April 29, 2025

MFA Under Attack: AiTM Phishing Kits Abusing Legitimate Services

Tycoon 2FA uses AiTM phishing and legitimate services to bypass MFA. Darktrace AI stopped it, read the blog to learn how Self-Learning AI detects sophisticated threats.

Written by

Alexandra Sentenac

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

Alexandra Sentenac

Cyber Analyst

Apr 2025

In late 2024 and early 2025, the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) investigated alerts regarding separate cases of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) account compromises on two customer environments that presented several similarities, suggesting they were part of a wider phishing campaign.

This campaign was found to leverage the project collaboration and note-taking application, Milanote, and the Tycoon 2FA phishing kit.

Legitimate services abused

As highlighted in Darktrace's 2024 Annual Threat Report [1], threat actors are abusing legitimate services, like Milanote, in their phishing campaigns. By leveraging these trusted platforms and domains, malicious actors can bypass traditional security measures, making their phishing emails appear benign and increasing the likelihood of successful attacks.

Darktrace categorizes these senders and platforms as free content senders. These services allow users to send emails containing custom content (e.g., files) from fully validated, fixed service address belonging to legitimate corporations. Although some of these services permit full body and subject customization by attackers, the structure of these emails is generally consistent, making it challenging to differentiate between legitimate and malicious emails.

What is Tycoon 2FA?

Tycoon 2FA is an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM) phishing kit, first seen in August 2023 and distributed via the Phishing-as-a-Service (PhaaS) model [2]. It targets multi-factor authentication (MFA) by intercepting credentials and MFA tokens during authentication on fake Microsoft or Google login pages. The attacker captures session cookies after MFA is completed, allowing them to replay the session and access the user account, even if credentials are reset. The rise in MFA use has increased the popularity of AitM phishing kits like Tycoon 2FA and Mamba 2FA, another AiTM phishing kit investigated by Darktrace.

Initial access via phishing email

At the beginning of 2025, Darktrace observed phishing emails leveraging Milanote being sent to multiple internal recipients in an organization. In this attack, the same email was sent to 19 different users, all of which were held by Darktrace.

The subject line of the emails mentioned both a legitimate internal user of the company, the company name, as well as a Milanote board regarding a “new agreement” in German. It is a common social engineering technique to mention urgent matters, such as unpaid invoices, expired passwords, or awaiting voicemails, in the subject line to prompt immediate action from the user. However, this tactic is now widely covered in phishing awareness training, making users more suspicious of such emails. In this case, while the subject mentioned a “new agreement,” likely raising the recipient’s curiosity, the tone remained professional and not overly alarming. Additionally, the mention of a colleague and the standardized language typical of free content sender emails further helped dispel concerns regarding the email.

These emails were sent by the legitimate address support@milanote[.]com and referenced "Milanote" in the personal field of the header but originated from the freemail address “ahnermatternk.ef.od.13@gmail[.]com”. Darktrace / EMAIL recognized that none of the recipients had previously received a file share email from Milanote, making this sender unfamiliar in the customer's email environment

The emails contained several benign links to legitimate Milanote endpoints (including an unsubscribe link) which were not flagged by Darktrace. However, they also included a malicious link designed to direct recipients to a pre-filled credential harvesting page hosted on Milanote, prompting them to register for an account. Despite not blocking the legitimate Milanote links in the same email, Darktrace locked the malicious link, preventing users from visiting the credential harvester.

Figure 1: Credential harvesting page sent to recipients, as seen in. sandbox environment.

Around one minute later, one recipient received a legitimate email from Milanote confirming their successful account registration, indicating they had accessed the phishing page. This email had a lower anomaly score and was not flagged by Darktrace / EMAIL because, unlike the first email, it did not contain any suspicious links and was a genuine account registration notification. Similarly, in the malicious Milanote email, only the link leading to the phishing page was blocked, while the benign and legitimate Milanote links remained accessible, demonstrating Darktrace’s precise and targeted actioning.

Figure 2: A legitimate and a malicious Milanote email received by one recipient.

