February 27, 2025

New Threat on the Prowl: Investigating Lynx Ransomware

Lynx ransomware, emerging in 2024, targets finance, architecture, and manufacturing sectors with phishing and double extortion. Read on for Darktrace's findings.

Written by

Justin Torres

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

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Feb 2025

What is Lynx ransomware?

In mid-2024, a new ransomware actor named Lynx emerged in the threat landscape. This Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) strain is known to target organizations in the finance, architecture, and manufacturing sectors [1] [2]. However, Darktrace’s Threat Research teams also identified Lynx incidents affecting energy and retail organizations in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific (APAC) regions. Despite being a relatively new actor, Lynx’s malware shares large portions of its source code with the INC ransomware variant, suggesting that the group may have acquired and repurposed the readily available INC code to develop its own strain [2].

What techniques does Lynx ransomware group use?

Lynx employs several common attack vectors, including phishing emails which result in the download and installation of ransomware onto systems upon user interaction. The group poses a sophisticated double extortion threat to organizations, exfiltrating sensitive data prior to encryption [1]. This tactic allows threat actors to pressure their targets by threatening to release sensitive information publicly or sell it if the ransom is not paid. The group has also been known to gradually release small batches of sensitive information (i.e., “drip” data) to increase pressure.

Once executed, the malware encrypts files and appends the extension ‘.LYNX’ to all encrypted files. It eventually drops a Base64 encoded text file as a ransom note (i.e., README.txt) [1]. Should initial file encryption attempts fail, the operators have been known to employ privilege escalation techniques to ensure full impact [2].

In the Annual Threat Report 2024, Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified Lynx ransomware as one of the top five most significant threats, impacting both its customers and the broader threat landscape.

Darktrace Coverage of Lynx Ransomware

In cases of Lynx ransomware observed across the Darktrace customer base, Darktrace / NETWORK identified and suggested Autonomous Response actions to contain network compromises from the onset of activity.

Detection of lateral movement

One such Lynx compromise occurred in December 2024 when Darktrace observed multiple indicators of lateral movement on a customer network. The lateral movement activity started with a high volume of attempted binds to the service control endpoint of various destination devices, suggesting SMB file share enumeration. This activity also included repeated attempts to establish internal connections over destination port 445, as well as other privileged ports. Spikes in failed internal connectivity, such as those exhibited by the device in question, can indicate network scanning. Elements of the internal connectivity also suggested the use of the attack and reconnaissance tool, Nmap.

Indicators of compromised administrative credentials

Although an initial access point could not be confirmed, the widespread use of administrative credentials throughout the lateral movement process demonstrated the likely compromise of such privileged usernames and passwords. The operators of the malware frequently used both 'admin' and 'administrator' credentials throughout the incident, suggesting that attackers may have leveraged compromised default administrative credentials to gain access and escalate privileges. These credentials were observed on numerous devices across the network, triggering Darktrace models that detect unusual use of administrative usernames via methods like NTLM and Kerberos.

Data exfiltration

The lateral movement and reconnaissance behavior was then followed by unusual internal and external data transfers. One such device exhibited an unusual spike in internal data download activity, downloading around 150 GiB over port 3260 from internal network devices. The device then proceeded to upload large volumes of data to the external AWS S3 storage bucket: wt-prod-euwest1-storm.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws[.]com. Usage of external cloud storage providers is a common tactic to avoid detection of exfiltration, given the added level of legitimacy afforded by cloud service provider domains.

Furthermore, Darktrace observed the device exhibiting behavior suggesting the use of the remote management tool AnyDesk when it made outbound TCP connections to hostnames such as:

relay-48ce591e[.]net[.]anydesk[.]com

relay-c9990d24[.]net[.]anydesk[.]com

relay-da1ad7b4[.]net[.]anydesk[.]com

Tools like AnyDesk can be used for legitimate administrative purposes. However, such tools are also commonly leveraged by threat actors to enable remote access and further compromise activity. The activity observed from the noted device during this time suggests the tool was used by the ransomware operators to advance their compromise goals.

The observed activity culminated in the encryption of thousands of files with the '.Lynx' extension. Darktrace detected devices performing uncommon SMB write and move operations on the drives of destination network devices, featuring the appending of the Lynx extension to local host files. Darktrace also identified similar levels of SMB read and write sizes originating from certain devices. Parallel volumes of SMB read and write activity strongly suggest encryption, as the malware opens, reads, and then encrypts local files on the hosted SMB disk share. This encryption activity frequently highlighted the use of the seemingly-default credential: "Administrator".

In this instance, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was configured to only take action upon human confirmation, meaning the customer’s security team had to manually apply any suggested actions. Had the deployment been fully autonomous, Darktrace would have blocked connectivity to and from the affected devices, giving the customer additional time to contain the attack and enforce existing network behavior patterns while the IT team responded accordingly.

Conclusion

As reported by Darktrace’s Threat Research team in the Annual Threat Report 2024, both new and old ransomware strains were prominent across the threat landscape last year. Due to the continually improving security postures of organizations, ransomware actors are forced to constantly evolve and adopt new tactics to successfully carry out their attacks.

The Lynx group’s use of INC source code, for example, suggests a growing accessibility for threat actors to launch new ransomware strains based on existing code – reducing the cost, resources, and expertise required to build new malware and carry out an attack. This decreased barrier to entry will surely lead to an increased number of ransomware incidents, with attacks not being limited to experienced threat actors.

While Darktrace expects ransomware strains like Lynx to remain prominent in the threat landscape in 2025 and beyond, Darktrace’s ability to identify and respond to emerging ransomware incidents – as demonstrated here – ensures that customers can safeguard their networks and resume normal business operations as quickly as possible, even in an increasingly complex threat landscape.

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst).

[related-resource]

Appendices

References

1. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/inc-ransomware-rebrand-to-lynx/

2. https://cybersecsentinel.com/lynx-ransomware-strikes-new-targets-unveiling-advanced-encryption-techniques/

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

· Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Active Threat SMB Write Block

· Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

· Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Network Scan Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Internal Anomalous File Activity

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Pattern of Life Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

Darktrace / NETWORK Model Alerts

· Device::Multiple Lateral Movement Model Alerts

· Device::Suspicious Network Scan Activity

· Anomalous File::Internal::Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

· Device::SMB Lateral Movement

· Compliance::SMB Drive Write

· Compromise::Ransomware::Suspicious SMB Activity

· Anomalous File::Internal::Unusual SMB Script Write

· Device::Network Scan

· Device::Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

· Device::RDP Scan

· Unusual Activity::Anomalous SMB Move & Write

· Anomalous Connection::Sustained MIME Type Conversion

· Compromise::Ransomware::SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions

· Unusual Activity::Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity

· Device::ICMP Address Scan

· Compromise::Ransomware::Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB

· Anomalous Connection::Suspicious Read Write Ratio

· Anomalous File::Internal::Masqueraded Executable SMB Write

· Compliance::Possible Unencrypted Password File On Server

· User::New Admin Credentials on Client

· Compliance::Remote Management Tool On Server

· User::New Admin Credentials on Server

· Anomalous Connection::Unusual Admin RDP Session

· Anomalous Connection::Download and Upload

· Anomalous Connection::Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

· Unusual Activity::Unusual File Storage Data Transfer

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

- ‘. LYNX’ - File Extension - Lynx Ransomware file extension appended to encrypted files

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Technique Name - Tactic - ID - Sub-Technique of)

Taint Shared Content - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1080

Data Encrypted for - Impact - IMPACT T1486

Rename System Utilities - DEFENSE EVASION - T1036.003 - T1036

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2025.

