Blog
/
Email
/
February 24, 2025

Detecting and Containing Account Takeover with Darktrace

Account takeovers are rising with SaaS adoption. Learn how Darktrace detects deviations in user behavior and autonomously stops threats before they escalate.
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
Min Kim
Cyber Security Analyst
women on laptop in officeDefault blog image
24
Feb 2025

Thanks to its accessibility from anywhere with an internet connection and a web browser, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms have become nearly universal across organizations worldwide. However, with this growing popularity comes greater responsibility. Increased attention attracts a larger audience, including those who may seek to exploit these widely used services. One crucial factor to be vigilant about in the SaaS landscape is safeguarding internal credentials. Minimal protection on accounts can lead to SaaS hijacking, which could allow further escalations within the network.

How does SaaS account takeover work?

SaaS hijacking occurs when a malicious actor takes control of a user’s active session with a SaaS application. Attackers can achieve this through various methods, including employees using company credentials on compromised or spoofed external websites, brute-force attacks, social engineering, and exploiting outdated software or applications.

After the hijack, attackers may escalate their actions by changing email rules and using internal addresses for additional social engineering attacks. The larger goal of these actions is often to steal internal data, damage reputations, and disrupt operations.

Account takeover protection

It has become essential to have security tools capable of outsmarting potential malicious actors. Traditional tools that rely on rules and signatures may not be able to identify new events, such as logins or activities from a rare endpoint, unless they come from a known malicious source.

Darktrace relies on analysis of user and network behavior, tailored to each customer, allowing it to identify anomalous events that the user typically does not engage in. In this way, unusual SaaS activities can be detected, and unwanted actions can be halted to allow time for remediation before further escalations.

The following cases, drawn from the global customer base, illustrate how Darktrace detects potential SaaS hijack attempts and further escalations, and applies appropriate actions when necessary.

Case 1: Unusual login after a phishing email

A customer in the US received a suspicious email that seemed to be from the legitimate file storage service, Dropbox. However, Darktrace identified that the reply-to email address, hremployeepyaroll@mail[.]com, was masquerading as one associated with the customer’s Human Resources (HR) department.

Further inspection of this sender address revealed that the attacker had intentionally misspelled ‘payroll’ to trick recipients into believing it was legitimate

Furthermore, the subject of the email indicated that the attackers were attempting a social engineering attack by sharing a file related to pay raises and benefits to capture the recipients' attention and increase the likelihood of their targets engaging with the email and its attachment.

Figure 1: Subject of the phishing email.
Figure 1: Subject of the phishing email.

Unknowingly, the recipient, who believed the email to be a legitimate HR communication, acted on it, allowing malicious attackers to gain access to the account. Following this, the recipient’s account was observed logging in from a rare location using multi-factor authentication (MFA) while also being active from another more commonly observed location, indicating that the SaaS account had been compromised.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response action triggered by an anomalous email received by an internal user, followed by a failed login attempt from a rare external source.
Figure 2: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response action triggered by an anomalous email received by an internal user, followed by a failed login attempt from a rare external source.

Darktrace subsequently observed the SaaS actor creating new inbox rules on the account. These rules were intended to mark as read and move any emails mentioning the file storage company, whether in the subject or body, to the ‘Conversation History’ folder. This was likely an attempt by the threat actor to hide any outgoing phishing emails or related correspondence from the legitimate account user, as the ‘Conversation History’ folder typically goes unread by most users.

Typically, Darktrace / EMAIL would have instantly placed the phishing email in the junk folder before they reached user’s inbox, while also locking the links identified in the suspicious email, preventing them from being accessed. Due to specific configurations within the customer’s deployment, this did not happen, and the email remained accessible to the user.

Case 2: Login using unusual credentials followed by password change

In the latter half of 2024, Darktrace detected an unusual use of credentials when a SaaS actor attempted to sign into a customer’s Microsoft 365 application from an unfamiliar IP address in the US. Darktrace recognized that since the customer was located within the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region, a login from the US was unexpected and suspicious. Around the same time, the legitimate account owner logged into the customer’s SaaS environment from another location – this time from a South African IP, which was commonly seen within the environment and used by other internal SaaS accounts.

Darktrace understood that this activity was highly suspicious and unlikely to be legitimate, given one of the IPs was known and expected, while the other had never been seen before in the environment, and the simultaneous logins from two distant locations were geographically impossible.

Model alert in Darktrace / IDENTITY: Detecting a login from a different source while the user is already active from another source.
Figure 3: Model alert in Darktrace / IDENTITY: Detecting a login from a different source while the user is already active from another source.

Darktrace detected several unusual login attempts, including a successful login from an uncommon US source. Subsequently, Darktrace / NETWORK identified the device associated with this user making external connections to rare endpoints, some of which were only two weeks old. As this customer had integrated Darktrace with Microsoft Defender, the Darktrace detection was enriched by Defender, adding the additional context that the user had likely been compromised in an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing attack. AiTM phishing attacks occur when a malicious attacker intercepts communications between a user and a legitimate authentication service, potentially leading to account hijacking. These attacks are harder to identify as they can bypass security measures like MFA.

Following this, Darktrace observed the attacker using the now compromised credentials to access password management and change the account's password. Such behavior is common in account takeover incidents, as attackers seek to maintain persistence within the SaaS environment.

While Darktrace’s Autonomous Response was not fully configured on the customer’s SaaS environment, they were subscribed to the Managed Threat Detection service offered by Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC). This 24/7 service ensures that Darktrace’s analysts monitor and investigate emerging suspicious activity, informing customers in real-time. As such, the customer received notification of the compromise and were able to quickly take action to prevent further escalation.

Case 3: Unusual logins, new email rules and outbound spam

Recently, Darktrace has observed a trend in SaaS compromises involving unusual logins, followed by the creation of new email rules, and then outbound spam or phishing campaigns being launched from these accounts.

In October, Darktrace identified a SaaS user receiving an email with the subject line "Re: COMPANY NAME Request for Documents" from an unknown sender using a freemail  account. As freemail addresses require very little personal information to create, threat actors can easily create multiple accounts for malicious purposes while retaining their anonymity.

Within the identified email, Darktrace found file storage links that were likely intended to divert recipients to fraudulent or malicious websites upon interaction. A few minutes after the email was received, the recipient was seen logging in from three different sources located in the US, UK, and the Philippines, all around a similar time. As the customer was based in the Philippines, a login from there was expected and not unusual. However, Darktrace understood that the logins from the UK and US were highly unusual, and no other SaaS accounts had connected from these locations within the same week.

After successfully logging in from the UK, the actor was observed updating a mailbox rule, renaming it to ‘.’ and changing its parameters to move any inbound emails to the deleted items folder and mark them as read.

Figure 4: The updated email rule intended to move any inbound emails to the deleted items folder.

Malicious actors often use ambiguous names like punctuation marks, repetitive letters, and unreadable words to name resources, disguising their rules to avoid detection by legitimate users or administrators. Similarly, attackers have been known to adjust existing rule parameters rather than creating new rules to keep their footprints untracked. In this case, the rule was updated to override an existing email rule and delete all incoming emails. This ensured that any inbound emails, including responses to potential phishing emails sent by the account, would be deleted, allowing the attacker to remain undetected.

Over the next two days, additional login attempts, both successful and failed, were observed from locations in the UK and the Philippines. Darktrace noted multiple logins from the Philippines where the legitimate user was attempting to access their account using a password that had recently expired or been changed, indicating that the attacker had altered the user’s original password as well.

Following this chain of events, over 500 emails titled “Reminder For Document Signed Agreement.10/28/2024” were sent from the SaaS actor’s account to external recipients, all belonging to a different organization within the Philippines.

These emails contained rare attachments with a ‘.htm’ extension, which included programming language that could initiate harmful processes on devices. While inherently not malicious, if used inappropriately, these files could perform unwanted actions such as code execution, malware downloads, redirects to malicious webpages, or phishing upon opening.

Outbound spam seen from the hijacked SaaS account containing a ‘.htm’ attachment.
Figure 5: Outbound spam seen from the hijacked SaaS account containing a ‘.htm’ attachment.

As this customer did not have Autonomous Response enabled for Darktrace / IDENTITY, the unusual activity went unattended, and the compromise was able to escalate to the point of a spam email campaign being launched from the account.

In a similar example on a customer network in EMEA, Darktrace detected unusual logins and the creation of new email rules from a foreign location through a SaaS account. However, in this instance, Autonomous Response was enabled and automatically disabled the compromised account, preventing further malicious activity and giving the customer valuable time to implement their own remediation measures.

Conclusion

Whether it is an unexpected login or an unusual sequence of events – such as a login followed by a phishing email being sent – unauthorized or unexpected activities can pose a significant risk to an organization’s SaaS environment. The threat becomes even greater when these activities escalate to account hijacking, with the compromised account potentially providing attackers access to sensitive corporate data. Organizations, therefore, must have robust SaaS security measures in place to prevent data theft, ensure compliance and maintain continuity and trust.

The Darktrace suite of products is well placed to detect and contain SaaS hijack attempts at multiple stages of an attack. Darktrace / EMAIL identifies initial phishing emails that attackers use to gain access to customer SaaS environments, while Darktrace / IDENTITY detects anomalous SaaS behavior on user accounts which could indicate they have been taken over by a malicious actor.

By identifying these threats in a timely manner and taking proactive mitigative measures, such as logging or disabling compromised accounts, Darktrace prevents escalation and ensures customers have sufficient time to response effectively.

Credit to Min Kim (Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

[related-resource]

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections Case 1

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Us

SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User is Active

SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Email Rule Block (Autonomous Response)

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block (Autonomous Response)

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS User Block (Autonomous Response)

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

176.105.224[.]132 – IP address – Unusual SaaS Activity Source

hremployeepyaroll@mail[.]com – Email address – Reply-to email address

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Cloud Accounts – DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS – T1078

Outlook Rules – PERSISTENCE – T1137

Cloud Service Dashboard – DISCOVERY – T1538

Compromise Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1586

Steal Web Session Cookie – CREDENTIAL ACCESS – T1539

Darktrace Model Detections Case 2

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active

SaaS / Compromise / Login from Rare High Risk Endpoint

SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block (Autonomous Response)

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS user Block (Autonomous Response)

List of IoCs

74.207.252[.]129 – IP Address – Suspicious SaaS Activity Source

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Cloud Accounts – DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS – T1078

Cloud Service Dashboard – DISCOVERY – T1538

Compromise Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1586

Steal Web Session Cookie – CREDENTIAL ACCESS – T1539

Darktrace Model Detections Case 3

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Outbound Email Spam

SaaS / Compromise / New Email Rule and Unusual Email Activity

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Sender Spoof

SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage

SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

SaaS / Email Nexus / Suspicious Internal Exchange Activity

SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

List of IoCs

95.142.116[.]1 – IP Address – Suspicious SaaS Activity Source

154.12.242[.]58 – IP Address – Unusual Source

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Cloud Accounts – DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS – T1078

Compromise Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1586

Email Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1585

Phishing – INITIAL ACCESS – T1566

Outlook Rules – PERSISTENCE – T1137

Internal Spear phishing – LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1534

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 2025.

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
Min Kim
Cyber Security Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 9, 2026

When AI Infrastructure Becomes Part of the Attack Surface

ai infrastructure cybersecurityDefault blog imageDefault blog image

AI Infrastructure and the Evolving Attack Surface

As organizations deploy generative AI into production environments, a new layer of infrastructure has emerged inside enterprise cloud environments: AI gateways.

What is an AI gateway?

AI gateways are systems that sit between users, applications, and foundation models, often holding privileged cloud permissions and managing access to AI services at scale.

Because of that role, AI gateways are becoming an increasingly important part of the enterprise attack surface. A compromise may provide attackers with access not only to compute resources, but also to cloud identities, model services, sensitive prompts, and other connected systems.

This blog examines how Darktrace investigated a compromised AI gateway connected to Amazon Bedrock services that was subsequently observed communicating with cryptomining infrastructure. Based on its configuration and associated Identity and Access Management (IAM) role, the instance appeared to function as a gateway to Amazon Bedrock-hosted AI services. Following suspected compromise activity, the host was observed communicating repeatedly with known cryptomining infrastructure before subsequently being shut down. Darktrace detected and escalated the activity through its Enhanced Monitoring and Managed Threat Detection services.

While the ultimate impact in this case appeared to be unauthorized cryptomining, the incident is notable because of where it occurred. The compromised asset sat at the intersection of cloud infrastructure, identity, and AI services. Recent research has highlighted how AI gateways such as LiteLLM can become attractive targets due to their ability to centralize credentials, model access, and cloud permissions. Although Darktrace found no evidence linking this activity directly to publicly disclosed LiteLLM vulnerabilities, the incident demonstrates why organizations should treat AI infrastructure as part of their critical attack surface rather than as a standalone application tier [1].

Why cryptomining remains a common cloud post-compromise activity

Cryptomining can be a lucrative post-compromise activity in cloud environments. After gaining access to a cloud asset, attackers may deploy mining software to abuse the victim’s compute resources for financial gain. This type of activity is likely to be opportunistic, targeting exposed services, weak credentials, leaked access keys, vulnerable applications, or misconfigured cloud workloads.

A typical cloud cryptomining intrusion may involve:

  • Identifying exposed or vulnerable cloud infrastructure
  • Gaining access through exposed services, credentials, or application weaknesses
  • Downloading and executing mining software
  • Establishing repeated outbound connectivity to mining pool infrastructure
  • Continuing to consume compute resources until the activity is detected and disrupted

The notable element in this case is not the cryptomining alone, but where it occurred: on cloud infrastructure supporting AI-related activity. This shows how assets used to enable AI services can still be exposed to familiar cloud compromise risks.

Investigating a compromised AI gateway connected to Amazon Bedrock

On June 12, 2026, Darktrace observed activity consistent with active cryptomining from an Amazon Web Service (AWS) EC2 instance named LiteLLM-Proxy. The instance appeared to support LiteLLM activity and was associated with an instance profile that had access to Amazon Bedrock resources.

AI gateways are designed to centralize access to large language models, often handling authentication, routing, logging, and policy enforcement for AI applications. From a security perspective, they also aggregate cloud permissions, model access, and application workflows into a single control point. As a result, compromise of an AI gateway can have implications beyond the affected host itself.

While the exact initial access vector could not be confirmed, the activity appears to follow a sequence often seen in compromises of internet-facing systems: brute-forced access, payload delivery, and repeated outbound connectivity to mining pool infrastructure.

Stage 1: Internet-exposed SSH enabled initial access

Prior to the observed cryptomining activity, the LiteLLM-Proxy EC2 instance appeared to be externally exposed over SSH, with port 22 open to 0.0.0.0/0.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s misconfiguration alert EC2 instance allowing all inbound traffic to SSH port 22.

Prior to the cryptomining activity, Darktrace observed a large volume of inbound connection attempts to the instance over port 22 from external IP addresses, predominantly from 145.241.123[.]102, suggesting brute-force activity [2]. Many of these connections were short-lived, lasting only a few seconds, indicating scanning or failed login attempts.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of unusual incoming connection attempts to the device over port 22.

The available telemetry did not confirm whether any inbound SSH connection resulted in successful authentication, preventing this activity from being confirmed as the initial access vector. However, the combination of public SSH exposure, inbound connections from external IP addresses, and subsequent miner activity suggests that SSH was a plausible access path.

Stage 2: XMRig malware downloaded to the AI gateway

Before the first observed connection to the mining pool, the EC2 instance downloaded 3.42 MB of data over an HTTP connection on port 80 to the external endpoint, 185.62.1[.]8, which appears to host a ZIP file containing XMRig crypto-mining malware [3][4]. As host-level logs were not available, Darktrace could not confirm how the miner was executed or whether the earlier SSH activity directly enabled payload delivery. However, the timing of the download, followed shortly by repeated mining pool connectivity, supported the assessment that the instance had been compromised and was being used for unauthorized compute activity.

Stage 3 – Compromised AI gateway communicates with cryptomining infrastructure

Just a few minutes later, Darktrace observed the LiteLLM-Proxy EC2 instance connecting to the hostname pool.hasvault[.]pro over HTTPs on port 443. Following the initial connection, repeated outbound connectivity to the same hostname was observed. This pattern is consistent with active cryptomining pool communication, where a compromised host communicates with mining infrastructure to receive work and submit results.

This activity triggered the Enhanced Monitoring model “Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining”, which was escalated to the customer by Darktrace’s SOC. The activity was also summarized by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst, which grouped the relevant events into a single investigation narrative, helping to identify the repeated mining pool connectivity from the affected cloud asset.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation of the cryptocurrency mining activity.

The use of HTTPS over port 443 is notable because, when viewed in isolation, this traffic may not appear inherently suspicious. In this case, however, the destination, volume of connections, and lack of similar activity provided the behavioral context needed to identify the communication as suspicious.

Stage 4: Managed Threat Detection identifies active resource abuse

The cryptomining activity was received by Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service and reviewed by Darktrace’s SOC. Following review, the activity was escalated to the customer. This escalation provided the customer with timely notification of active resource abuse in the AWS environment.

Stage 5: Suspicious IAM activity suggests possible cloud credential misuse

Separately, on June 13, Darktrace observed suspicious activity originating from an additional IAM user.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s Advanced Search highlighting suspicious activity performed by a second IAM user.

First, the user was observed attempting the “GetSendQuota” event, an action that had not performed by the account within at least the previous three months. Additionally, the source IP address of this command appeared to be 14.176.1[.]47, geolocated in Vietnam, whereas activity for this user had mostly been seen from Amazon IP addresses. Furthermore, the AWS CLI was also observed being used for this activity, which was also unusual for the user. This was detected by the model “IaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual AWS CLI Activity”.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of the “GetSendQuota” event.

Further suspicious activity was observed from the IAM user using the long-term access key. Notably, failed “InvokeModel” and “ListFoundationModels” commands were detected, suggesting attempted interaction with Amazon Bedrock services, including model enumeration or invocation. While this may suggest relation to the LiteLLM compromise observed the previous day, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively link the two events.

The attempted “CreateUser” command was also notable because the requested username appeared low-meaning, which may indicate an attempt to establish persistence by creating a new account. This activity triggered the model “IaaS / Admin / New AWS User Account Creation”.

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of the “CreateUser” event.

Even without a confirmed link between the two incidents, the IAM activity remains significant. It demonstrates the importance of incorporating workload both telemetry and control-plane telemetry into cloud compromise investigations. While the EC2 cryptomining activity indicated compute resource abuse, the IAM activity suggested potential credential compromise or misuse involving long-term access keys, along with attempted cloud service abuse.

Key lessons for securing AI infrastructure

This incident was notable not because of the cryptomining activity itself, but because of where it occurred. The compromised system appeared to function as an AI gateway with access to Amazon Bedrock services, placing it at the intersection of cloud infrastructure, identity, and AI operations. As organizations deploy AI capabilities into production environments, these platforms are becoming part of the same attack surface that adversaries already target through exposed services, credential theft, and cloud misconfigurations.

While the exact intrusion path could not be confirmed, and no definitive link was established between the compromised workload and the suspicious IAM activity observed during the investigation, both events reinforce a broader reality: AI infrastructure must be secured as part of the wider cloud environment rather than treated as a separate technology stack.

In this case, the most obvious sign of compromise was communication with cryptomining infrastructure. The more important lesson is that Darktrace’s behavioral analysis revealed risk surrounding a privileged AI-enabled asset before the full scope of the incident was understood. As AI gateways increasingly concentrate cloud permissions, model access, and application workflows, defenders will need to focus less on individual alerts and more on understanding how behaviors connect across workloads, identities, and services.

Credit to Angel Arribas Lopez (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (Field CISO/VP Threat Research), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Ops),  and Mark Turner (Security Researcher)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

·       Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

·       Compromise / Monero Mining

·       Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

·       IaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual AWS CLI Activity

·       IaaS / Admin / New AWS User Account Creation

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Initial Access – External Remote Services – T1133

Initial Access – Valid Accounts – T1078

Execution – Command and Scripting Interpreter – T1059

Persistence – Create Account – T1136

Discovery – Cloud Service Discovery – T1526

Impact – Resource Hijacking – T1496

References

[1] https://docs.litellm.ai/blog/security-update-march-2026

[2] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/145.241.123.102

[3] https://urlscan.io/search/#185.62.1.8

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/85de36ff66fae9f4b059cbedf6d36e017ebc26c828f99f911a96e78636f21200/community

Continue reading
About the author
Angel Arribas Lopez
Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

AI

/

July 8, 2026

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

ai security stackDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

AI adoption outpaces most security programs’ ability to adapt.  That gap is now one of the most consequential sources of cyber risk facing enterprises. As organizations embed generative and agentic AI into development workflows, business operations, and security tooling itself, the question is no longer whether AI will introduce risk. The question is whether organizations understand where that risk actually lives and how to manage it operationally.  

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

  1. The upcoming Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI from NIST
  1. The Five Eyes government guidance on the careful adoption of agentic AI services

Taken together, they point to a critical conclusion. AI security cannot be reduced to model hardening or prompt filtering. It requires a defense in depth strategy that treats AI as both a new attack surface and a force multiplier for defense, while accounting for how AI fundamentally changes scale, speed, and autonomy.  

Recent threat research suggests that today's cyber risk is driven less by initial compromise and more by an adversary's ability to blend into normal operations over time. AI systems create the same exposure in a new form: more autonomy, more scale, and more opportunities for risky behavior to blend into normal operations.

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

The NIST profile organizes AI risk across three inseparable focus areas that span all cybersecurity functions, Secure, Defend and Thwart. These areas are not sequential. They exist simultaneously and must be addressed together.

Secure

This treats AI as an attack surface. It includes models, prompts, agents, pipelines, training and inference data, retrieval augmented generation corpora, and the AI supply chain itself. AI systems are opaque, probabilistic, and non-deterministic by design. Some vulnerabilities are inherent in how models are trained or how data is sourced. Traditional patching does not fully mitigate these risks. This is also where many enterprises are weakest today and, critically, where many security programs stop.  

Defend

This is AI as a defensive force multiplier. AI can improve detection speed, scale, correlation, and response, but only if the right models are used and operationalized correctly. Machine-speed behavior-based detection, response and containment becomes critical in defending non-deterministic systems. Accuracy, explainability, governance, testing, validation, and integration into SOC workflows matter as much as capability. Without those controls, hallucination risk, over automation, and misplaced trust become security risks themselves.  

Thwart

This treats AI as an adversarial accelerant. Threat actors are already using AI to generate targeted social engineering attacks, deepfakes, malware, and autonomous attack agents. Asymmetric warfare is highlighting faster vulnerability discovery and exploitation with a lag on patch development, testing and deployment.  

How this looks in practice

Darktrace researchers observed scaled, automated exploitation of the React2Shell vulnerability within days of disclosure. A vulnerable cloud asset was exploited in under 120 seconds of being deployed. Darktrace research team observed an AI/LLM-generated malware sample used in exploitation activity tied to React2Shell. The significance isn't novelty. It is that AI lowers the barrier to producing usable offensive tooling and compresses the time between experimentation and deployment.  

Tactics are getting more and more creative in order to string together steps of an attack kill chain. This creates a dependency on behavior-based detection, autonomous investigation, autonomous containment, training, resilience investment, and recovery planning across the entire enterprise.

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

The Five Eyes guidance on agentic AI highlights material changes to the cyber risk profile of an organization. Unlike generative AI systems that produce content for human consumption, agentic AI systems reason, plan, and act autonomously across tools, data, and environments. That autonomy, combined with access to real systems, amplifies the impact of traditional cyber failures and introduces new system level risks that are difficult to predict, observe, and contain.  

Risk in agentic systems does not live in the model alone. It emerges from interactions between models, prompts, memory, tools, APIs, identities, privileges, inter-agent trust relationships, and human assumptions baked into design. Vulnerabilities are often introduced through data, connectors, natural language interfaces, protocols, and drift by design.

In supply-chain incidents, attackers did not need sophisticated exploits to scale impact. They abused trusted systems built for automation and implicit access. Agentic AI inherits that model. Once a system can act across tools, data, and workflows, compromise propagates through trust relationships that were never designed for machine autonomy.

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:  

  • The identity control for non-human identities or autonomous agents makes it difficult to mitigate over-permissioning, limiting access, scope, and duration, as well as access hygiene
  • Agents are frequently over permissioned
  • Compromised tools inherit agent authority
  • Static secrets enable impersonation
  • Implicit trust between agents enables lateral movement

Design and configuration risks compound this, including privileges evaluated once at startup, poor segmentation, unvetted third party tools, reused authorization decisions outside their original context, and guardrail limitations.  

Behavioral risk  

Agents can optimize for goals in unsafe ways, misinterpret ambiguous intent, chain actions into unintended sequences, change behavior during evaluation, and exhibit deceptive or sycophantic responses.  

Structural risk  

Structural risk follows from agentic systems that are tightly coupled, multicomponent ecosystems. Failures can propagate across agents. Hallucinations cascade downstream. Resource exhaustion becomes systemic. Tool misuse enables indirect prompt injection and command execution. Rogue agents can poison peer agents through trust relationships.  

Accountability

Accountability becomes unclear as autonomy increases. Autonomous agents assume human identity permissions, and humans should have clear ownership of these agents, but they don’t, and this model is flawed. Decision paths are opaque and non-deterministic. Logs are fragmented and difficult to interpret. Reproducing an incident will be impossible without explicit design for observability and forensics. An agent compromise is functionally an insider threat, often with better access and fewer behavioral constraints than a human.  

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

Agentic AI runs on software, networks, identities, and data. It must be governed using the same foundational principles that have proven resilient under uncertainty, including secure by design, defense in depth, zero trust, least privilege, continuous monitoring, behavior-based advanced threat detection and containment, and incident response and recovery.

Core components to a Defense in depth Strategy for Securing the use of AI:

  • Strong, precise identity control plane to include an identity per agent (cryptographic, non‑shared)
    • Privilege monitoring and just‑in‑time access
  • Data Governance
  • Secure‑by‑default configurations
    • Security Posture Management  
    • Zero Trust principles  
  • Strong guardrails, deny‑by‑default policies, and isolation
  • Explicit instruction hierarchies and controlled context
  • Behavioral-based detection across entire enterprise to include inputs, tools, and outputs as well as AI used on the endpoint, across the network, cloud, SaaS, email, and OT
    • Runtime anomaly detection and goal‑drift detection
    • Autonomous containment to mitigate risk and minimize damage
  • Hard boundaries on autonomy and delegation
  • Testing, Evaluation, Validation and Verification  
    • Determine when autonomous action and when human in the loop
    • Adversarial training and agent‑specific testing
    • Simulation, red teaming, and chaos testing
  • Kill‑switches, rollback, and containment mechanisms
    • Forensics data captures, interpretability, autonomous containment, and remediation/recovery plans  

Until standards, tooling, and assurance methods mature, organizations should assume agentic AI systems will behave unexpectedly and design deployments around resilience, behavior-based detection, reversibility, and containment, not efficiency.

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

AI security is not model security alone. Data, pipelines, identities, and agents are first class assets. Many AI attacks succeed through standard cyber failures amplified by AI. Identity, data, and supply chain risk dominate. Behavior-based detection and response are critical, not optional. Logging, provenance, versioning, and forensics data capture of detections are mandatory because you cannot investigate or recover from AI incidents without them.  

Risk will often be visible in behavior before it is clearly defined in policy or guidance. The same pattern has been seen in pre-CVE disclosure detection, where abnormal activity appears before the industry has named or described the vulnerability. AI systems introduce that uncertainty by design.

Security leaders should prioritize controls before AI is fully deployed, avoid generic AI security checklists, integrate AI risk into existing cyber programs, and mitigate the risk of non-deterministic technology with continuous oversight, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, autonomous investigation, and autonomous containment.

Visibility has a different connotation with AI. Previously, audit logging worked for software/people, but with Generative AI-based systems, interpretability and explainability is difficult to understand, you cannot "undo" what has been done, or see the logic or control a chain of events. This is why behavioral-based detections and containment becomes critical.  

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

If an organization asked “what must be in place before scaling AI?”:

  1. AI Risk board and approval workflow
  1. IAM + PAM for all AI services and agents
  1. AI asset inventory
  1. Prompt/output DLP with sanctioned AI access – This is not just pre- and post- filters, but behavior-based detections of semantic interface as well as behavior-based analysis of output with associated risk context.  
  1. Shadow AI identification
  1. Secure MLOps – This is an entire paper itself
  1. Runtime guardrails and tool restrictions
    • Including AI Gateway/SASE/Zero trust/
  1. Runtime security with behavior-based detections
    • Complete visibility, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, risk/intent/context evaluation of anomalies, autonomous investigation and autonomous containment of all AI assets across endpoint, network, SaaS, SASE, cloud, OT, email, and messaging platforms
  1. Secure data pipelines and data governance
  1. SOC workflow changes from malicious classification workflows to behavior-based detection workflows
  1. Remediation plans for AI-related incidents  

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI  

The following outline considers governance and security tools that should be considered, well-integrated, deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. These tools and controls map to NIST’s CMF for AI.  

These considerations do not need to be implemented in order. Runtime Detect and Respond will help mitigate risk while Governance, Visibility, and Identity mature.

Category Tooling Controls
Governance & Visibility
  • AI asset inventory / AI CMDB
  • Shadow AI discovery
  • SaaS discovery
  • AI usage on non-endpoint managed systems via network or cloud telemetry
  • MCP server/client usage via protocols
  • Browser telemetry
  • Gateway or SASE telemetry
  • Establish a risk board to set up controls
  • Mandatory registration of AI systems
  • Owner, data classification, intended use, and risk tier
  • Supplier disclosure requirements
  • Risk mitigation plan for AI adoption, innovation, or development
Identity, Access & Agent Control

Non-human autonomous agents should not have the full permissions associated with a human user.

  • IAM with workload identities
  • PAM for AI service accounts
  • Secrets management with short-lived tokens
  • Zero Trust principles
  • Identity, permission, and token hygiene
  • Unique identities per model, agent, and pipeline
  • Least privilege for tools, data, and APIs
  • Explicit approval for autonomous actions
Data Security & Privacy
  • Data classification and labeling
  • Enterprise DLP across endpoint, email, network, cloud, and SaaS
  • Forensics data capture after risky detections
  • Prompt-level DLP through behavior-based semantic analysis with risk and intent context
  • Input/interface analysis for risky data requests
  • Output analysis for sensitive data
  • Data integrity evaluation
  • Retention and redaction policies for prompts and responses
Secure MLOps / LLMOps
  • Secure CI/CD with AI-specific gates
  • Model registries with approval workflows
  • Dependency, container, and artifact scanning
  • SBOM/AIBOM generation
  • IaC security scanning
  • Security posture management
  • Misconfiguration identification
  • Hardening recommendations
  • Signed models and prompts
  • Versioned datasets, configurations, logging, and controls
  • Securing data pipelines
  • Controlled promotion
  • Quality assurance
  • Adversarial testing
Runtime Security

Securing runtime goes beyond guardrails and model firewalls to include behavior-based detections, response, and containment.

  • Detection, monitoring, and SOC integration
  • Centralized visibility into prompts, outputs, and tool calls
  • AI-specific detections
  • Behavior-based detection for AI usage patterns
  • Model drift and behavior monitoring
  • Autonomous containment
  • Behavior-based detection of model inputs and outputs
  • Prompt injection detection
  • Model manipulation, including jailbreaking, poisoning, and related attacks
  • Sensitive data access attempts
  • Behavior-based detection across low-code agents, high-code agents, MCP clients and servers, endpoint, network, cloud, email, SaaS, SASE, IoT, and OT
  • Policy enforcement between users, models, tools, agents, SaaS models/tools, and MCP servers/clients
  • Risk, intent, and context evaluation for detections and response actions
Response & Recovery
  • Autonomous containment
  • AI-assisted playbooks
  • Forensics data capture for AI-related events
  • Model rollback mechanisms
  • Backup and restore for models and datasets
  • Kill switch for agents
  • Autonomous response to agents performing risky behaviors
  • Model and dataset rollback
  • Remediation plans
  • Tabletop exercises
  • Supplier coordination plans
  • Post-incident AI performance validation

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

AI changes how fast systems move, how decisions are made, and how risk propagates. It does not change the fundamentals of security. Organizations that succeed will be the ones that apply those fundamentals rigorously, assume failure, and build systems that can detect, contain, and recover when AI behaves in ways they did not anticipate. Security is not what AI is allowed to do. It is whether the organization can understand, trust, and control what AI actually does in practice.  

Take this guidance to understand different initiatives that organizations should be considering. Securing AI is the most critical component to AI safety. As organizations invest more in AI adoption, they should be investing in security in order to mitigate the risk of AI adoption. Organizations should be evaluating their governance and security stack to include well-integrated tools that are deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. While organizations mature in governance, visibility and identity access management, they should be investing in behavior-based detection and autonomous containment to mitigate AI risk.  

Continue reading
About the author
Nicole Carignan
SVP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI