Blog
/
Network
/
December 9, 2024

Darktrace’s view on Operation Lunar Peek: Exploitation of Palo Alto firewall devices (CVE 2024-0012 and 2024-9474)

Darktrace’s Threat Research team investigated a major campaign exploiting vulnerabilities in Palo Alto firewall devices (CVE 2024-0012 and 2024-9474). Learn about the spike in post-exploitation activities and understand the need for anomaly-based detection to stay ahead of evolving threats.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
09
Dec 2024

Introduction: Spike in exploitation and post-exploitation activity affecting Palo Alto firewall devices

As the first line of defense for many organizations, perimeter devices such as firewalls are frequently targeted by threat actors. If compromised, these devices can serve as the initial point of entry to the network, providing access to vulnerable internal resources. This pattern of malicious behavior has become readily apparent within the Darktrace customer base. In 2024, Darktrace Threat Research analysts identified and investigated at least two major campaigns targeting internet-exposed perimeter devices. These included the exploitation of PAN-OS firewall exploitation via CVE 2024-3400 and FortiManager appliances via CVE 2024-47575.

More recently, at the end of November, Darktrace analysts observed a spike in exploitation and post-exploitation activity affecting, once again, Palo Alto firewall devices in the days following the disclosure of the CVE 2024-0012 and CVE-2024-9474 vulnerabilities.

Threat Research analysts had already been investigating potential exploitation of the firewalls’ management interface after Palo Alto published a security advisory (PAN-SA-2024-0015) on November 8. Subsequent analysis of data from Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) and external research uncovered multiple cases of Palo Alto firewalls being targeted via the likely exploitation of these vulnerabilities since November 13, through the end of the month. Although this spike in anomalous behavior may not be attributable to a single malicious actor, Darktrace Threat Research identified a clear increase in PAN-OS exploitation across the customer base by threat actors likely utilizing the recently disclosed vulnerabilities, resulting in broad patterns of post-exploitation activity.

How did exploitation occur?

CVE 2024-0012 is an authentication bypass vulnerability affecting unpatched versions of Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls. The vulnerability resides in the management interface application on the firewalls specifically, which is written in PHP. When attempting to access highly privileged scripts, users are typically redirected to a login page. However, this can be bypassed by supplying an HTTP request where a Palo Alto related authentication header can be set to “off”.  Users can supply this header value to the Nginx reverse proxy server fronting the application which will then send it without any prior processing [1].

CVE-2024-9474 is a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows a PAN-OS administrator with access to the management web interface to execute root-level commands, granting full control over the affected device [2]. When combined, these vulnerabilities enable unauthenticated adversaries to execute arbitrary commands on the firewall with root privileges.

Post-Exploitation Patterns of Activity

Darktrace Threat Research analysts examined potential indicators of PAN-OS software exploitation via CVE 2024-0012 and CVE-2024-9474 during November 2024. The investigation identified three main groupings of post-exploitation activity:

  1. Exploit validation and initial payload retrieval
  2. Command and control (C2) connectivity, potentially featuring further binary downloads
  3. Potential reconnaissance and cryptomining activity

Exploit Validation

Across multiple investigated customers, Darktrace analysts identified likely vulnerable PAN-OS devices conducting external network connectivity to bin services. Specifically, several hosts performed DNS queries for, and HTTP requests to Out-of-Band Application Security Testing (OAST) domains, such as csv2im6eq58ujueonqs0iyq7dqpak311i.oast[.]pro. These endpoints are commonly used by network administrators to harden defenses, but they are increasingly used by threat actors to verify successful exploitation of targeted devices and assess their potential for further compromise. Although connectivity involving OAST domains were prevalent across investigated incidents, this activity was not necessarily the first indicator observed. In some cases, device behavior involving OAST domains also occurred shortly after an initial payload was downloaded.

Darktrace model alert logs detailing the HTTP request to an OAST domain immediately following PAN-OS device compromise.
Figure 1: Darktrace model alert logs detailing the HTTP request to an OAST domain immediately following PAN-OS device compromise.