Inside the SOC

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

•

October 29, 2026

Daniel Levy

Threat Hunting Data Scientist

•

October 22, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

November 3, 2026

From One Alert to a Wider Campaign: Uncovering Novel Threats Through Behavioral Analysis

Key Findings

Darktrace’s Threat Research team is exploring a new method to identify malicious campaigns by correlating similar anomalous activity across its customer fleet.
The method uses unsupervised clustering to identify shared behavioral patterns across multiple customer deployments without relying on prior indicators of compromise (IoCs).
The approach identified shared infrastructure across dozens of customers, with activity linked to the likely POPA botnet.
A second cluster identified anomalous activity associated with Monero cryptocurrency mining.

‍

How does Darktrace conduct threat research?

The Darktrace Threat Research team aims to identify malicious campaign activity affecting multiple customers. By their nature, these campaigns will lead to shared behavioral patterns across multiple victims.

In this piece, we describe a method for identifying malicious campaign activity that uses this simple observation as a guiding principle. We begin by outlining a few key facts about the modern threat landscape and why behavioral detection is necessary to meet the challenges it presents. We then explore how fleet-wide behavioral detections can be leveraged using the principle above to systematically identify multi-deployment campaigns impacting the Darktrace customer fleet. Finally, we demonstrate that this research is not purely theoretical, using real examples of campaign activity detected through this novel approach.

Shifting to a behavioral-focused approach

The modern era of cyber-defense necessitates detection capabilities beyond traditional signature-based methods. Technologies such as antivirus signatures, hash-based malware identification, and IP blocklists have historically been successful in defending against known threats. However, they are easily circumvented by attackers and inherently limited in defending against the novel attack techniques that today's threat landscape is producing.

Recent breakthroughs in AI represent a transformational risk multiplier that cannot be ignored. AI systems do not merely execute existing attacks at machine speed; there are signs they can also synthesize novel tradecraft [1], increasing the likelihood that defenders will encounter attack patterns that have never previously been observed. Meanwhile vulnerability disclosures continue to accelerate. More than 48,000 CVEs were published in 2025, and published statistics to date indicate that 2026 is already on track to significantly exceed that figure [2]. While multiple factors may contribute to vulnerability discovery, AI is seen as a key factor in this rapid growth. Organizations should expect a growing proportion of malicious activity to fall outside the scope of detections that rely solely on prior knowledge of known threats.

By design, Darktrace’s behavioral and anomaly-focused detection capabilities are well-suited to this testing landscape. With a focus on detecting unknown and unexpected activity that deviates from the baseline of “normal” behavior, detection of CVE exploitation without prior knowledge of the vulnerability and before public disclosure, for example, is achievable [3][4].

Darktrace’s diverse customer base benefits from a further layer of protection: working with only deidentified alert metadata, our threat researchers hunt proactively across the fleet. Beyond the level of the individual customer, there is a second, larger vantage to be leveraged.

Darktrace data provides unique insight into the unexpected behavioral patterns that occur across its customer fleet. What can we see if we look at this fleet-wide telemetry and hunt for systematic behavioral campaigns that impact our customer base?

Correlating across the customer base

At the deployment level, Darktrace focuses on whether activity is unusual in the context of an organization's normal behavior, but as we zoom out and look at these alerts at the fleet level, the problem fundamentally changes . We are no longer seeking anomalies in largely normal data; we are seeking systematic patterns within data already known to be anomalous. An isolated behavior anomaly may be notable for a single customer; the same fingerprint across dozens is a signal of a structured campaign. Hunting for such campaigns and sharing our findings are key areas of focus for Darktrace’s Threat Research team. In this spirit, Darktrace is actively exploring a a new research approach that leverages deidentified alert metadata to increase campaign detection ability.

This approach is based on the premise that an expert human analyst presented with a set of alerts will identify likely related activity by assessing whether the metadata fields indicate a relationship. For example, two connections to a rare endpoint that exhibits naming structure that is likely from a single algorithm are a strong indicator, as is the use of an unusual port carrying a given protocol (e.g. port 6000 for SSL). Darktrace’s approach to campaign detection encodes this expert human judgement process through deterministic embedding functions that obtain reproducible vector representations of alert data. Unsupervised clustering is then applied to these vector representations to obtain groups of alerts that describe semantically similar alert data across multiple customers. These clusters therefore represent similar anomalous activity that has occurred across multiple customers. In other words, these clusters are candidates for malicious campaign activity.

‍

Figure 1: Layers of AI-based analysis provided through Darktrace products and cross-customer correlation.

‍

Case study 1 – unusual connections to shared underlying infrastructure

In one recent case, the clustering produced several tight groups of alerts spanning dozens of customers. Each group centered on a single domain whose subdomains were algorithmically generated (e.g. s01699, s1736, s91). Examined side by side, these clusters shared an unmistakable behavioral shape: each involved a domain with a clear naming pattern (e.g. s016841786.net-echo[.]com, s1670.pixellog[.]io, s217.pixellog[.]io) , with connections over SSL on the unusual port 6000 to servers hosted by non-mainstream providers (e.g. OVH, Hetzner, GTHost, Leaseweb), rather than generally expected content-delivery networks.

‍

Figure 2: An example model alert triggering on unusual outbound connections and data transfer to s1670.pixellog[.]io.

‍

Closer inspection revealed that the same subdomain label appeared under different domains (e.g. s1786.net-echo[.]com and s1786.pixellog[.]io). Following this lead, Darktrace’s threat researchers pivoted across the customer base and found numerous distinct subdomain labels reused under more than one registered domain. In several cases, the same label resolved to the same IP across different domains (e.g. s1704 under both pixellog[.]io and net-echo[.]com → 148.113.222[.]244; s01684 → 15.235.67[.]95), suggesting the use of ephemeral subdomain infrastructure in an attempt to avoid signature-based defense techniques.

This example demonstrates how multi-deployment data can uncover shared infrastructure that may be difficult to identify at the individual deployment level alone. In particular, the presented method facilitated this discovery by producing coherent, tight clusters of geometrically similar vector embeddings of malicious activity from large-scale fleet data, which could then be presented to a researcher for further investigation. This activity highlighted across the Darktrace customer base was ultimately linked to likely POPA botnet activity through use of open-source intelligence (OSINT) [5].

Case Study 2 – anomalous user agent and txt URI

A second example shows the method surfacing a single, self-contained cluster. The clustering was not given any indicators to look for; instead, it grouped devices that shared an unusual combination of features. On inspection, that shared consisted of:

- unusual user agent (tes)

- specific request path (/md5_GIP.txt)

- uncommon destination port (83)

- hostname impersonating Google (matching regular expression ^www\.google\.com\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+\.fast-dns-host\.com$)

Treating these shared features as IoCs, Darktrace’s threat researchers then pivoted to an exploration across the customer base to investigate the full breadth of the campaign. This search identified further commonalities; additional domains which shared the same IP as the domain family highlighted in the cluster, as well as evidence of cryptocurrency mining on affected devices. Additional OSINT research also aligned with these findings, linking the discovered payloads and infrastructure to Monero cryptocurrency mining [6].

Conclusion

The method outlined in this blog is under active development, with ongoing technical refinement providing opportunities to further enhance its capabilities. While the capability continues to mature, this approach to threat hunting leverages the powerful vantage point of fleetwide telemetry across a diverse customer base to help protect Darktrace customers. This method allows campaigns that at the deployment level appear as isolated alerts to be seen at their true scale and spread. It enables proactive fleet-wide analysis without prior IoCs to identify campaigns impacting Darktrace customers.

This is possible because of what the method is built on: the atomic unit is the Darktrace alert, a signal that encodes years of cyber expertise, while the multi-deployment nature of the method allows organizations to indirectly benefit from findings from other networks through shared intelligence by Darktrace’s Threat Research team.

Credit to Daniel Levy (Threat Hunting Data Scientist), Paul Jennings (Principal Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Head, Threat Operations)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

References

1. https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-agent-behaviour-during-cyber-testing

2. https://www.cvefind.com/en/cve-statistic-date.html

3. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/security-after-signatures-operating-in-a-world-of-pre-cve-disclosure-exploitation-collapsed-trust-boundaries-and-autonomous-systems

4. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/pre-cve-threat-detection-10-examples-identifying-malicious-activity-prior-to-public-disclosure-of-a-vulnerability

5. https://github.com/synthient/public-research/blob/main/2026/06/popa/Popa.md

6. https://www.deepwatch.com/blog/pirated-adobe-photoshop-2023-installers-lead-to-monero-cryptocurrency-mining/

About the author

Daniel Levy

Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Blog

AI

November 2, 2026

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

The disclosure of CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619 placed immediate pressure on organizations running PHP. Both vulnerabilities can allow unauthenticated remote code execution, including in products and appliances where PHP is embedded, and updates depend on third-party vendors [1].

Early guidance focused on patching internet-facing systems and monitoring for behavior associated with successful exploitation, including unexpected command execution, Webroot changes and outbound connections from PHP servers.

Darktrace observed widespread scanning across monitored environments involving hundreds of distinct source IP addresses that public reporting has associated with activity targeting the PHP vulnerabilities. The volume of scanning was significantly greater than the evidence available for successful exploitation. For analysts, that distinction is important. Scanning demonstrates interest in exposed infrastructure; establishing compromise requires evidence of subsequent behavior on the targeted system, including command execution, file modification or unexpected outbound communication.

PHP is not an isolated example. Imperva subsequently demonstrated remote code execution against a vulnerable Node.js build through malicious Brotli data, reproducing execution through compressed HTTP responses and configured request parsers. The same inputs were rejected by the patched runtime. Imperva linked its Node2Shell and PHP2Shell research to the increasing speed of vulnerability discovery and exploit development. [2]

While Darktrace has not observed direct evidence of CVE-2026-109618 or CVE-2026-109619 exploitation, on October 21^st we observed a six-month high in detections consistent with zero-day exploitation activity, representing a 64% increase compared to historic data. This increase has not been confirmed as related to the PHP vulnerabilities. Darktrace’s behavioral approach is designed to detect anomalous activity without relying solely on rules written for a specific exploit. Comparable increases were observed around the Log4j disclosure and other globally significant vulnerability disclosures.

AI-assisted vulnerability research

The PHP disclosure arrives as AI systems have become more capable at vulnerability research [3]. OpenAI launched Daybreak in June 2026, combining GPT-5.5-Cyber, Codex Security and partnerships with security researchers and software maintainers. OpenAI says its models have been applied to discovering and generating patches for vulnerabilities in browsers, network infrastructure, FreeBSD and the Linux kernel. Darktrace joined the OpenAI Daybreak Cyber Partner Program in June to explore how OpenAI's cyber capabilities could be integrated within Darktrace products and services [4][10].

OpenAI reported in August that Codex Security Cloud had analyzed more than 30 million commits across more than 30,000 codebases. According to OpenAI, Cloudflare uses models accessed through Daybreak to investigate customer-authorized code and combines findings with live traffic and security signals to assess whether affected routes are active or receiving suspicious traffic, with proposed mitigations and patches remaining subject to customer review [5][6].

Faster discovery still leaves defenders with the work of locating affected software, testing fixes and completing remediation. The PHP case shows that gap clearly, particularly when vulnerable runtimes are embedded inside other products.

Enterprise agents as an attack surface

Darktrace Signal Labs has also examined how a trusted enterprise agent could be abused after an attacker has already obtained access to an environment. In a controlled simulation, researchers demonstrated that, in that post-compromise scenario, the Claude platform’s memory stores feature could be abused to establish a live C2 channel between an external operator and internal Claude Code agents. The external operator was able to dynamically assign network discovery, credential access, and data exfiltration tasks to the agents via this C2 channel. Detection of the agents’ activities relied on the correlation of process creation and network traffic activity from agent harness processes, alongside behavioral analysis to identify deviations from expected behavior. Darktrace has not claimed it observed this memory-store command-and-control technique in operational attacks [7].