Around the same time, Darktrace / NETWORK observed the same user’s device making DNS query for the domain name “lrn.ialeahed[.]com” , which has been flagged as a Tycoon 2FA domain [2], suggesting the use of this phishing platform.

Once the user had entered their details in the credential harvester, it is likely that they were presented a document hosted on Milanote that contained the final payload link – likely hidden behind text instructing users to access a “new agreement” document.

External research indicates that the user was likely directed to a Cloudflare Turnstile challenge meant to reroute unwanted traffic, such as automated security scripts and penetration testing tools [2] [3]. After these checks and other background processes are completed, the user is directed to the final landing page. In this case, it was likely a fake login prompt hosted on the attacker’s server, where the user is asked to authenticate to their account using MFA. By burrowing malicious links and files in this manner, threat actors can evade analysis by traditional security email gateways, effectively bypassing their protection.

Darktrace’s analysis of the structure and word content of the phishing emails resulted in an 82% probability score that the email was malicious, and the email further received a 67% phishing inducement score, representing how closely the structure and word content of the emails compared to typical phishing emails.

All these unusual elements triggered multiple alerts in Darktrace / EMAIL, focusing on two main suspicious aspects: a new, unknown sender with no prior correspondence with the recipients or the environment, and the inclusion of a link to a previously unseen file storage solution.

Figure 3: Milanote phishing email as seen within Darktrace / EMAIL.

After detecting the fifth email, the “Sender Surge” model alert was triggered in Darktrace / EMAIL due to a significant number of recipients being emailed by this new suspicious sender in a short period. These recipients were from various departments across the customer’s organization, including sales, marketing, purchasing, and production. Darktrace / EMAIL determined that the emails were sent to a highly unusual group of internal recipients, further raising doubts about the business legitimacy.

Darktrace / EMAIL suggested actions to contain the attack by holding all Milanote phishing emails back from recipient’s inboxes, except for the detailed email with locked links. However, autonomous actions were not enabled at the time, allowing the initial email to reach recipients' inboxes, providing a brief window for interaction. Unfortunately, during this window, one recipient clicked on the Milanote payload link, leading to the compromise of their account.

SaaS account takeover

About three minutes after the malicious Milanote email was received, Darktrace / IDENTITY detected an unusual login to the email recipient’s SaaS account. The SaaS actor was observed accessing files from their usual location in Germany, while simultaneously, a 100% rare login occurred from a location in the US that had never been seen in the customer’s environment before. This login was also flagged as suspicious by Microsoft 365, triggering a 'Conditional Access Policy' that required MFA authentication, which was successfully completed.

Figure 4: Tycoon 2FA adnimistration panel login page dated from October 2023 [3].

Despite the successful authentication, Darktrace / IDENTITY recognized that the login from this unusual location, coupled with simultaneous activity in another geographically distant location, were highly suspicious. Darktrace went on to observe MFA-validated logins from three separate US-based IP addresses: 89.185.80[.]19, 5.181.3[.]68, and 38.242.7[.]252. Most of the malicious activity was performed from the latter, which is associated with the Hide My Ass (HMA) VPN network [5].

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of the suspicious login from the US while the legitimate user was logged in from Germany.

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of the suspicious login following successful MFA authentication.

Following this, the malicious actor accessed the user’s inbox and created a new mailbox rule named “GTH” that deleted any incoming email containing the string “milanote” in the subject line or body. Rules like this are a common technique used by attackers to leverage compromised accounts for launching phishing campaigns and concealing replies to phishing emails that might raise suspicions among legitimate account holders. Using legitimate, albeit compromised, accounts to send additional phishing emails enhances the apparent legitimacy of the malicious emails. This tactic has been reported as being used by Tycoon 2FA attackers [4].

The attacker accessed over 140 emails within the legitimate user’s inbox, including both the inbox and the “Sent Items” folder. Notably, the attacker accessed five emails in the “Sent Items” folder and modified their attachments. These emails were mainly related to invoices, suggesting the threat actor may have been looking to hijack those email threads to send fake invoices or replicate previous invoice emails.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst^TM launched autonomous investigations into the individual events surrounding this suspicious activity. It connected these separate events into a single, broad account takeover incident, providing the customer with a clearer view of the ongoing compromise.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of unusual SaaS account activities in a single incident.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation of suspicious activities performed by the attacker.

Darktrace's response

Within three minutes of the first unusual login alert, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response intervened, disabling the compromised user account for two hours.

As the impacted customer was subscribed to the Managed Threat Detection Service, Darktrace’s SOC team investigated the activity further and promptly alerted the customer’s security team. With the user’s account still disabled by Autonomous Response, the attack was contained, allowing the customer’s security team valuable time to investigate and remediate. Within ten minutes of receiving the alert from Darktrace’s SOC, they reset the user’s password, closed all active SaaS sessions, and deleted the malicious email rule. Darktrace’s SOC further supported the customer through the Security Operations Service Support service by providing information about the data accessed and identifying any other affected users.

Figure 9: Autonomous Response actions carried out by Darktrace / IDENTITY to contain the malicious activity.

A wider Milanote phishing campaign?

Around a month before this compromise activity, Darktrace alerted another customer to similar activities involving two compromised user accounts. These accounts created new inbox rules named “GFH” and “GVB” to delete all incoming emails containing the string “milanote” in their subject line and/or body.

The phishing emails that led to the compromise of these user accounts were similar to the ones discussed above. Specifically, these emails were sent via the Milanote platform and referenced a “new agreement” (in Spanish) being shared by a colleague. Additionally, the payload link included in the phishing emails showed the same UserPrincipalName (UPN) attribute (i.e., click?upn=u001.qLX9yCzR), which has been seen in other Milanote phishing emails leveraging Tycoon 2FA reported by OSINT sources [6]. Interestingly, in some cases, the email also referenced a “new agreement” in Portuguese, indicating a global campaign.

Based on the similarities in the rule’s naming convention and action, as well as the similarities in the phishing email subjects, it is likely that these were part of the same campaign leveraging Milanote and Tycoon 2FA to compromise user accounts. Since its introduction, the Tycoon 2FA phishing kit has undergone several enhancements to increase its stealth and obfuscation methods, making it harder for security tools to detect. For example, the latest versions contain special source code to obstruct web page analysis by defenders, prevent users from copying meaningful text from the phishing webpages, and disable the right-click menu to prevent offline analysis [4].

Conclusion

Threat actors are continually employing new methods to bypass security detection tools and measures. As highlighted in this blog, even robust security mechanisms like MFA can be compromised using AitM phishing kits. The misuse of legitimate services such as Milanote for malicious purposes can help attackers evade traditional email security solutions by blurring the distinction between legitimate and malicious content.

This is why security tools based on anomaly detection are crucial for defending against such attacks. However, user awareness is equally important. Delays in processing can impact the speed of response, making it essential for users to be informed about these threats.

[related-resource]

Appendices

References

[1] https://www.darktrace.com/resources/annual-threat-report-2024

[2] https://www.validin.com/blog/tycoon_2fa_analyzing_and_hunting_phishing-as-a-service_domains

[3] https://blog.sekoia.io/tycoon-2fa-an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-latest-version-of-the-aitm-phishing-kit/#h-iocs-amp-technical-details

[4] https://blog.barracuda.com/2025/01/22/threat-spotlight-tycoon-2fa-phishing-kit

[5] https://spur.us/context/38.242.7.252

[6] https://any.run/report/5ef1ac94e4c6c1dc35579321c206453aea80d414108f9f77abd2e2b03ffbd658/be5351d9-53c0-470b-8708-ee2e29300e70

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC Type Description + Probability

89.185.80[.]19 - IP Address - Malicious login

5.181.3[.]68 - IP Address -Malicious login

38.242.7[.]252 - IP Address - Malicious login and new email inbox rule creation - Hide My Ass VPN

lrn.ialeahed[.]com – Hostname - Likely Tycoon 2FA domain

Darktrace Model Detections

Email alerts

Platforms / Free Content Sender + High Sender Surge

Platforms / Free Content Sender + Sender Surge

Platforms / Free Content Sender + Unknown Initiator

Platforms / Free Content Sender

Platforms / Free Content Sender + First Time Recipient

Unusual / New Sender Surge

Unusual / Sender Surge

Antigena Anomaly / High Antigena Anomaly

Association / Unknown Sender

History / New Sender

Link / High Rarity Link to File Storage

Link/ Link To File Storage

Link / Link to File Storage + Unknown Sender

Link / Low Link Association

Platforms / Free Content Sender + First Time Initiator

Platforms / Free Content Sender + Unknown Initiator + Freemail

Platforms / Free Content Sender Link

Unusual / Anomalous Association

Unusual / Unlikely Recipient Association

IDENTITY

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

SaaS / Compromise / Login from Rare High Risk Endpoint

SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login

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

SaaS / Access / MailItemsAccessed from Rare Endpoint

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual External Sources For SaaS Credential

SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS User Block

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Unusual Activity Block

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS and Email Activity Block

Cyber AI Analyst Incident

Possible Hijack of Office365 Account

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - Cloud Accounts

INITIAL ACCESS - Phishing

CREDENTIAL ACCESS - Steal Web Session Cookie

PERSISTENCE - Account Manipulation

PERSISTENCE - Outlook Rules

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Email Accounts

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - Compromise Accounts

Experts breakdown of Identity Security in the Cloud Era

This white paper discusses the current identity threat landscape and how defenders can adopt new tools to better secure their users and data.

Inside the SOC

Written by

Alexandra Sentenac

Cyber Analyst

•

October 21, 2026

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Senior Product Executive

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

OT

October 21, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

In October 2026, hundreds of supermarkets across France were reportedly affected by a cyberattack targeting their refrigeration systems. According to public reports, the attackers gained access to internet-connected controllers and modified their settings, forcing refrigeration units into high and extremely low temperatures and causing significant disruption. Total losses have been reported to reach several million euros.

The incident drew attention to the security of industrial refrigeration systems, particularly older devices with exposed management interfaces and known vulnerabilities.

The exact details of how the attackers gained access have not been confirmed, however it is speculated that the public-facing web server could be accessed with the username “admin” and password being the current date. Researchers from Claroty’s Team82 identified a vulnerability in Danfoss AK-SM 8xxA Series in 2025, “CVE-2025-41450", allowing for administrative access using a time-based “code-of-the-day" for authentication [1].

Default credentials, outdated firmware and publicly accessible administrative interfaces have been an issue for years. And yet these systems continue to appear in internet scans and require little sophistication to gain admin access. A simple search of internet-connected devices shows a range of exposed devices from Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and remote gateways, to, yes, more fridges.

Darktrace malware researchers identified hundreds of IoT and OT devices publicly exposed on the internet, many of which are configured with no authentication, weak credentials, or default credentials. As shown in Figure 1, an exposed Copeland XWEB web interface, used to manage Dixell equipment, including refrigerators, can provide the ability to remotely control connected devices.

‍

Figure 1: Copeland XWEB interface used to control systems including refrigerators and air conditioning.

However, it’s not only fridges; web management interfaces for industrial controls are also publicly accessible, often protected only by weak credentials. Figure 2 shows an example of a publicly exposed WAGO interface. The WAGO management interface is a configuration and administration panel for controllers. Through it, a logged-in user can view device details and diagnostics, manage user accounts and passwords, update firmware, back up or restore the full configuration, set the clock, and manage SD card storage. While it typically doesn’t manage switch outputs or read live process values, someone with access could still disrupt operation by changing network or Modbus settings, loading bad firmware or configurations, or by resetting passwords and enabling insecure services.

‍

‍

The issue extends beyond management interfaces. During our research, we identified publicly accessible web interfaces belonging to PLCs, including Rockwell Automation Allen-Bradley devices. In each case, the risk arises from how the devices have been deployed and configured, not from a flaw in the vendors’ products.

‍

Figure 3: Web interface for Allen-Bradley CompactLogix controller.

‍

Figure 3 shows the web interface of an Allen-Bradley CompactLogix controller. Unlike the previous examples, this interface provides a view into the controller's operation, including running tasks, network connections, memory usage and diagnostic information. Rockwell Automation's CompactLogix controllers are commonly used to automate industrial processes, from manufacturing and packaging lines to water treatment and material handling systems. Depending on their configuration, these controllers can operate motors, pumps, valves and other physical equipment.

Although in this example the interface shown does not provide direct control over the PLC's logic, it exposes information about the model, firmware, network layout, and connections, which is useful reconnaissance for a bigger attack.

The concern is not necessarily that every exposed interface allows an attacker to immediately manipulate industrial processes. However, these devices are accessible from the public internet in the first place, providing information about systems that may be responsible for controlling physical equipment.

The attacks on refrigeration systems in France highlight the consequences of poorly secured industrial devices. As demonstrated throughout this research, publicly accessible management interfaces are not limited to refrigeration controllers but extend to PLCs and other systems used to manage industrial equipment.

Finding these devices requires little effort. Internet scanners make it possible to identify publicly exposed interfaces quickly, and in some cases these interfaces rely on publicly documented default credentials or have no authentication at all. As attackers increasingly use AI tools, such attacks may be identified and carried out faster and at a greater scale.

The consequences of this access depend on the device and the functionality exposed. While some interfaces provide little more than diagnostic information, others allow users to modify configurations, disrupt communications, or change settings that affect physical equipment. In industrial environments, this can result in operational downtime, damaged equipment and financial losses.

Weak passwords, default credentials and exposed administrative interfaces are not new security issues. Yet their continued presence on internet-connected industrial systems demonstrates how easily preventable weaknesses can leave physical operations vulnerable to attack.

Exposed devices often come from third-party suppliers and contractors, who frequently install refrigeration controllers, gateways and PLCs without the organization ever being aware they are connected to the internet. Asset visibility remains an important foundation, but organizations should assume that some unknown assets and services will exist. Effective security therefore also depends on continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, network segmentation and rapid response, so that risky exposure and unusual activity can be identified and addressed before it becomes disruptive.

Darktrace helps security teams gain visibility across IT and OT and respond to risks: https://www.darktrace.com/products/operational-technology.

Copeland, Dixell, WAGO, Rockwell Automation, Allen-Bradley and CompactLogix are trademarks of their respective owners. Their use here is for identification only and does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by those owners.

References

1. https://claroty.com/team82/research/freeze-the-controller-defrost-the-food-uncovering-vulnerabilities-in-danfoss-refrigeration-controllers

‍

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Blog

Network

October 20, 2026

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Kubernetes has become a foundational technology for modern cloud-native infrastructure. It can orchestrate everything from customer-facing applications to data pipelines and, increasingly, AI workloads. This is due to the highly scalable nature of Kubernetes, making it cost efficient and reliable.

Gartner projects that by 2028, 95% of new AI deployments will run on Kubernetes, up from less than 30% today¹. However, the same qualities that make Kubernetes powerful also make it uniquely challenging to secure, leaving many organizations with limited visibility into their clusters. This lack of visibility increases risk - it’s difficult to secure what you can’t see.

However, this risk is often looked at as purely a posture management challenge. While Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) solutions can tell you how a cluster should be configured, they don’t tell you what it is doing in real time. This requires runtime behavioral monitoring of clusters to detect active threats.

Yet existing approaches to securing Kubernetes by most Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) and Network Detection and Response (NDR) vendors often have limited coverage or require a third-party integration to forward traffic and metadata. This means that capabilities can be limited and detections can lack the context of the wider environment, which slows down triage, investigation and response.

Why Kubernetes is hard to secure

Traditional security tooling was built for persistent, long-term infrastructure such as servers and virtual machines with fixed identities that last months or years. Some elements of Kubernetes environments can have a much shorter lifespan, breaking many assumptions those tools rely on:

Increased complexity
1. Kubernetes environments can be complex in comparison to traditional infrastructure, with many different elements to consider such as nodes, clusters, containers, pods and the workloads themselves.
Ephemeral by design
1. Kubernetes pods can spin up and terminate in seconds. A container that was compromised may no longer exist by the time a deeper investigation is required, leaving no artifact to analyze. This poses a unique challenge for security operations.
Weaker workload boundaries
1. Kubernetes containers use lightweight, shared-kernel isolation rather than separate virtual machines, improving efficiency but reducing separation between workloads and the host. As a result, a compromised container may have a greater potential impact on the node and neighboring workloads than a compromised virtual machine (VM).²
2. Recent vulnerabilities have shown that threat actors can escape a container and gain access to the underlying host.^{3, 4}
Everything is API-driven
1. Dozens or hundreds of microservices communicate over internal APIs, and the Kubernetes control plane itself is an API. This creates a large and dynamic attack surface, making it difficult to distinguish legitimate activity from malicious behavior.
2. Without identity-aware runtime visibility, threat actors can move laterally between pods and exploit misconfigured role-based access controls (RBAC) with little chance of detection.

Rising to the challenge of securing Kubernetes

With the release of Darktrace 7.2, Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK can extend behavioral security into Kubernetes, delivering visibility, detection and response capabilities across runtime activity. Darktrace addresses the challenges of securing Kubernetes environments in several ways.

Behavioral detection, not static rules

Many Kubernetes runtime tools rely on predefined rules and signatures - a fixed list of “bad” behaviors to match against. That approach struggles with novel attacks and generates noise at scale. Darktrace takes a different approach: our Adaptive AI builds a Unique Behavioral Profile for each organization from the ground up, learning the normal behavior of every workload, node and identity in your cluster. It then uses this understanding to detect meaningful deviations from expected behavior, which serves as the basis for surfacing suspicious and malicious activity.

A pod reaching out to an unfamiliar destination, an unexpected executable launching inside a workload, or an identity performing an action it has never performed, all surface as anomalies without anyone having to write a rule in advance.

Darktrace surfaces unexpected Kubernetes activity that does not align with an organization’s Unique Behavioral Profile

‍

Visibility across the network, the process, and the control plane

Darktrace monitors Kubernetes at three levels that together provide comprehensive runtime visibility:

Network-layer
1. Traffic between pods, across nodes and out to the internet. This helps to detect lateral movement and unusual connectivity, whether internal or external.
Process-layer
1. What is executing inside your containers. If a process reads a sensitive credential file or spawns an unexpected shell inside a production pod, Darktrace can identify that activity and use it as context for further detections.
Control plane
1. Activity against the Kubernetes API itself: someone executes a command in a running pod, RBAC changes, or unusual administrative actions. Many high-impact security events involve the control plane, an area that is often less visible to solutions that only analyze or scan network-layer telemetry.

Misconfiguration and vulnerability awareness

Runtime detection is strongest when combined with posture and exposure management. Darktrace surfaces risky pod configurations, such as privileged containers, host networking, and over-permissive service accounts as workloads are deployed, and links CVEs from images to the workloads running them. Security teams can go beyond simply knowing that a vulnerability exists and see exactly where it is in the cluster. When combined with behavior-based detections, this provides invaluable context that can help prioritize incidents and proactively identify areas that need further attention. For example, anomalous workload behavior on its own might not be very interesting to a security team at first, but if that same workload is known to host sensitive data, is known to have critical vulnerabilities associated with it, or is publicly accessible, then this narrative becomes much more suspicious and demanding of their attention.

Darktrace highlights Kubernetes misconfigurations such as privileged containers, host networking, and missing security controls, helping teams prioritize runtime alerts with valuable exposure and risk context

‍

Response, tailored to Kubernetes

Detection is most effective when paired with response. Darktrace can take precise actions on Kubernetes workloads, including blocking a malicious connection at the pod level, helping to safely contain threats while security teams investigate. Response actions can be taken fully autonomously or via a human-in-the-loop process, which is completely configurable depending on the desired level of autonomy and scope. Darktrace is expanding the number of Kubernetes-native response actions to give customers even more flexibility when containing threats.

Forensics that survive the workload

Because containers are so short-lived, evidence disappears fast and this can make it very difficult to answer questions related to the initial detections. Darktrace solves this with Forensic Acquisition & Investigation capabilities that extend to Kubernetes containers, allowing investigations to be triggered manually by an analyst, or automatically from an alert, preserving evidence before the workload is gone.

For incident responders, this addresses a key challenge in container security: being able to answer “what actually happened?” after an ephemeral workload has vanished.

One platform, not another silo

Kubernetes doesn't exist in isolation, and neither should its security. Darktrace correlates cluster activity with the surrounding cloud environment, including AWS, Azure and GCP identities, network activity and cloud assets, allowing analysts to pivot between a Kubernetes workload and its wider context. A single anomalous action can be traced from the control plane to the pod, and from the pod to the cloud identity behind it, all within a single investigation workflow. This can also include alerts from other areas of hybrid infrastructure or third-party sources where relevant, adding more context to investigations and speeding up workflows for human analysts.

Built to deploy easily

Operational complexity can be a barrier to security adoption. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK for Kubernetes installs with a single command, and for teams that manage their infrastructure as code, it supports raw manifests so the deployment can live in a Git repository and be managed through existing GitOps workflows. The same deployment approach works across Kubernetes environments in AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and on-premises infrastructure. Early adopters of Darktrace’s Kubernetes capabilities have highlighted the simplicity of deployment and time to value.

Darktrace can deploy across your Kubernetes environment and wider hybrid infrastructure, while also providing visibility into Kubernetes deployment structure and status

Next steps

Kubernetes environments are dynamic, ephemeral and API-driven in ways that challenge traditional security tooling. With Kubernetes usage increasing due to widespread AI adoption, it is essential to secure Kubernetes environments as part of securing what AI can do. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK addresses these challenges by learning normal behavior in Kubernetes environments across network, process and control-plane layers, identifying meaningful threats and enabling targeted response. Combined with the context of wider hybrid infrastructure and forensic investigation capabilities, Darktrace provides visibility into both emerging threats and active incidents.

To see how Darktrace can help secure your Kubernetes environment and your wider hybrid infrastructure, get in touch to arrange your free trial. Existing customers can contact their Darktrace Account Team for more information about deployment options and licensing.

‍

Sources

[1] Gartner, Container Management research, 2025: "By 2028, 95% of new AI deployments will use Kubernetes, up from less than 30% today." https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7913109. (quote reproduced under Gartner reprint at https://www.kubermatic.com/magic-quadrant-and-critical-capabilities-for-container-management/)

[2] Palo Alto Networks (Unit 42) – Container Breakouts: Escape Techniques in Cloud Environments. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/container-escape-techniques/

[3] runC container-escape vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-31133, CVE-2025-52565, CVE-2025-52881), disclosed by a SUSE researcher on November 5, 2025. https://www.securityweek.com/runc-vulnerabilities-can-be-exploited-to-escape-containers/

[4] NVIDIAScape (CVE-2025-23266), CVSS 9.0. https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5659

[related-resource]

‍

About the author

Elise Longhurst

Senior Product Executive

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

MFA Under Attack: AiTM Phishing Kits Abusing Legitimate Services

Legitimate services abused

What is Tycoon 2FA?

Initial access via phishing email

SaaS account takeover

Darktrace's response

A wider Milanote phishing campaign?

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Darktrace Model Detections

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Experts breakdown of Identity Security in the Cloud Era

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

From VPS to Phishing: How Darktrace Uncovered SaaS Hijacks through Virtual Infrastructure Abuse

Defending the Cloud: Stopping Cyber Threats in Azure and AWS with Darktrace

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

Blog

OT

October 21, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

References

Blog

Network

October 20, 2026

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Why Kubernetes is hard to secure

Rising to the challenge of securing Kubernetes

Behavioral detection, not static rules

Visibility across the network, the process, and the control plane

Misconfiguration and vulnerability awareness

Response, tailored to Kubernetes

Forensics that survive the workload

One platform, not another silo

Built to deploy easily

Next steps