Initial Payload Retrieval

Following successful exploitation, affected devices commonly performed behaviors indicative of initial payload download, likely in response to incoming remote command execution. Typically, the affected PAN-OS host would utilize the command line utilities curl and Wget, seen via use of user agents curl/7.61.1 and Wget/1.19.5 (linux-gnu), respectively.

In some cases, the use of these command line utilities by the infected devices was considered new behavior. Given the nature of the user agents, interaction with the host shell suggests remote command execution to achieve the outgoing payload requests.

While additional binaries and scripts were retrieved in later stages of the post-exploitation activity in some cases, this set of behaviors and payloads likely represent initial persistence and execution mechanisms that will enable additional functionality later in the kill chain. During the investigation, Darktrace analysts noted the prevalence of shell script payload requests. Devices analyzed would frequently make HTTP requests over the usual destination port 80 using the command line URL utility (curl), as seen in the user-agent field.

The observed URIs often featured requests for text files, such as “1.txt”, or shell scripts such as “y.sh”. Although packet capture (PCAP) samples were unavailable for review, external researchers have noted that the IP address hosting such “1.txt” files (46.8.226[.]75) serves malicious PHP payloads. When examining the contents of the “y.sh” shell script, Darktrace analysts noticed the execution of bash commands to upload a PHP-written web shell on the affected server.

PCAP showing the client request and server response associated with the download of the y.sh script from 45.76.141[.]166. The body content of the HTTP response highlights a shebang command to run subsequent code as bash script. The content is base64 encoded and details PHP script for what appears to be a webshell that will likely be written to the firewall device.
Figure 2: PCAP showing the client request and server response associated with the download of the y.sh script from 45.76.141[.]166. The body content of the HTTP response highlights a shebang command to run subsequent code as bash script. The content is base64 encoded and details PHP script for what appears to be a webshell that will likely be written to the firewall device.

While not all investigated cases saw initial shell script retrieval, affected systems would commonly make an external HTTP connection, almost always via Wget, for the Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) file “/palofd” from the rare external IP  38.180.147[.]18.

Such requests were frequently made without prior hostname lookups, suggesting that the process or script initiating the requests already contained the external IP address. Analysts noticed a consistent SHA1 hash present for all identified instances of “/palofd” downloads (90f6890fa94b25fbf4d5c49f1ea354a023e06510). Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors have associated this hash sample with Spectre RAT, a remote access trojan with capabilities including remote command execution, payload delivery, process manipulation, file transfers, and data theft [3][4].

Figure 3: Advanced Search log metrics highlighting details of the “/palofd” file download over HTTP.

Several targeted customer devices were observed initiating TLS/SSL connections to rare external IPs with self-signed TLS certificates following exploitation. Model data from across the Darktrace fleet indicated some overlap in JA3 fingerprints utilized by affected PAN-OS devices engaging in the suspicious TLS activity. Although JA3 hashes alone cannot be used for process attribution, this evidence suggests some correlation of source process across instances of PAN-OS exploitation.

These TLS/SSL sessions were typically established without the specification of a Server Name Indication (SNI) within the TLS extensions. The SNI extension prevents servers from supplying an incorrect certificate to the requesting client when multiple sites are hosted on the same IP. SSL connectivity without SNI specification suggests a potentially malicious running process as most software establishing TLS sessions typically supply this information during the handshake. Although the encrypted nature of the connection prevented further analysis of the payload packets, external sources note that JavaScript content is transmitted during these sessions, serving as initial payloads for the Sliver C2 platform using Wget [5].

C2 Communication and Additional Payloads

Following validation and preliminary post-compromise actions, examined hosts would commonly initiate varying forms of C2 connectivity. During this time, devices were frequently detected making further payload downloads, likely in response to directives set within C2 communications.