AI-assisted attacks in Japan

Evidence from Japan indicates AI being used for vulnerability scanning and attacks outside controlled research. On 21 October, JPCERT/CC published findings from an investigation into recent unauthorized access incidents affecting organizations in Japan. JPCERT/CC states that it confirmed attackers had used AI to scan for known vulnerabilities and conduct attacks through APIs. According to JPCERT/CC, its examination of attack infrastructure found evidence of Android application analysis, API discovery and testing for weaknesses including server-side request forgery, and the infrastructure also targeted services intended for users outside Japan [8].

JPCERT/CC does not identify ARTEX by name in that publication. The named ARTEX attribution comes from separate investigations, including Microsoft's analysis of Storm-0940.

AI in offensive operations

Microsoft describes ARTEX as an open-source, multi-agent penetration-testing system capable of automating activity with limited human interaction. Microsoft reported that Storm-0940, which it assesses to be a China state-aligned actor active since 2021, used ARTEX against hundreds of organizations, and Microsoft attributed the ConnectWise supply-chain compromise [9].

Microsoft observed ARTEX accelerating scanning, reconnaissance, password spraying and OAuth application abuse. Several ARTEX-driven operations reached privileged cloud access less than three hours after initial targeting. Following the ConnectWise compromise, Storm-0940 attempted to authenticate to more than 2,250 tenants at rates of up to 2,900 attempts per minute [9].

Darktrace Threat Research found activity in its own telemetry involving infrastructure later associated with the campaign. On 13 October, Darktrace recorded failed authentication activity involving 144.172.64[.]128, one of the addresses Microsoft later identified as performing sign-ins and Microsoft Graph activity in ConnectWise customer environments. Darktrace analysis identified 65 failed authentication attempts in around 20 minutes.

*Figure 1: Darktrace Advanced Search showing failed authentication events involving 144.172.64[.]128 on 13 October 2026, (customer-identifying information redacted).*

The telemetry establishes repeated failed authentication from infrastructure later associated with the campaign. It does not establish ARTEX execution or successful compromise. At the time of observation, Microsoft's later attribution was unavailable. Analysts therefore had the behavior itself: repeated failed authentication from the same source over a short period, together with any related identity, application or network activity inside the environment.

Microsoft documented a wider password-spray campaign against 327 accounts across eight organizations between 10 and 14 October. It recorded more than 151,000 failed logons, including more than 111,000 on 11 October, but no successful authentication, token issuance, Graph call or directory change from that campaign. Microsoft also reported that most Storm-0940 targeting was unsuccessful [9].

Where the actor progressed beyond authentication, Microsoft observed service-principal sign-ins followed by Graph and directory operations. Activity included reconnaissance, application credential changes and attempts to modify privileges. Microsoft recommends correlating service-principal sign-ins with Graph activity, directory changes and resource access [9].

Behavior before attribution

The PHP and ARTEX cases begin with different information. PHP defenders knew which software required urgent remediation but initially had limited information about exploitation. Process execution, file modification and outbound communication could still provide evidence of compromise.

The PHP and ARTEX observations also illustrate the difference between volume and impact. Darktrace observed broad scanning around the PHP disclosure, while the ARTEX-associated infrastructure produced concentrated authentication activity. Neither observation independently demonstrates compromise and in each case examining the behavior that follows the initial interaction is the investigative clue.

The Darktrace ARTEX-related observation began with authentication behavior. Microsoft publicly attributed the source infrastructure eight days later. That attribution added context, but it did not change what had originally been recorded in the environment.

AI is now present at several points in this cycle. Daybreak applies models to vulnerability discovery and remediation. Darktrace Signal Labs demonstrated how a trusted enterprise agent could be co-opted in a controlled environment. JPCERT/CC confirmed AI-assisted vulnerability scanning and API attacks in recent incidents. Microsoft documented ARTEX being used by Storm-0940 in active operations [4][7][8][9].

Microsoft's findings also show why scale and impact must be assessed separately. One ARTEX-associated campaign produced more than 151,000 failed logons without successful access, while other operations reached privileged cloud access in less than three hours. Security teams have to distinguish high-volume attempts from activity that progresses through authentication, privilege changes and resource access.

The evidence required to assess these cases remains familiar: authentication records, process execution, application and directory changes, file activity and network communication. AI can increase the rate at which those behaviors occur. Defenders still need to establish their sequence and impact.

Credit to Emma Foulger, Sam Lister, Dylan Evans, Moishe Tajtelbaum

References

[1] NCSC-NL, php2shell vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-109618, CVE-2026-109619), 21 October 2026. https://github.com/NCSC-NL/php2shell

[2] Imperva, https://www.imperva.com/blog/node2shell-from-brotli-data-to-remote-code-execution/

[3] Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, https://www.csa.gov.sg/alerts-and-advisories/alerts/al-2026-151/

[4] OpenAI, Daybreak: Tools for securing every organization in the world, 22 June 2026. https://openai.com/index/daybreak-securing-the-world/

[5] OpenAI Developers, Scaling cyber defenders with Daybreak, 21 August 2026. https://developers.openai.com/blog/scaling-cyber-defenders-with-daybreak

[6] OpenAI, Cloudflare links vulnerability discovery to defense with OpenAI, 21 October 2026. https://openai.com/index/cloudflare-cyber/

[7] Darktrace Signal Labs, Shared Memories as a Covert C2 Channel, draft research supplied for review.

[8] JPCERT/CC, Recent AI-Assisted Cyber Attacks in Japan: Investigating Attack Infrastructure and Techniques, 21 October 2026. https://blogs.jpcert.or.jp/en/2026/10/web_api_attacks.html

[9] Microsoft Security Research and Microsoft Threat Intelligence, AI-driven, large-scale nation-state campaign using ARTEX enables supply chain compromise, 21 October 2026. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/10/21/storm-0940-uses-artex-agentic-ai-connectwise-supply-chain-compromise/

[10] Darktrace, Advancing the Use of Frontier AI in Cybersecurity: Darktrace Joins the OpenAI Daybreak Cyber Partner Program to Explore Defensive AI Integrations, 22 June 2026. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/advancing-the-use-of-frontier-ai-in-cybersecurity-darktrace-joins-the-openai-daybreak-cyber-partner-program-to-explore-defensive-ai-integrations

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: New Threat on the Prowl: Investigating Lynx Ransomware

New Threat on the Prowl: Investigating Lynx Ransomware

What is Lynx ransomware?

What techniques does Lynx ransomware group use?

Darktrace Coverage of Lynx Ransomware

Detection of lateral movement

Indicators of compromised administrative credentials

Data exfiltration

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

Darktrace / NETWORK Model Alerts

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

From One Alert to a Wider Campaign: Uncovering Novel Threats Through Behavioral Analysis

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

AI-Assisted Attacks Still Leave a Behavioral Trace

Detecting Rogue Agent Behavior in the Enterprise

Blog

November 3, 2026

From One Alert to a Wider Campaign: Uncovering Novel Threats Through Behavioral Analysis

Key Findings

How does Darktrace conduct threat research?

Shifting to a behavioral-focused approach

Correlating across the customer base

Case study 1 – unusual connections to shared underlying infrastructure

Case Study 2 – anomalous user agent and txt URI

Conclusion

References

Blog

AI

November 2, 2026

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

AI-assisted vulnerability research

Enterprise agents as an attack surface

AI-assisted attacks in Japan

AI in offensive operations

Behavior before attribution

References