-and-dagger type of attack such as ransomware [1], the costs of BEC actually dwarf that of ransomware [2]. Moreover, among UK organizations that reported a cyber breach in 2023, attacks related to BEC – namely phishing attacks, email impersonation, attempted hacking of online back accounts, and account takeover – were reported as the most disruptive, ahead of ransomware and other types of cyber-attack [3].

What makes a BEC attack successful?

BEC attacks are so successful and damaging due to the difficulty of detection for traditional security systems, along with their ease of execution. BEC does not require much technical sophistication to accomplish; rather, it exploits humans’ natural trust in known correspondents, via a phishing email for example, to induce them to perform a certain action.

How does a BEC attack work?

BEC attacks typically begin with a phishing email to an employee of an organization. Traditional email gateways may be unable to block the initial phishing email, as the email often appear to have been sent by a known correspondent, or it may contain minimal payload content.

The recipient’s interaction with the initial phishing email will likely result in the attacker gaining access to the user’s identity. Once access is obtained, the attacker may abuse the identity of the compromised user to obtain details of the user’s financial relations to the rest of the organization or its customers, eventually using these details to conduct further malicious email activity, such as sending out emails containing fraudulent wire transfer requests. Today, the continued growth in adoption of services to support remote working, such as cloud file storage and sharing, means that the compromise of a single user’s email account can also grant access to a wide range of corporate sensitive information.

How to protect against BEC attacks

The rapid uptake of cloud-based infrastructure and software-as-a-service (SaaS) outpaces the adoption of skills and expertise required to secure it, meaning that security teams are often less prepared to detect and respond to cloud-based attacks.

Alongside the adoption of security measures that specialize in anomaly-based detection and autonomous response, like Darktrace DETECT™ and Darktrace RESPOND™, it is extremely beneficial for organizations to have an around the clock security operations center (SOC) in place to monitor and investigate ongoing suspicious activity as it emerges.

In June 2023, Darktrace’s SOC alerted a customer to an active BEC attack within their cloud environment, following the successful detection of suspicious activity by Darktrace’s AI, playing a fundamental role in thwarting the attack in its early stages.

Darktrace Mitigates BEC Attack

Figure 1: Screenshot of the SaaS Console showing location information for the compromised SaaS account. The ability to visualize the distance between these two locations enables a SOC Analyst to deduce that the simultaneous activity from London and Derby may represent impossible travel’.

It was suspected the attack began with a phishing email, as on the previous day the user had received a highly anomalous email from an external sender with which the organization had not previously communicated. However, the customer had configured Darktrace/Email™ in passive mode, which meant that Darktrace was not able to carry out any RESPOND actions on this anomalous email to prevent it from landing in the user’s inbox. Despite this, Darktrace/Apps was able to instantly detect the subsequent unusual login to the customer’s SaaS environment; its anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to recognize the anomalous behavior even though the malicious email had successfully reached the user.

Following the anomalous ExpressVPN login, Darktrace detected further account anomalies originating from another ExpressVPN IP (45.92.229[.]195), as the attacker accessed files over SharePoint. Notably, Darktrace identified that the logins from ExpressVPN IPs were performed with the software Chrome 114, however, activity from the legitimate account owner prior to these unusual logins was performed using the software Chrome 102. It is unusual for a user to be using multiple browser versions simultaneously, therefore in addition to the observed impossible travel, this further implied the presence of different actors behind the simultaneous account activity.

Figure 2: Screenshot of the Event Log for the compromised SaaS account, showing simultaneous login and file access activity on the account from different browser versions, and thus likely from different devices.

Darktrace identified that the files observed during this anomalous activity referenced financial information and personnel schedules, suggesting that the attacker was performing internal reconnaissance to gather information about sensitive internal company procedures, in preparation for further fraudulent financial activity.

Although the actions taken by the attacker were mostly passive, Darktrace/Apps chained together the multiple anomalies to understand that this pattern of activity was indicative of movement along the cyber kill chain. The multiple model breaches generated by the ongoing unusual activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model breach that was escalated to Darktrace’s SOC as the customer had subscribed to Darktrace’s Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service. Enhanced Monitoring models detect activities that are more likely to be indicative of compromise.

Subsequently, Darktrace’s SOC triaged the activity detected on the SaaS account and sent a PTN alert to the customer, advising urgent follow up action. The encrypted alert contained relevant technical details of the incident that were summarized by an expert Darktrace Analyst, along with recommendations to the customer’s internal SOC team to take immediate action. Upon receipt and validation of the alert, the customer used Darktrace RESPOND to perform a manual force logout and block access from the external ExpressVPN IP.

Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode, it would have immediately taken action to disable the account after ongoing anomalies were detected from it. However, as the customer only had RESPOND configured in the manual human confirmation model, the expertise of Darktrace’s SOC team was critical in enabling the customer to react and prevent further escalation of post-compromise activity. Evidence of further attempts to access the compromised account were observed hours after RESPOND actions were taken, including failed login attempts from another rare external IP, this time associated with the VPN service NordVPN.

Figure 3: Timeline of attack and response actions from Darktrace SOC and Darktrace RESPOND.

Because the customer had subscribed to Darktrace’s PTN service, they were able to further leverage the expertise of Darktrace’s global team of cyber analysts and request further analysis of which files were accessed by the legitimate account owner versus the attacker. This information was shared securely within the same Customer Portal ticket that was automatically opened on behalf of the customer when the PTN was alerted, allowing the customer’s security team to submit further queries and feedback, and request assistance to further investigate this alert within Darktrace. A similar service called Ask the Expert (ATE) exists for customers to draw from the expertise of Darktrace’s analysts at any time, not just when PTNs are alerted.

Conclusion

The growing prevalence and impact of BEC attacks amid the shift to cloud-based infrastructure means that already stretched internal security teams may not have the sufficient human capacity to detect and respond to these threats.

Darktrace’s round-the-clock SOC thwarted a BEC attack that had the potential to result in significant financial and reputational damage to the legal services company, by alerting the customer to high priority activity during the early stages of the attack and sharing actionable insights that the customer could use to prevent further escalation. Following the confirmed compromise, the support and in-depth analysis provided by Darktrace’s SOC on the files accessed by the attacker enabled the customer to effectively report this breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office, to maintain compliance with UK data protection regulations. [4].

Although the attacker used IP addresses that were local to the customer’s country of operations and did not perform overtly noisy actions during reconnaissance, Darktrace was able to identify that this activity deviated from the legitimate user’s typical pattern of life, triggering model breaches at each stage of the attack as it progressed from initial access to internal reconnaissance. While Darktrace RESPOND triggered an action that would have prevented the attack autonomously, the customer’s configuration meant that Darktrace’s SOC had an even more significant role in alerting the customer directly to take manual action.

Credit to: Sam Lister, Senior Analyst, for his contributions to this blog.

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT/Apps Models Breached:

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use
SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active
SaaS / Unusual Activity / Activity from Multiple Unusual IPs
SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities
SaaS / Access / Suspicious Login Attempt
SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

Darktrace RESPOND/Apps Models Breached:

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Unusual Activity Block
Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic	Techniques
Reconnaissance	• T1598 – Phishing for Information
Initial Access	• T1078.004 – Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts
Collection	• T1213.002 – Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint

References

[1] Rand, D. (2022, November 10). Why Business Email Compromise Costs Companies More Than Ransomware Attacks. Retrieved from Tanium: https://www.tanium.com/blog/whybusiness-email-compromise-costs-companies-more-than-ransomware-attacks/

[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2022). 2022 IC3 Report. Retrieved from IC3.gov: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2022_IC3Report.pdf

[3] Department for Science, Innovation & Technology. (2023, April 19). Cyber security breaches survey 2023. Retrieved from gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber-security-breaches-survey-2023/cybersecurity-breaches-survey-2023

[4] ICO. (2023). Personal data breaches: a guide. Retrieved from Information Commissioner's Office: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/personal-data-breach/personal-data-breaches-a-guide/#whatbreachesdo

Written by

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Senior Cyber Security Analyst

•

June 5, 2025

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

June 16, 2025

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
In April–May 2025, public reporting revealed that a high‑severity zero-day in SAP Visual Composer (CVE‑2025‑31324, CVSS 10.0) has been used in the wild by threat actors deploying web‑shells and achieving full system compromise
Moreover, CISA has added both NetWeaver and Visual Composer flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, marking them as verified active threats due to widespread abuse

What is CVE-2025-31324?

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.

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. — 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

e007edd4688c5f94a714fee036590a11684d6a3a - SHA-1 file hash - JuicyPotato/SweetPotato -high confidence

3268f269371a81dbdce8c4eedffd8817c1ec2eadec9ba4ab043cb779c2f8a5d2 - SHA-256 file hash - JuicyPotato/SweetPotato -high confidence

abode-dashboard-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws[.]com/nVW2lsYsYnv58 - URL- high confidence

applr-malbbal.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws[.]com/7p3ow2ZH - URL- high confidence

applr-malbbal.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws[.]com/UUTICMm - URL- KrustyLoader - high confidence

beansdeals-static.s3.amazonaws[.]com/UsjKy - URL- high confidence

brandnav-cms-storage.s3.amazonaws[.]com/3S1kc - URL- KrustyLoader - high confidence

bringthenoiseappnew.s3.amazonaws[.]com/pp79zE - URL- KrustyLoader - high confidence

f662135bdd8bf792a941ea222e8a1330 - MD5 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

fa645f33c0e3a98436a0161b19342f78683dbd9d - SHA-1 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

1d26fff4232bc64f9ab3c2b09281d932dd6afb84a24f32d772d3f7bc23d99c60 - SHA-256 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

6900e844f887321f22dd606a6f2925ef - MD5 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

da23dab4851df3ef7f6e5952a2fc9a6a57ab6983 - SHA-1 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

1544d9392eedf7ae4205dd45ad54ec67e5ce831d2c61875806ce4c86412a4344 - SHA-256 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

83a797e5b47ce6e89440c47f6e33fa08 - MD5 file hash - high confidence

a29e8f030db8990c432020441c91e4b74d4a4e16 - SHA-1 file hash - high confidence

72afde58a1bed7697c0aa7fa8b4e3b03 - MD5 file hash- high confidence

fe931adc0531fd1cb600af0c01f307da3314c5c9 - SHA-1 file hash- high confidence

b8e56de3792dbd0f4239b54cfaad7ece3bd42affa4fbbdd7668492de548b5df8 - SHA-256 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

17d65a9d8d40375b5b939b60f21eb06eb17054fc - SHA-1 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

8c8681e805e0ae7a7d1a609efc000c84 - MD5 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

29274ca90e6dcf5ae4762739fcbadf01 - MD5 file hash- KrustyLoader - high confidence

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / CertUtil Requesting Non Certificate

Anomalous Connection / CertUtil to Rare Destination

Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download

Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer (Enhanced Monitoring)

Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Compliance / CertUtil External Connection

Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services (Enhanced Monitoring)

Compromise / Possible Tunnelling to Bin Services

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity (Enhanced Monitoring)

Device / Suspicious Domain

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

Device / Large Number of Model Alerts from Critical Network Device (Enhanced Monitoring)

Device / New PowerShell User Agent

Device / New User Agent

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File 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 / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena/ Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Pattern of Life 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

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

Possible HTTP Command and Control

Suspicious File Download

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Malware - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1588.001

PowerShell - EXECUTION - T1059.001

Drive-by Compromise - INITIAL ACCESS - T1189

Ingress Tool Transfer - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1105

Application Layer Protocol - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071

Exploitation of Remote Services - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1210

Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol - EXFILTRATION - T1048.003

References

1. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31324

2. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/over-1-200-sap-netweaver-servers-vulnerable-to-actively-exploited-flaw/

3. https://reliaquest.com/blog/threat-spotlight-reliaquest-uncovers-vulnerability-behind-sap-netweaver-compromise/

4. https://onapsis.com/blog/active-exploitation-of-sap-vulnerability-cve-2025-31324/

5. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/sap-fixes-suspected-netweaver-zero-day-exploited-in-attacks/

6. https://op-c.net/blog/sap-cve-2025-31324-qilin-breach/

7. https://www.forescout.com/blog/threat-analysis-sap-vulnerability-exploited-in-the-wild-by-chinese-threat-actor/

8. https://blog.eclecticiq.com/china-nexus-nation-state-actors-exploit-sap-netweaver-cve-2025-31324-to-target-critical-infrastructures

9. https://portswigger.net/burp/application-security-testing/oast

10. https://www.picussecurity.com/resource/blog/unc5221-cve-2025-22457-ivanti-connect-secure

11. https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/details/elf.krustyloader

12. https://www.broadcom.com/support/security-center/protection-bulletin/krustyloader-backdoor

13. https://labs.withsecure.com/publications/new-krustyloader-variant-dropped-via-screenconnect-exploit

14. https://blog.eclecticiq.com/china-nexus-threat-actor-actively-exploiting-ivanti-endpoint-manager-mobile-cve-2025-4428-vulnerability

15. https://thehackernews.com/2024/01/chinese-hackers-exploiting-critical-vpn.html

16. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/3268f269371a81dbdce8c4eedffd8817c1ec2eadec9ba4ab043cb779c2f8a5d2

17. https://bazaar.abuse.ch/sample/3268f269371a81dbdce8c4eedffd8817c1ec2eadec9ba4ab043cb779c2f8a5d2/

18. https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/analyst-reports/report-juicypotato-hacking-tool-discovered.pdf

19. https://www.manageengine.com/log-management/correlation-rules/detecting-sweetpotato.html

20. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/rare-possible-gelsemium-attack-targets-se-asia/

21. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2023/10/kpmg-ctip-gelsemium-apt-31-oct-2023.pdf

22. https://securityaffairs.com/177522/hacking/experts-warn-of-a-second-wave-of-attacks-targeting-sap-netweaver-bug-cve-2025-31324.html

23. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/b8e56de3792dbd0f4239b54cfaad7ece3bd42affa4fbbdd7668492de548b5df8

24. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/1d26fff4232bc64f9ab3c2b09281d932dd6afb84a24f32d772d3f7bc23d99c60/detection

25. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/1544d9392eedf7ae4205dd45ad54ec67e5ce831d2c61875806ce4c86412a4344/detection

About the author

Signe Zaharka

Senior Cyber Security Analyst

Blog

June 12, 2025

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 AI^TM 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.

[related-resource]