Palo Alto firewalls likely exploited via the newly disclosed CVEs would commonly utilize the Sliver C2 platform for external communication. Sliver’s functionality allows for different styles and formatting for communication. An open-source alternative to Cobalt Strike, this framework has been increasingly popular among threat actors, enabling the generation of dynamic payloads (“slivers”) for multiple platforms, including Windows, MacOS, Linux.

These payloads allow operators to establish persistence, spawn new shells, and exfiltrate data. URI patterns and PCAPs analysis yielded evidence of both English word type encoding within Sliver and Gzip formatting.

For example, multiple devices contacted the Sliver-linked IP address 77.221.158[.]154 using HTTP to retrieve Gzip files. The URIs present for these requests follow known Sliver Gzip formatted communication patterns [6]. Investigations yielded evidence of both English word encoding within Sliver, identified through PCAP analysis, and Gzip formatting.

Sample of URIs observed in Advanced Searchhighlighting HTTP requests to 77.221.158[.]154 for Gzip content suggest of Sliver communication.
Figure 4: Sample of URIs observed in Advanced Searchhighlighting HTTP requests to 77.221.158[.]154 for Gzip content suggest of Sliver communication.
PCAP showing English word encoding for Sliver communication observed during post-exploitation C2 activity.
Figure 5: PCAP showing English word encoding for Sliver communication observed during post-exploitation C2 activity.

External connectivity during this phase also featured TCP connection attempts over uncommon ports for common application protocols. For both Sliver and non-Sliver related IP addresses, devices utilized destination ports such as 8089, 3939, 8880, 8084, and 9999 for the HTTP protocol. The use of uncommon destination ports may represent attempts to avoid detection of connectivity to rare external endpoints. Moreover, some external beaconing within included URIs referencing the likely IP of the affected device. Such behavior can suggest the registration of compromised devices with command servers.

Targeted devices also proceeded to download additional payloads from rare external endpoints as beaconing/C2 activity was ongoing. For example, the newly registered domain repositorylinux[.]org (IP: 103.217.145[.]112) received numerous HTTP GET requests from investigated devices throughout the investigation period for script files including “linux.sh” and “cron.sh”. Young domains, especially those that present as similar to known code repositories, tend to host harmful content. Packet captures of the cron.sh file reveal commands within the HTTP body content involving crontab operations, likely to schedule future downloads. Some hosts that engaged in connectivity to the fake repository domain were later seen conducting crypto-mining connections, potentially highlighting the download of miner applications from the domain.

Additional payloads observed during this time largely featured variations of shell scripts, PHP content, and/or executables. Typically, shell scripts direct the device to retrieve additional content from external servers or repositories or contain potential configuration details for subsequent binaries to run on the device. For example, the “service.sh” retrieves a tar-compressed archive, a configuration JSON file as well as a file with the name “solr” from GitHub, potentially associated with the Apache Solr tool used for enterprise search. These could be used for further enumeration of the host and/or the network environment. PHP scripts observed may involve similar web shell functionality and were retrieved from both rare external IPs identified as well by external researchers [7]. Darktrace also detected the download of octet-stream data occurring mid-compromise from an Amazon Web Services (AWS) S3 bucket. Although no outside research confirmed the functionality, additional executable downloads for files such as “/initd”(IP: 178.215.224[.]246) and “/x6” (IP: 223.165.4[.]175) may relate to tool ingress, further Trojan/backdoor functionality, or cryptocurrency mining.

Figure 7: PCAP specifying the HTTP response headers and body content for the service.sh file request. The body content shown includes variable declarations for URLs that will eventually be called by the device shell via bash command.

Reconnaissance and Cryptomining

Darktrace analysts also noticed additional elements of kill chain operations from affected devices after periods of initial exploit activity. Several devices initiated TCP connections to endpoints affiliated with cryptomining pools such as us[.]zephyr[.]herominers[.]com and  xmrig[.]com. Connectivity to these domains indicates likely successful installation of mining software during earlier stages of post-compromise activity. In a small number of instances, Darktrace observed reconnaissance and lateral movement within the time range of PAN-OS exploitation. Firewalls conducted large numbers of internal connectivity attempts across several critical ports related to privileged protocols, including SMB and SSH. Darktrace detected anonymous NTLM login attempts and new usage of potential PAN-related credentials. These behaviors likely constitute attempts at lateral movement to adjacent devices to further extend network compromise impact.

Model alert connection logs detailing the uncommon failed NTLM logins using an anonymous user account following PAN-OS exploitation.
Figure 8: Model alert connection logs detailing the uncommon failed NTLM logins using an anonymous user account following PAN-OS exploitation.

Conclusion

Darktrace Threat Research and SOC analysts increasingly detect spikes in malicious activity on internet-facing devices in the days following the publication of new vulnerabilities. The latest iteration of this trend highlighted how threat actors quickly exploited Palo Alto firewall using authentication bypass and remote command execution vulnerabilities to enable device compromise. A review of the post-exploitation activity during these events reveals consistent patterns of perimeter device exploitation, but also some distinct variations.

Prior campaigns targeting perimeter devices featured activity largely confined to the exfiltration of configuration data and some initial payload retrieval. Within the current campaign, analysts identified a broader scope post-compromise activity consisting not only of payloads downloads but also extensive C2 activity, reconnaissance, and coin mining operations. While the use of command line tools like curl featured prominently in prior investigations, devices were seen retrieving a generally wider array of payloads during the latest round of activity. The use of the Sliver C2 platform further differentiates the latest round of PAN-OS compromises, with evidence of Sliver activity in about half of the investigated cases.

Several of the endpoints contacted by the infected firewall devices did not have any OSINT associated with them at the time of the attack. However, these indicators were noted as unusual for the devices according to Darktrace based on normal network traffic patterns. This reality further highlights the need for anomaly-based detection that does not rely necessarily on known indicators of compromise (IoCs) associated with CVE exploitation for detection. Darktrace’s experience in 2024 of multiple rounds of perimeter device exploitation may foreshadow future increases in these types of comprise operations.  

Credit to Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Alexandra Sentenac (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Principal Cyber Analyst) and the Darktrace Threat Research team.

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 in 2025.

  • Identity-based attacks: How attackers are bypassing traditional defenses
  • Zero-day exploitation: The rise of previously unknown vulnerabilities
  • AI-driven threats: How adversaries are leveraging AI to outmaneuver security controls

Stay ahead of evolving threats with expert analysis from Darktrace. Download the report here.

References

[1]: https://labs.watchtowr.com/pots-and-pans-aka-an-sslvpn-palo-alto-pan-os-cve-2024-0012-and-cve-2024-9474/

[2]: https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-9474

[3]: https://threatfox.abuse[.]ch/ioc/1346254/

[4]:https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/4911396d80baff80826b96d6ea7e54758847c93fdbcd3b86b00946cfd7d1145b/detection

[5]: https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/arctic-wolf-observes-threat-campaign-targeting-palo-alto-networks-firewall-devices/

[6] https://www.immersivelabs.com/blog/detecting-and-decrypting-sliver-c2-a-threat-hunters-guide

[7] https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/arctic-wolf-observes-threat-campaign-targeting-palo-alto-networks-firewall-devices/

Appendices

Darktrace Model Alerts

Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port  

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Incoming ELF File

Anomalous File / Mismatched MIME Type From Rare Endpoint

Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Anomalous File / New User Agent Followed By Numeric File Download

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)

Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)

Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New IP

Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination

Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behavior

Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

Compromise / Suspicious TLS Beaconing To Rare External

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

Device / New User Agent

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

INITIAL ACCESS – Exploit Public-Facing Application

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – Malware

EXECUTION – Scheduled Task/Job (Cron)

EXECUTION – Unix Shell

PERSISTENCE – Web Shell

DEFENSE EVASION – Masquerading (Masquerade File Type)

DEFENSE EVASION - Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

CREDENTIAL ACCESS – Brute Force

DISCOVERY – Remote System Discovery

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Ingress Tool Transfer

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Application Layer Protocol (Web Protocols)

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Encrypted Channel

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Non-Standard Port

COMMAND AND CONTROL – Data Obfuscation

IMPACT – Resource Hijacking (Compute)

List of IoCs

IoC         –          Type         –        Description

  • sys.traceroute[.]vip     – Hostname - C2 Endpoint
  • 77.221.158[.]154     – IP - C2 Endpoint
  • 185.174.137[.]26     – IP - C2 Endpoint
  • 93.113.25[.]46     – IP - C2 Endpoint
  • 104.131.69[.]106     – IP - C2 Endpoint
  • 95.164.5[.]41     – IP - C2 Endpoint
  • bristol-beacon-assets.s3.amazonaws[.]com     – Hostname - Payload Server
  • img.dxyjg[.]com     – Hostname - Payload Server
  • 38.180.147[.]18     – IP - Payload Server
  • 143.198.1[.]178     – IP - Payload Server
  • 185.208.156[.]46     – IP - Payload Server
  • 185.196.9[.]154     – IP - Payload Server
  • 46.8.226[.]75     – IP - Payload Server
  • 223.165.4[.]175     – IP - Payload Server
  • 188.166.244[.]81     – IP - Payload Server
  • bristol-beaconassets.s3[.]amazonaws[.]com/Y5bHaYxvd84sw     – URL - Payload
  • img[.]dxyjg[.]com/KjQfcPNzMrgV     – URL - Payload
  • 38.180.147[.]18/palofd     – URL - Payload
  • 90f6890fa94b25fbf4d5c49f1ea354a023e06510     – SHA1 - Associated to file /palofd
  • 143.198.1[.]178/7Z0THCJ     – URL - Payload
  • 8d82ccdb21425cf27b5feb47d9b7fb0c0454a9ca     – SHA1 - Associated to file /7Z0THCJ
  • fefd0f93dcd6215d9b8c80606327f5d3a8c89712     – SHA1 - Associated to file /7Z0THCJ
  • e5464f14556f6e1dd88b11d6b212999dd9aee1b1     – SHA1 - Associated to file /7Z0THCJ
  • 143.198.1[.]178/o4VWvQ5pxICPm     – URL - Payload
  • 185.208.156[.]46/lUuL095knXd62DdR6umDig     – URL - Payload
  • 185.196.9[.]154/ykKDzZ5o0AUSfkrzU5BY4w     – URL - Payload
  • 46.8.226[.]75/1.txt     – URL - Payload
  • 223.165.4[.]175/x6     – URL - Payload
  • 45.76.141[.]166/y.sh     – URL - Payload
  • repositorylinux[.]org/linux.sh     – URL - Payload
  • repositorylinux[.]org/cron.sh     – URL - Payload

‍

Written by
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst

Botnet Behind the Camera: Mirai Katana Activity on a Video Recording Device

OT
•
September 2, 2026
Parvatha Ananthakannan
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches
May 20, 2026
2
What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders
Feb 26, 2026
3
Journey of a Threat: How Multi-Layered AI Works in Darktrace / EMAIL
May 26, 2026
4
How to Evaluate AI Vendors: 5 Key categories for AI Adoption
May 27, 2026
5
Darktrace Unites Human Behavior and Threat Detection Across Email, Slack, Teams, and Zoom
Mar 24, 2026

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
Network
•
August 6, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

A new UK AI Security Institute report shows autonomous AI agents independently developing novel attack chains, adapting when detected, and targeting humans and other AI systems. As agents become embedded across the enterprise, behavioral anomaly detection will be critical to securing the new attack surface they create.
Adam Stevens
Senior Director of Product
Read more
Network
•
July 27, 2026

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

Darktrace detected a multi-stage ransomware intrusion from its earliest stages, identifying reconnaissance, privilege escalation, lateral movement, command-and-control communications, and data exfiltration before encryption occurred. This analysis highlights how behavioral detection exposed attacker activity using legitimate tools and infrastructure, providing multiple opportunities for early intervention and containment.
Alexandra Evzona
Cyber Analyst
Read more
Network
•
July 1, 2026

9 Stages of Ransomware & How AI Responds

Discover the 9 stages of ransomware attacks and how AI responds at each stage. Learn how you can protect your business from cyber threats.
The Darktrace Community
Read more

Blog

/

AI

/

September 17, 2026

The Problem of Re-defining Human Value in the Agentic Age

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Newsfeeds are constantly informing us about the rapid escalation of agentic AI systems. These systems move far beyond simple machine-based computations, and  the focused, defined and bounded assistance that most AI systems started out as.

The next evolution of AI will harness the agentic properties of orchestration, automation, and heightened value-chains in IT, taking on the burden of workflow management, not just workflow delivery.

In nearly all of these instances, promises are made such as ‘this will free up human time’ or ‘this will allow people to focus on higher-order strategy’. However that message is delivered, one thing is clear: in ceding the orchestration and management of work to increasingly sophisticated AI agents and agentic systems, human value will be elevated to a particular and specific layer: the ability to judge its outputs.  As AI takes on more tasks, humans should be able to focus on a higher level of governance; making sure the decisions that AI offers us are ethical, responsible and worthwhile.  

But there are two major problems with that approach.

This blog discusses the problem of how Agentic systems are re-shaping how we review information, where we fit in, and when we make decisions.  It also discusses the problem of how the increased flow of confident, generated information affects the way we make judgement.  This blog considers how human judgement needs to adapt, and how a behavioral defense approach – using techniques pioneered by Darktrace – can help us do that.

The challenge of knowing where human judgement belongs

As we confer more automated decision-making to agentic systems, it might look increasingly less like ‘granting permissions’, and more like ‘surrendering authority’.  

The judgement layer for AI-generated work is not a fixed boundary. We have become used to the idea of a ‘human in the loop’ (HITL) and, historically, relationships between humans and IT systems were reasonably clear and bounded.  Computer and software systems were programmed to carry out certain tasks or automated functions, and humans could control the gates and decision points where actions were undertaken. Even across highly complex computational workflows, human interaction was a controllable node within the process; we were able to configure and regulate. But in the agentic age, where that human interaction sits, and what it can influence shifts every time AI systems are granted autonomy.  

This leads us to the first problem: if humans are moving themselves (or are being moved) into the ‘judgement’ part of the value chain, exactly where and when do we exercise that judgement?  

Humans are no longer the sole shepherds of computer-based or software-controlled outputs.  We are at times at least one step further (and slower) behind the new agentic shepherds.  We might also be blind to what they are doing.  Not only might we be removed and blind to the actions of our AI shepherds, but with the challenge of unknown, unapproved AI systems operating beyond our control, humans might not even know that our work is being shepherded by an AI at all.  Simply put, with the advent of greater levels of autonomy and orchestration, humans are at risk of not even knowing where to apply our newly-extended powers of strategic judgement.

Shadow AI – the use of unapproved AI systems or processes – is a growing threat to the role of effective governance and oversight. Shadow AI isn't just the AI you can't see. Its the AI you already know about being used in an unapproved way. The ability to generate effective oversight of the AI systems you use (or that are used on your behalf) will be increasingly important to ensure that human judgement in the AI value chain is effective, and deliberately placed.

The problem of what makes good judgement

The second problem lies in how flawed human judgement can be.  Humans are historically, notoriously, and, sometimes dangerously, unreliable when it comes to exercising judgement.  Humans are prone to the worst kinds of bias, the seduction of malign influence, and the sometimes-overwhelming urge to succeed. AI has long had a known flaw of operating with sycophancy, providing outputs that tend to agree with or flatter the human user.  But as AI grows ever more effective, there is a risk of both hyper-enablement (where humans increasingly and knowingly enable AI despite potential harm), as well as the greater risk of suggestion. Both of these aspects could skew the newly-elevated input of human judgement.

Imagine a highly competent AI system that has just orchestrated and managed a dizzying array of processes and workflows.  The AI is designed to present the human decision-maker with recommendations; based on analysis, comparison and other programmed factors.  This is where the human judgement layer is enabled.  But what if that judgement is summarily diffused by an AI-based recommendation that emulates the decision, provides plausible but unattractive alternatives, then suggests (or, worse, directs) the human end-user to take a particular course of action.

The risk here is that you are given a recommendation, tailored to your preferences (which the AI has learned, or which you have divulged), and which appears to make perfect sense.  It appears to be a well-weighted recommendation, with sound arguments that tap into our inherent biases or inclinations so that a specific decision-path is followed. With the growth of agentic systems specifically designed to match user profiles (from Cowork agents to ‘digital twin’ models), the likelihood of agentic influence could badly skew human judgement or, at the least, devalue the proposition that humans are taking a higher-layer of strategic control over AI-based decisions.

If AI convincingly recommends something that may be problematic, it can be difficult to discern both accurate data, and the context required to make the right judgement.

Given the two problems described above, the job of exercising valuable human judgement in the agentic age can draw down to these two questions:

  • When should humans intervene in the agentic process?  
  • How can we make the best possible judgement calls?

What humans contribute that AI cannot

For all the flaws that make human judgement unreliable, people have the edge over even the most sophisticated and powerful AI systems when it comes to issues such as ethics and social context.  An AI system can, with startling granularity, rank the value of adopting a new business proposal: offering predictive metrics on costs, returns, market value, time-to-deliver operations, conformance with legal registers, etc.  But it can’t tell if the business proposal is ethically sound, or if the business venture will potentially affect groups outside of the analyzed proposal. It can’t tell you if the CEO has a ‘bad feeling’ about this effort.  It can’t tell you if this is the right thing to do.  

The ability to add social context, balance complex interpersonal dynamics, understand nuance, and to go beyond what seems economically reasonable is where human judgement can add value.  

Human judgement is difficult to encapsulate in metrics. And the way we train our development may need to adapt too. Rather than building up a gradual, experiential knowledge base, we should think about training the skill of judgement itself; especially for an agentic age.

How behavioral security strengthens AI governance

If this all feels like a vicious circle (‘I need AI help to make good judgements’ / ‘AI can twist what I need to judge’) it needn’t be. The key to this is having a defense-in-depth approach, with tools that can actually help.

This is precisely where behavioral security becomes important. The complex and nuanced way that humans exercise judgement is often rooted in our ability to recognize behavior that doesn't look right. We may not always be able to articulate it immediately, but we can often identify when an action, recommendation, or outcome feels inconsistent with the context around it. As AI systems take on more responsibility across the decision chain, preserving that ability to recognize meaningful deviations becomes increasingly important.

Darktrace’s / SECURE AI is designed to do exactly that. It applies behavioral security to AI ecosystems, helping organizations understand how people, AI tools, identities, and agents interact across the business. By learning the patterns of normal AI usage and surfacing activity that deviates from those patterns, it provides security teams with the context needed to investigate risk, understand unusual behavior, and make informed governance decisions. Rather than relying solely on predefined rules or assumptions, this behavioral understanding helps organizations distinguish between expected AI activity and behavior that warrants closer scrutiny.

This matters because we are already in an era of information overload. If humans are expected to elevate their value through strategic judgement, the ability to do this without being overwhelmed by data (good or bad) will be critical.  

We need the ability to discern when we're being misled by AI, and whether our judgement calls are being made on the basis of accurate, contextual information. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides that additional layer of defensive security for activity we cannot easily see. Whether it is suspected Shadow AI or skewed recommendations, the net result is a protected organization, where users can more effectively use AI to make positive judgements.

For those where that judgement is a critical skill (both individuals, as well as those working in security teams), improving our metacognition - the ability to understand information in a broader context - will supercharge the value of human judgement. When those judgements are grounded in context rather than assumptions we have better information to make sound decisions.

Conclusion

Human judgement is a skill that is honed over time and experience.  Darktrace’s / SECURE AI employs the same principles, but at machine-speed. Rather than influencing or directing, Darktrace / SECURE AI offers AI-enabled assurance; providing human-based judgement with the right context to make a balanced decision.  

What we judge can be valued by the legitimacy of its outputs. For AI, those outputs are valued on the speed and accuracy of the information provided.  Increasingly for humans, the value of our outputs will be based on the validity of our judgement, and how we justify our decisions in ways that engineer confidence.  

Humans often know more than we can express, while AI is prone to expressing more than it truly understands. Humans can bridge the context AI often fails to appreciate. When that judgement is supported by relevant, impartial AI systems, this is the future space where good AI governance will be exercised.

‍

Discover Darktrace / SECURE AI.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jason Lusted
AI Governance Advisor

Blog

/

AI

/

September 4, 2026

Darktrace Advances Incident Investigation and AI-Agent Security with OpenAI Daybreak Models

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Earlier this year, Darktrace joined OpenAI’s Daybreak Defense Network to explore how their cyber capabilities can be integrated within Darktrace products and services to transform how security teams move from signal to action.

At the heart of this work is Darktrace's behavioral understanding of customer environments and identification of complex security incidents, combined with OpenAI models that can add context to help explain why an incident matters and its potential impact on the business. By bringing these capabilities into defensive workflows security teams already use, the goal is to give defenders not just greater visibility, but the context and guidance they need to act with confidence.

Since joining the program, we've been working with OpenAI to explore how these capabilities can address specific security challenges for defenders.

The problem we're solving

Attackers continue to change how they operate, including by using AI to increase the speed and scale of some techniques. Security teams are already managing a large volume of alerts, and the question isn't just what's happening, but how it could affect the organization. Even when an incident is fully investigated and correlated, technical severity alone doesn't tell a security team how much it actually matters to the business. That same challenge extends to internal AI adoption. As organizations adopt more AI systems and agents, security teams need visibility into their behavior, access and activity, along with the broader business context needed to identify and investigate potential risk.

Darktrace's Adaptive AI™ builds a detailed, organization-specific picture of what's normal for each environment, and uses that picture to investigate threats and identify complex security activity across domains. OpenAI's models can build on Darktrace's correlated, technically prioritized incidents by adding context that can help defenders understand what may be at stake.

What we're building

Our work is focused on two areas: supporting security investigation and response, and helping defenders identify risky behavior across enterprise AI systems and agents.

The first aligns Darktrace's behavioral understanding with OpenAI models to support  security investigation and prioritization. Darktrace's Adaptive AI continuously learns the unique patterns of normal behavior within each customer it protects, creating a deep, organization-specific understanding of its digital estate. When unusual activity emerges, OpenAI's models can draw on that context to help analysts investigate the incident, understand its significance and assess potential business consequences — reducing the need to manually assemble context from fragmented signals.

Second, we are exploring how these capabilities can support AI-agent and runtime security through Darktrace / SECURE AI™. OpenAI’s Daybreak models can build on the detections and visibility Darktrace / SECURE AI provides, connecting signals across a customer's environment and help defenders identify potentially risky behavior involving AI systems and agents. Activity that might appear isolated can instead be connected with related signals, helping defenders investigate the broader context and determine appropriate remediation.

Darktrace brings deep cybersecurity expertise, an evolving understanding of each customer's environment, and AI-driven identification of threats across the digital estate. Through the Daybreak Defense Network, Darktrace is exploring how OpenAI models can augment those capabilities in defensive security workflows — supporting incident investigation and response and improving visibility into AI-agent and runtime risk.

These capabilities are still in development, and we're excited to continue building on this work.

To learn more about how Darktrace continues to innovate to meet today's most pressing security challenges, register for our upcoming launch broadcast here.

Continue reading
About the author
Dr. Tim Bazalgette
Chief AI Officer, Darktrace
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI