October 9, 2025

Inside Akira’s SonicWall Campaign: Darktrace’s Detection and Response

Starting in July 2025, Akira ransomware attacks surged globally, targeting SonicWall SSL VPN devices. In August, Darktrace detected suspicious activity in a US network, including scanning, lateral movement, and data exfiltration. A compromised SonicWall VPN server linked the incident to the broader Akira campaign exploiting known vulnerabilities.

Written by

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

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

Written by

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber Analyst

Oct 2025

Introduction: Background on Akira SonicWall campaign

Between July and August 2025, security teams worldwide observed a surge in Akira ransomware incidents involving SonicWall SSL VPN devices [1]. Initially believed to be the result of an unknown zero-day vulnerability, SonicWall later released an advisory announcing that the activity was strongly linked to a previously disclosed vulnerability, CVE-2024-40766, first identified over a year earlier [2].

On August 20, 2025, Darktrace observed unusual activity on the network of a customer in the US. Darktrace detected a range of suspicious activity, including network scanning and reconnaissance, lateral movement, privilege escalation, and data exfiltration. One of the compromised devices was later identified as a SonicWall virtual private network (VPN) server, suggesting that the incident was part of the broader Akira ransomware campaign targeting SonicWall technology.

As the customer was subscribed to the Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service, Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) team was able to rapidly triage critical alerts, restrict the activity of affected devices, and notify the customer of the threat. As a result, the impact of the attack was limited - approximately 2 GiB of data had been observed leaving the network, but any further escalation of malicious activity was stopped.

Threat Overview

CVE-2024-40766 and other misconfigurations

CVE-2024-40766 is an improper access control vulnerability in SonicWall’s SonicOS, affecting Gen 5, Gen 6, and Gen 7 devices running SonicOS version 7.0.1 5035 and earlier [3]. The vulnerability was disclosed on August 23, 2024, with a patch released the same day. Shortly after, it was reported to be exploited in the wild by Akira ransomware affiliates and others [4].

Almost a year later, the same vulnerability is being actively targeted again by the Akira ransomware group. In addition to exploiting unpatched devices affected by CVE-2024-40766, security researchers have identified three other risks potentially being leveraged by the group [5]:

*The Virtual Office Portal can be used to initially set up MFA/TOTP configurations for SSLVPN users.

Thus, even if SonicWall devices were patched, threat actors could still target them for initial access by reusing previously stolen credentials and exploiting other misconfigurations.

Akira Ransomware

Akira ransomware was first observed in the wild in March 2023 and has since become one of the most prolific ransomware strains across the threat landscape [6]. The group operates under a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) model and frequently uses double extortion tactics, pressuring victims to pay not only to decrypt files but also to prevent the public release of sensitive exfiltrated data.

The ransomware initially targeted Windows systems, but a Linux variant was later observed targeting VMware ESXi virtual machines [7]. In 2024, it was assessed that Akira would continue to target ESXi hypervisors, making attacks highly disruptive due to the central role of virtualisation in large-scale cloud deployments. Encrypting the ESXi file system enables rapid and widespread encryption with minimal lateral movement or credential theft. The lack of comprehensive security protections on many ESXi hypervisors also makes them an attractive target for ransomware operators [8].

Victimology

Akira is known to target organizations across multiple sectors, most notably those in manufacturing, education, and healthcare. These targets span multiple geographic regions, including North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia-Pacific [9].

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of organization’s affected by Akira ransomware in 2025 [9].

Common Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) [7][10]

Initial Access
Targets remote access services such as RDP and VPN through vulnerability exploitation or stolen credentials.

Reconnaissance
Uses network scanning tools like SoftPerfect and Advanced IP Scanner to map the environment and identify targets.

Lateral Movement
Moves laterally using legitimate administrative tools, typically via RDP.

Persistence
Employs techniques such as Kerberoasting and pass-the-hash, and tools like Mimikatz to extract credentials. Known to create new domain accounts to maintain access.

Command and Control
Utilizes remote access tools including AnyDesk, RustDesk, Ngrok, and Cloudflare Tunnel.

Exfiltration
Uses tools such as FileZilla, WinRAR, WinSCP, and Rclone. Data is exfiltrated via protocols like FTP and SFTP, or through cloud storage services such as Mega.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Akira ransomware

Reconnaissance

Darktrace first detected of unusual network activity around 05:10 UTC, when a desktop device was observed performing a network scan and making an unusual number of DCE-RPC requests to the endpoint mapper (epmapper) service. Network scans are typically used to identify open ports, while querying the epmapper service can reveal exposed RPC services on the network.

Multiple other devices were also later seen with similar reconnaissance activity, and use of the Advanced IP Scanner tool, indicated by connections to the domain advanced-ip-scanner[.]com.

Lateral movement

Shortly after the initial reconnaissance, the same desktop device exhibited unusual use of administrative tools. Darktrace observed the user agent “Ruby WinRM Client” and the URI “/wsman” as the device initiated a rare outbound Windows Remote Management (WinRM) connection to two domain controllers (REDACTED-dc1 and REDACTED-dc2). WinRM is a Microsoft service that uses the WS-Management (WSMan) protocol to enable remote management and control of network devices.

Darktrace also observed the desktop device connecting to an ESXi device (REDACTED-esxi1) via RDP using an LDAP service credential, likely with administrative privileges.

Credential access

At around 06:26 UTC, the desktop device was seen fetching an Active Directory certificate from the domain controller (REDACTED-dc1) by making a DCE-RPC request to the ICertPassage service. Shortly after, the device made a Kerberos login using the administrative credential.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the of anomalous certificate download and subsequent Kerberos login.

Further investigation into the device’s event logs revealed a chain of connections that Darktrace’s researchers believe demonstrates a credential access technique known as “UnPAC the hash.”

This method begins with pre-authentication using Kerberos’ Public Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication (PKINIT), allowing the client to use an X.509 certificate to obtain a Ticket Granting Ticket (TGT) from the Key Distribution Center (KDC) instead of a password.

The next stage involves User-to-User (U2U) authentication when requesting a Service Ticket (ST) from the KDC. Within Darktrace's visibility of this traffic, U2U was indicated by the client and service principal names within the ST request being identical. Because PKINIT was used earlier, the returned ST contains the NTLM hash of the credential, which can then be extracted and abused for lateral movement or privilege escalation [11].

Flowchart of Kerberos PKINIT pre-authentication and U2U authentication [12]. — Figure 4: Flowchart of Kerberos PKINIT pre-authentication and U2U authentication [12]

Figure 5: Device event log showing the Kerberos Login and Kerberos Ticket events

Analysis of the desktop device’s event logs revealed a repeated sequence of suspicious activity across multiple credentials. Each sequence included a DCE-RPC ICertPassage request to download a certificate, followed by a Kerberos login event indicating PKINIT pre-authentication, and then a Kerberos ticket event consistent with User-to-User (U2U) authentication.

Darktrace identified this pattern as highly unusual. Cyber AI Analyst determined that the device used at least 15 different credentials for Kerberos logins over the course of the attack.

By compromising multiple credentials, the threat actor likely aimed to escalate privileges and facilitate further malicious activity, including lateral movement. One of the credentials obtained via the “UnPAC the hash” technique was later observed being used in an RDP session to the domain controller (REDACTED-dc2).

C2 / Additional tooling

At 06:44 UTC, the domain controller (REDACTED-dc2) was observed initiating a connection to temp[.]sh, a temporary cloud hosting service. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) reporting indicates that this service is commonly used by threat actors to host and distribute malicious payloads, including ransomware [13].

Shortly afterward, the ESXi device was observed downloading an executable named “vmwaretools” from the rare external endpoint 137.184.243[.]69, using the user agent “Wget.” The repeated outbound connections to this IP suggest potential command-and-control (C2) activity.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst investigation into the suspicious file download and suspected C2 activity between the ESXI device and the external endpoint 137.184.243[.]69.

Figure 7: Packet capture (PCAP) of connections between the ESXi device and 137.184.243[.]69.

Data exfiltration

The first signs of data exfiltration were observed at around 7:00 UTC. Both the domain controller (REDACTED-dc2) and a likely SonicWall VPN device were seen uploading approximately 2 GB of data via SSH to the rare external endpoint 66.165.243[.]39 (AS29802 HVC-AS). OSINT sources have since identified this IP as an indicator of compromise (IoC) associated with the Akira ransomware group, known to use it for data exfiltration [14].

Cyber AI Analyst

Throughout the course of the attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst autonomously investigated the anomalous activity as it unfolded and correlated related events into a single, cohesive incident. Rather than treating each alert as isolated, Cyber AI Analyst linked them together to reveal the broader narrative of compromise. This holistic view enabled the customer to understand the full scope of the attack, including all associated activities and affected assets that might otherwise have been dismissed as unrelated.

Containing the attack

In response to the multiple anomalous activities observed across the network, Darktrace's Autonomous Response initiated targeted mitigation actions to contain the attack. These included:

Blocking connections to known malicious or rare external endpoints, such as 137.184.243[.]69, 66.165.243[.]39, and advanced-ip-scanner[.]com.
Blocking internal traffic to sensitive ports, including 88 (Kerberos), 3389 (RDP), and 49339 (DCE-RPC), to disrupt lateral movement and credential abuse.
Enforcing a block on all outgoing connections from affected devices to contain potential data exfiltration and C2 activity.

Figure 10: Autonomous Response actions taken by Darktrace on an affected device, including the blocking of malicious external endpoints and internal service ports.

Managed Detection and Response

As this customer was an MDR subscriber, multiple Enhanced Monitoring alerts—high-fidelity models designed to detect activity indicative of compromise—were triggered across the network. These alerts prompted immediate investigation by Darktrace’s SOC team.

Upon determining that the activity was likely linked to an Akira ransomware attack, Darktrace analysts swiftly acted to contain the threat. At around 08:05 UTC, devices suspected of being compromised were quarantined, and the customer was promptly notified, enabling them to begin their own remediation procedures without delay.

A wider campaign?

Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams identified at least three additional incidents likely linked to the same campaign. All targeted organizations were based in the US, spanning various industries, and each have indications of using SonicWall VPN, indicating it had likely been targeted for initial access.

Across these incidents, similar patterns emerged. In each case, a suspicious executable named “vmwaretools” was downloaded from the endpoint 85.239.52[.]96 using the user agent “Wget”, bearing some resemblance to the file downloads seen in the incident described here. Data exfiltration was also observed via SSH to the endpoints 107.155.69[.]42 and 107.155.93[.]154, both of which belong to the same ASN also seen in the incident described in this blog: S29802 HVC-AS. Notably, 107.155.93[.]154 has been reported in OSINT as an indicator associated with Akira ransomware activity [15]. Further recent Akira ransomware cases have been observed involving SonicWall VPN, where no similar executable file downloads were observed, but SSH exfiltration to the same ASN was. These overlapping and non-overlapping TTPs may reflect the blurring lines between different affiliates operating under the same RaaS.

Lessons from the campaign

This campaign by Akira ransomware actors underscores the critical importance of maintaining up-to-date patching practices. Threat actors continue to exploit previously disclosed vulnerabilities, not just zero-days, highlighting the need for ongoing vigilance even after patches are released. It also demonstrates how misconfigurations and overlooked weaknesses can be leveraged for initial access or privilege escalation, even in otherwise well-maintained environments.

Darktrace’s observations further reveal that ransomware actors are increasingly relying on legitimate administrative tools, such as WinRM, to blend in with normal network activity and evade detection. In addition to previously documented Kerberos-based credential access techniques like Kerberoasting and pass-the-hash, this campaign featured the use of UnPAC the hash to extract NTLM hashes via PKINIT and U2U authentication for lateral movement or privilege escalation.

Credit to Emily Megan Lim (Senior Cyber Analyst), Vivek Rajan (Senior Cyber Analyst), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead), and Sam Lister (Specialist Security Researcher)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous Connection / Possible Data Staging and External Upload

Anomalous Connection / Rare WinRM Incoming

Anomalous Connection / Rare WinRM Outgoing

Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Incoming Long Remote Desktop Session

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Incoming Long SSH Session

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Long SSH Session

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Compliance / Default Credential Usage

Compliance / High Priority Compliance Model Alert

Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

Device / Anomalous Certificate Download Activity

Device / Anomalous SSH Followed By Multiple Model Alerts

Device / Anonymous NTLM Logins

Device / Attack and Recon Tools

Device / ICMP Address Scan

Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

Device / Network Range Scan

Device / Network Scan

Device / New User Agent To Internal Server

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

Device / RDP Scan

Device / Reverse DNS Sweep

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / UDP Enumeration

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

User / Multiple Uncommon New Credentials on Device

User / New Admin Credentials on Client

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Enhanced Monitoring Models

Compromise / Anomalous Certificate Download and Kerberos Login

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

Device / Large Number of Model Alerts from Critical Network Device

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Alerts

Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Antigena/Autonomous Response Models

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Network Scan Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Repeated Antigena Alerts

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

· 66.165.243[.]39 – IP Address – Data exfiltration endpoint

· 107.155.69[.]42 – IP Address – Probable data exfiltration endpoint

· 107.155.93[.]154 – IP Address – Likely Data exfiltration endpoint

· 137.184.126[.]86 – IP Address – Possible C2 endpoint

· 85.239.52[.]96 – IP Address – Likely C2 endpoint

· hxxp://85.239.52[.]96:8000/vmwarecli – URL – File download

· hxxp://137.184.126[.]86:8080/vmwaretools – URL – File download

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Initial Access – T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application

Reconnaissance – T1590.002 – Gather Victim Network Information: DNS

Reconnaissance – T1590.005 – Gather Victim Network Information: IP Addresses

Reconnaissance – T1592.004 – Gather Victim Host Information: Client Configurations

Reconnaissance – T1595 – Active Scanning

Discovery – T1018 – Remote System Discovery

Discovery – T1046 – Network Service Discovery

Discovery – T1083 – File and Directory Discovery

Discovery – T1135 – Network Share Discovery

Lateral Movement – T1021.001 – Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol

Lateral Movement – T1021.004 – Remote Services: SSH

Lateral Movement – T1021.006 – Remote Services: Windows Remote Management

Lateral Movement – T1550.002 – Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash

Lateral Movement – T1550.003 – Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Ticket

Credential Access – T1110.001 – Brute Force: Password Guessing

Credential Access – T1649 – Steal or Forge Authentication Certificates

Persistence, Privilege Escalation – T1078 – Valid Accounts

Resource Development – T1588.001 – Obtain Capabilities: Malware

Command and Control – T1071.001 – Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols

Command and Control – T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

Command and Control – T1573 – Encrypted Channel

Collection – T1074 – Data Staged

Exfiltration – T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

Exfiltration – T1048 – Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol

References

[1] https://thehackernews.com/2025/08/sonicwall-investigating-potential-ssl.html

[2] https://www.sonicwall.com/support/notices/gen-7-and-newer-sonicwall-firewalls-sslvpn-recent-threat-activity/250804095336430

[3] https://psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2024-0015

[4] https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/arctic-wolf-observes-akira-ransomware-campaign-targeting-sonicwall-sslvpn-accounts/

[5] https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/dr-akira-ransomware-group-utilizing-sonicwall-devices-for-initial-access/

[6] https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/2024_IC3Report.pdf

[7] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa24-109a

[8] https://blog.talosintelligence.com/akira-ransomware-continues-to-evolve/

[9] https://www.ransomware.live/map?year=2025&q=akira

[10] https://attack.mitre.org/groups/G1024/
[11] https://labs.lares.com/fear-kerberos-pt2/#UNPAC

[12] https://www.thehacker.recipes/ad/movement/kerberos/unpac-the-hash

[13] https://www.s-rminform.com/latest-thinking/derailing-akira-cyber-threat-intelligence)

[14] https://fieldeffect.com/blog/update-akira-ransomware-group-targets-sonicwall-vpn-appliances

[15] https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/arctic-wolf-observes-july-2025-uptick-in-akira-ransomware-activity-targeting-sonicwall-ssl-vpn/

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

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

Inside the SOC

Written by

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber Analyst

•

July 13, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

July 22, 2026

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations?

Key takeaways

AI is entering high-impact stadium functions such as access control, crowd management, ticketing, facilities, and surveillance.
Shadow AI and third-party AI use can create risks that stadium security teams cannot readily see.
Security teams must understand not only which AI systems exist, but also what they can access and what actions they can take.
Live-event resilience requires continuous monitoring and response across AI, IT, OT, identities, and third parties.

‍

Modern stadiums are infrastructure unlike any other. I’ve written before on event day sparking stadiums into life with shops and food stands, transport hubs, vast telecommunications infrastructure, field-side technology and beyond, acting as one super-sized, connected ecosystem. Stadiums’ scale and complexity make them some of the toughest environments in cybersecurity. Now, we’re adding AI to those operations and bringing a new dimension of risk.

The benefits of AI in stadium operations are easy to see. It can help stadium operators move fans safely through crowded gates, forecast demand at concession stands, support biometric entry, identify suspicious behavior on CCTV, and manage heating and ventilation. Used well, it can make live events safer, faster, and more efficient.

But it also changes the security model.

In Darktrace’s recent research into the threat landscape surrounding sports, we asked cybersecurity professionals protecting professional sports organizations where in their footprint a cyber compromise would have the greatest impact. The area they named most, highlighted by 34% of the professionals we spoke to, was stadium operations. At the same time, 35% said their organizations are already using AI in stadium operations, or plan to do so in the next 12 months.

Security teams are no longer just protecting traditional IT systems around a stadium. They are increasingly being asked to protect AI systems that are operating in the stadium’s most fundamental functions.

Approved AI vs. shadow AI in stadium operations

There is a clear difference between AI a stadium’s security team knows about and AI it does not.

Approved AI is the AI that has been reviewed, tested, and integrated into the venue’s operating environment. It may support CCTV analytics, access control, facility management, ticketing, logistics, broadcast operations, or anti-piracy monitoring. It should have clear ownership, access controls, logging, vendor review, and data protection rules. That does not make it risk-free, but it allows security teams to institute proper governance.

Shadow AI is different. It is the unapproved use of AI tools by employees, contractors, or suppliers. It often starts with good intent. Someone wants to work faster. A staff member pastes internal information into a public AI tool to draft a briefing. A developer uses an AI assistant to debug ticketing code. A supplier connects an AI scheduling tool to delivery routes. A designer uploads unreleased venue plans or sponsor material to generate a mockup.

None of those actions may feel like a security decision to the person doing them. But each one can move sensitive operational data into an environment the stadium does not control, creating hidden risk.

The approved AI stack may be visible to security teams. The shadow AI stack often is not.

Why game day increases AI cybersecurity risk

In a typical enterprise environment, a security team may have hours to investigate a strange login or an unexpected connection to a third-party service. Within a stadium, the moment an incident is likely to occur is also the moment when teams are at their most stretched and the incident can have the greatest repercussions: game day.

If an AI system used for crowd management behaves unexpectedly, the issue is not only technical. It may affect physical movement inside the venue.

If a supplier tool is sending operational data to an unapproved AI platform, the issue is not only data governance. It may expose delivery routes, restricted access schedules, or staffing plans.

The most dangerous scenario is not always a loud, dramatic attack but a hidden dependency that no one has mapped such as a vendor adding an AI feature through a software update or a staff workflow using an unapproved tool.

By the time the venue is live, those hidden connections can become operational risk.

The supply chain is part of the stadium attack surface

Any major sporting event is made by its supply chain and partnerships: catering firms, transport providers, broadcast systems, facilities teams. Every piece is necessary and each creates a security channel. The risk of supply chain compromise has been well established for some time and has been the source of some of the most high-profile breaches we’ve seen. The data breach at MSG Entertainment, owner of Madison Square Garden, that was widely reported in March, originated in a breach of Oracle’s E-Business Suite, used in MSG Entertainment’s back-office systems, while the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack on the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics reportedly began with the compromise of the main IT service provider for the Games. The addition of AI is heightening the risk.

A stadium can have strict rules for its own AI systems, but its vendors may be using separate tools. Some may use AI to manage staffing, delivery windows, inventory, or customer communications. Others may not realize that AI features have been added into software they already use.

This is one of the hardest parts of securing AI in stadium operations. The risk does not always come from a tool the venue selected. It may come from a tool a supplier selected or a feature the supplier did not know had been turned on.

Security teams need to treat vendor AI the same way they treat vendor access. They need to know what suppliers can connect to, what data they can see, what tools they use, and whether those tools introduce new routes for data exposure or lateral movement.

A third-party AI tool does not need deep access to create risk. Sometimes it only needs the right operational detail at the wrong time.

Four questions for securing AI in stadium operations

As AI becomes part of stadium operations, security teams need to move beyond basic approval lists. There are four questions they need to ask:

1. Where is AI being used?

This includes obvious tools, such as computer vision, access control, ticketing, logistics, and facility management. But it also includes less visible AI inside SaaS platforms, vendor tools, browser extensions, developer workflows, smart building systems, and collaboration tools.

2. What can the AI access?

Can it see incident logs, staffing plans, ticketing data, video feeds, building controls, fan information, credentials, or supplier systems? Can it only analyze information, or can it also trigger actions?

3. What can the AI do?

AI agents are not just passive tools. Some can call APIs, update records, generate instructions, trigger workflows, or act with the permissions of a user or service account. In a stadium, that distinction is critical. There is a big difference between an AI system that recommends an action and one that can take an action.

4. What does normal look like?

In your security architecture, static rules will not be enough. AI use changes quickly: tools appear inside existing platforms, vendors add new services, and staff find workarounds when they are under pressure. Security teams need to understand normal behavior across people, identities, devices, networks, cloud services, suppliers, and AI tools so they can spot when something changes.

That is especially important in live-event environments, where small anomalies can matter. A connection to an unapproved AI service may be harmless in one context and serious in another, and an AI agent taking action at 3 a.m. may be expected during setup but suspicious during a match. Context is what turns raw activity into useful security insight. It’s also what enables rapid response. Your own AI-based security systems can respond to threats at machine speed if they can build the live context to know action needs to be taken.

AI can make stadiums safer, but only if it is secured

AI has a real role to play in stadium operations. It can help teams detect crowd pressure earlier, reduce bottlenecks, manage facilities more efficiently, improve the fan experience, and support event teams during high-pressure moments.

The answer is not to slow all AI adoption. That's not the goal. The answer is to make AI visible, governed, and secure before it becomes part of match-day operations.

For stadium operators and event organizers, that means mapping AI use across the venue and supplier ecosystem. It means understanding what each AI system can access and what actions it can take. It means giving staff approved tools that meet their needs, rather than leaving them to find workarounds. It means writing AI use into vendor contracts and audits. And it means monitoring behavior across the full environment, not only the systems that are easiest to see. A stadium cannot secure what it cannot see.

When AI becomes part of how a stadium moves people, controls access, manages facilities, supports suppliers, and protects media rights, it stops being a side project. It becomes part of the event infrastructure.

Event infrastructure must be thoroughly prepared before venue gates open and sustained with the operational resilience required to support a secure, seamless, and reliable event experience.

How Darktrace helps secure AI in stadium operations

Darktrace brings more than a decade of behavioral AI expertise, built on an enterprise‑wide platform designed to operate in complex, ambiguous environments. We protect the large-scale integrated IT and OT environments that underpin stadium operations from the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, to Formula 1 Grand Prixes around the world and stadiums across the USA.

Other cybersecurity technologies try to predict each new attack based on historical attacks. The problem is that AI operates like humans do. Every action introduces new information that changes how AI behaves, making it unpredictable in nature. Historical attack tactics are now only a small part of the equation, forcing vendors to retrofit unproven acquisitions to secure AI.  

Darktrace is fundamentally different. Our Adaptive AI continuously learns how your people and AI behave, building an understanding of your organization so it can detect and respond autonomously when behavior deviates. Our Behavioral Defense Platform secures your AI, people, and infrastructure as you onboard new workflows, agents, and applications, enabling your AI transformation at scale.

As AI changes what organizations can do, Darktrace helps them move forward with confidence. We give the security teams defending the people and technology within stadium infrastructure the understanding, visibility, and autonomous action they need to protect new technologies as they are integrated into operations, so their organizations drive the progress that will define the AI era.

[related-resource]

About the author

Karim Benslimane

VP, Field CISO

Blog

AI

July 22, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Three shifts have reshaped what it means to defend an enterprise securely.

First, exploitation often begins before defenders have a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifier, a security advisory, or an entry in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Secondly, the trust boundary has moved beyond the network edge into identities, tokens, APIs, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) workflows.

Third, an increasing share of business activity is executed through automation, integrations, and AI agent-like systems that can act faster than teams can verify intent.

If your security model still relies on detecting known bad artefacts, triaging isolated alerts, and waiting for confirmation before acting, you are already behind the threat.

This is not a failure of security teams; it’s a failure of the operating model to keep pace with how the environment has changed.

A SOC built around alerts and signatures assumes that malicious activity will eventually surface as an event. In real incidents, however, the decisive evidence is rarely a single event. Instead, it is a chain of individually explainable actions that only appears malicious once you connect the dots across identity, non-human identity, cloud, email, SaaS, operational technology (OT), and network telemetry.

The defenders succeeding today observe behaviors, link them into sequences, understand what those sequences mean, and contain impact before the full story unfolds. That is the operating model the current threat environment demands.

Exploitation before disclosure

The first shift is the straightforward: the time to exploit has dropped to nearly zero.

In one example, Darktrace observed a sequence of subtle but strategically significant anomalies within a customer environment that later aligned with exploitation of CVE‑2025‑0994 in Trimble Cityworks by likely Chinese-nexus threat actors. Behavioral indicators were visible at least 18 days before public disclosure, with related anomalies emerging 40 to 50 days earlier during the intrusion window.

This case illustrates a familiar pattern: clusters of weak‑signal anomalies combing to form an actionable picture of intrusion long before a CVE is published. Such activity reflects long‑horizon, option‑preserving operator models often associated with mature state‑linked activity.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of malicious exploitation of CVE 2025-0994, later tied to Chinese-nexus threat actors targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the US, weeks before public disclosure.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, Darktrace has continued to observe the value of anomaly-based detections across a range of incidents.

CVE	CVE Public Disclosure Date	Darktrace Detection Date	Days Between Detection of Exploitation and CVE Public Disclosure
CVE 2025 0994 (Trimble City Works)	2025-02-06	2025-01-19	18 Days
CVE 2025-24183 (Apache)	2025-03-10	2025-02-18	20 days
CVE 2025-10035 (Fortra GoAnywhere)	2025-09-18	2025-09-11	7 days

Identity is the real control plane

The second shift is that identity has replaced perimeter as the primary control plane. As Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026 illustrated, identity remains the main challenge in defending against modern intrusions. A clear example is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) case published by Darktrace in December 2025. A phishing email led to the compromise of an Office 365 account. Session hijacking bypassed multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the compromised account was used for follow-on phishing and persistence activities including the creation of malicious email rules.

Every step in that sequence mattered. A successful login alone does not prove legitimacy. An inbox rule, on its own, may not appear catastrophic. Mail activity, viewed in isolation, may seem operationally normal. But the behavioral chain tells a different story: credential theft, token abuse, persistence, and onward compromise through a trusted identity.

This is why the question is no longer “Did the user authenticate successfully”. The more important question is, “Does this identity action make sense right now, in this context, given what came before it?” The AiTM case shows how identity can be compromised. In practice, however, attacks rarely remained confined to identity alone.

In another Darktrace case, a compromised SaaS account triggered activity across the email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. Viewed in isolation, none of these events were decisive. Together, however, they formed a behavioral sequence that revealed the intrusion, with the full attack story automatically correlated and surfaced to defenders by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the incident, including other users who connected to the suspicious redirect link after outbound phishing emails were sent.

AI accelerates the threat

The third shift is the one many teams still underestimate: trusted tooling, integrations, and AI agent-like systems can create actions that appear legitimate but are strategically dangerous.

The shift becomes clearer when examining how governments are now framing AI risk. In 2026, guidance published by CISA, UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Five Eyes partners warned that agentic systems expand attack surfaces, accumulate privilege, and can behave in ways that are difficult to predict or explain [1]. The advice is simple: assume unexpected behavior and design controls around it.

The real risk is not AI usage. It is unknown autonomy: systems with credentials, data access, and action paths that can execute workflow steps without sufficient behavioral validation, traceability, or human oversight. Darktrace’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) risk analysis provides a useful framework for understanding this challenge. Over-privileged agents, content injection, and tool abuse become high-consequence risks when connected systems can dynamically retrieve data, execute actions, and communicate externally.

Whether security teams like it or not, AI is already in the enterprise. It will help drive innovation, but it will also be abused, whether accidentally or maliciously. In each of the cases below, AI either scaled the attacker, built the tooling, or existed within the environment as something to exploit or misuse.

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

In one campaign targeting Mexican government entities, a single operator used commercial AI platforms to generate exploits, automate reconnaissance, and process large volumes of data, compressing work that would traditionally have required an entire team into a single workflow [2].

Darktrace is also observing this trend further down the stack. In one case, Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, where an attacker used a Large Language Model (LLM) to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale.

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com] ‍

2. AI as an Attack Surface

Attempted AI exploitation is now appearing within customer environments. In one case involving an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was seemingly used as a stepping stone to access additional AI services. When that attempt failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining.

What is clear is that the AI layer has already become an asset worth probing, exploiting, and pivoting through. It is also clear that defenders benefit from rapidly understanding how these activities connect. In this case, Cyber AI Analyst automatically pieced together the intrusion, while Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted to the customer, enabling the activity to be contained before it could progress further.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst's investigation into a compromised LLM proxy that was abused for cryptomining activity.

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

This does not require a cinematic vision of “rogue AI.” The Salesloft incident provides a more grounded example, where AI and automation operate with legitimate access but served malicious intent. In that case, attackers abused compromised OAuth tokens associated with the Drift AI chat agent to export significant volumes of data from Salesforce environments.

The activity resembled legitimate API usage and relied on trusted SaaS integrations rather than malware or other obvious signs of intrusion. That is precisely the challenge. Traditional security controls are good at detecting forced entry, but far less effective when a trusted application integration behaves in a way that is technically permitted yet operationally harmful.

In these scenarios, the security challenge shifts from validating access to validating behavior.

This is what that looks like in practice: AI-linked identities executing legitimate actions that require behavioral validation rather than access validation.

Figure 4: Darktrace / SECURE AI highlights anomalous activity across AI identities, surfacing critical behavior that requires validation and containment.

Early observations from Darktrace / SECURE AI deployments reinforce this reality. Across Darktrace's observed fleet, AI service connections per deployment increased 13% during the first half of 2026, reaching over 16 million connections overall. The typical organisation now interacts with seven different AI providers, evidence that AI is no longer operating at the edges of the enterprise. It is increasingly woven into day-to-day business activity.

The most common risks are not compromised models or advanced AI attacks. Instead, they stem from employees and business functions exposing sensitive information through entirely legitimate-looking interactions. Darktrace has observed repeated submission of personally identifiable information (PII), tax information, identification documents, and medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread use of unsanctioned (shadow) AI services and growing AI activity from mobile devices.

For defenders, the challenge is increasingly one of context: understanding when legitimate business use crosses into material risk, while preserving privacy and user trust.

Conclusion

Across all three shifts, the pattern is the same: behavior precedes understanding. Security teams are not losing because adversaries have become invisible. An increasingly outdated security model assumes that malicious activity will reveal itself cleanly and early. It no longer does.

In 2026 and beyond, defenders win by understanding behavioral sequences, continuously validating trust, and acting before certainty becomes hindsight. That is security after signatures. That is security in the AI era.

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

[1] https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services

[2]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-26/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-ai-to-steal-mexican-government-data

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Inside Akira’s SonicWall Campaign: Darktrace’s Detection and Response

Introduction: Background on Akira SonicWall campaign

Threat Overview

CVE-2024-40766 and other misconfigurations

Akira Ransomware

Victimology

Common Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) [7][10]

Darktrace’s Coverage of Akira ransomware

Reconnaissance

Lateral movement

Credential access

C2 / Additional tooling

Data exfiltration

Cyber AI Analyst

Containing the attack

Managed Detection and Response

A wider campaign?

Lessons from the campaign

Appendices

Enhanced Monitoring Models

Antigena/Autonomous Response Models

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations?

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

How Attackers Abuse the Chinese Nezha Monitoring Tool

Blog

AI

July 22, 2026

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations?

Key takeaways

Approved AI vs. shadow AI in stadium operations

Why game day increases AI cybersecurity risk

The supply chain is part of the stadium attack surface

Four questions for securing AI in stadium operations

AI can make stadiums safer, but only if it is secured

How Darktrace helps secure AI in stadium operations

Blog

AI

July 22, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Exploitation before disclosure

Identity is the real control plane

AI accelerates the threat

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

2. AI as an Attack Surface

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

Conclusion

References