Blog
/
/
May 5, 2020

The Ongoing Threat of Dharma Ransomware Attacks

Stay informed about the dangers of Dharma ransomware and its methods of attack, ensuring your defenses are strong against potential intrusions.
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
05
May 2020

Executive summary

  • In the past few weeks, Darktrace has observed an increase in attacks against internet-facing systems, such as RDP. The initial intrusions usually take place via existing vulnerabilities or stolen, legitimate credentials. The Dharma ransomware attack described in this blog post is one such example.
  • Old threats can be damaging – Dharma and its variants have been around for four years. This is a classic example of ‘legacy’ ransomware morphing and adapting to bypass traditional defenses.
  • The intrusion shows signs that indicate the threat-actors are aware of – and are actively exploiting – the COVID-19 situation.
  • In the current threat landscape surrounding COVID-19, Darktrace recommends monitoring internet-facing systems and critical servers closely – keeping track of administrative credentials and carefully considering security when rapidly deploying internet-facing infrastructure.

Introduction

In mid-April, Darktrace detected a targeted Dharma ransomware attack on a UK company. The initial point of intrusion was via RDP – this represents a very common attack method of infection that Darktrace has observed in the broader threat landscape over the past few weeks.

This blog post highlights every stage of the attack lifecycle and details the attacker’s techniques, tools and procedures (TTP) – all detected by Darktrace.

Dharma – a varient of the CrySIS malware family – first appeared in 2016 and uses multiple intrusion vectors. It distributes its malware as an attachment in a spam email, by disguising it as an installation file for legitimate software, or by exploiting an open RDP connection through internet-facing servers. When Dharma has finished encrypting files, it drops a ransom note with the contact email address in the encrypted SMB files.

Darktrace had strong, real-time detections of the attack – however the absence of eyes on the user interface prior to the encryption activity, and without Autonomous Response deployed in Active Mode, these alerts were only actioned after the ransomware was unleashed. Fortunately, it was unable to spread within the organization, thanks to human intervention at the peak of the attack. However, Darktrace Antigena in active mode would have significantly slowed down the attack.

Timeline

The timeline below provides a rough overview of the major attack phases over five days of activity.

Figure 1: A timeline of the attack

Technical analysis

Darktrace detected that the main device hit by the attack was an internet-facing RDP server (‘RDP server’). Dharma used network-level encryption here: the ransomware activity takes place over the network protocol SMB.

Below is a chronological overview of all Darktrace detections that fired during this attack: Darktrace detected and reported every single unusual or suspicious event occurring on the RDP server.

Figure 2: An overview of Darktrace detections

Initial compromise

On April 7, the RDP server began receiving a large number of incoming connections from rare IP addresses on the internet.

On April 7, the RDP server began receiving a large number of incoming connections from rare IP addresses on the internet. This means a lot of IP addresses on the internet that usually don’t connect to this company started connection attempts over RDP. The top five cookies used to authenticate show that the source IPs were located in Russia, the Netherlands, Korea, the United States, and Germany.

It is highly likely that the RDP credential used in this attack had been compromised prior to the attack – either via common brute-force methods, credential stuffing attacks, or phishing. Indeed, a TTP growing in popularity is to buy RDP credentials on marketplaces and skip to initial access.

Attempted privilege escalation

The following day, the malicious actor abused the SMB version 1 protocol, notorious for always-on null sessions which offer unauthenticated users’ information about the machine – such as password policies, usernames, group names, machine names, user and host SIDs. What followed was very unusual: the server connected externally to a rare IP address located in Morocco.

Next, the attacker attempted a failed SMB session to the external IP over an unusual port. Darktrace detected this activity as highly anomalous, as it had previously learned that SMB is usually not used in this fashion within this organization – and certainly not for external communication over this port.

Figure 3: Darktrace detecting the rare external IP address

Figure 4: The SMB session failure and the rare connection over port 1047

Command and control traffic

As the entire attack occurred over five days, this aligns with a smash-and-grab approach, rather than a highly covert, low-and-slow operation.

Two hours later, the server initiated a large number of anomalous and rare connections to external destinations located in India, China, and Italy – amongst other destinations the server had never communicated with before. The attacker was now attempting to establish persistence and create stronger channels for command and control (C2). As the entire attack occurred over five days, this aligns with a smash-and-grab approach, rather than a highly covert, low-and-slow operation.

Actions on target

Notwithstanding this approach, the malicious actor remained dormant for two days, biding their time until April 10 — a public holiday in the UK — when security teams would be notably less responsive. This pause in activity provides supporting evidence that the attack was human-driven.

Figure 5: The unusual RDP connections detected by Darktrace

The RDP server then began receiving incoming remote desktop connections from 100% rare IP addresses located in the Netherlands, Latvia, and Poland.

Internal reconnaissance

The IP address 85.93.20[.]6, hosted at the time of investigation in Panama, made two connections to the server, using an administrative credential. On April 12, as other inbound RDP connections scanned the network, the volume of data transferred by the RDP server to this IP address spiked. The RDP server never scans the internal network. Darktrace identified this as highly unusual activity.

Figure 6: Darktrace detects the anomalous external data transfer

Lateral movement and payload execution

Finally, on April 12, the attackers executed the Dharma payload at 13:45. The RDP server wrote a number of files over the SMB protocol, appended with a file extension containing a throwaway email account possibly evoking the current COVID-19 pandemic, ‘cov2020@aol[.]com’. The use of string ‘…@aol.com].ROGER’ and presence of a file named ‘FILES ENCRYPTED.txt’ resembles previous Dharma compromises.

Parallel to the encryption activity, the ransomware tried to spread and infect other machines by initiating successful SMB authentications using the same administrator credential seen during the internal reconnaissance. However, the destination devices did not encrypt any files themselves.

It was during the encryption activity that the internal IT staff pulled the plug from the compromised RDP server, thus ending the ransomware activity.

Conclusion

This incident supports the idea that ‘legacy’ ransomware may morph to resurrect itself to exploit vulnerabilities in remote working infrastructure during this pandemic.

Dharma executed here a fast-acting, planned, targeted, ransomware attack. The attackers used off-the-shelf tools (RDP, abusing SMB1 protocol) blurring detection and attribution by blending in with typical administrator activity.

Darktrace detected every stage of the attack without having to depend on threat intelligence or rules and signatures, and the internal security team acted on the malicious activity to prevent further damage.

This incident supports the idea that ‘legacy’ ransomware may morph to resurrect itself to exploit vulnerabilities in remote working infrastructure during this pandemic. Poorly-secured public-facing systems have been rushed out and security is neglected as companies prioritize availability – sacrificing security in the process. Financially-motivated actors weaponize these weak points.

The use of the COVID-related email ‘cov2020@aol[.]com’ during the attack indicates that the threat-actor is aware of and abusing the current global pandemic.

Recent attacks, such as APT41’s exploitation of the Zoho Manage Engine vulnerability last March, show that attacks against internet-facing infrastructure are gaining popularity as the initial intrusion vector. Indeed, as many as 85% of ransomware attacks use RDP as an entry vector. Ensuring that backups are isolated, configurations are hardened, and systems are patched is not enough – real-time detection of every anomalous action can help protect potential victims of ransomware.

Technical Details

Some of the detections on the RDP server:

  • Compliance / Internet Facing RDP server – exposure of critical server to Internet
  • Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port – external connections using an unusual port to rare endpoints
  • Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints – indicative of peer-to-peer or scanning activity
  • Compliance / Incoming Remote Desktop – device is remotely controlled from an external source, increased rick of bruteforce
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity – reading and writing similar volumes of data to remote file shares, indicative of files being overwritten and encrypted
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File – device is renaming network share files with an added extension, seen during ransomware activity

The graph below shows the timeline of Darktrace detections on the RDP server. The attack lifecycle is clearly observable.

Figure 7: The model breaches occurring over time

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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Email

/

May 1, 2026

How email-delivered prompt injection attacks can target enterprise AI – and why it matters

Default blog imageDefault blog image

What are email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

As organizations rapidly adopt AI assistants to improve productivity, a new class of cyber risk is emerging alongside them: email-delivered AI prompt injection. Unlike traditional attacks that target software vulnerabilities or rely on social engineering, this is the act of embedding malicious or manipulative instructions into content that an AI system will process as part of its normal workflow. Because modern AI tools are designed to ingest and reason over large volumes of data, including emails, documents, and chat histories, they can unintentionally treat hidden attacker-controlled text as legitimate input.  

At Darktrace, our analysis has shown an increase of 90% in the number of customer deployments showing signals associated with potential prompt injection attempts since we began monitoring for this type of activity in late 2025. While it is not always possible to definitively attribute each instance, internal scoring systems designed to identify characteristics consistent with prompt injection have recorded a growing number of high-confidence matches. The upward trend suggests that attackers are actively experimenting with these techniques.

Recent examples of prompt injection attacks

Two early examples of this evolving threat are HashJack and ShadowLeak, which illustrate prompt injection in practice.

HashJack is a novel prompt injection technique discovered in November 2025 that exploits AI-powered web browsers and agentic AI browser assistants. By hiding malicious instructions within the URL fragment (after the # symbol) of a legitimate, trusted website, attackers can trick AI web assistants into performing malicious actions – potentially inserting phishing links, fake contact details, or misleading guidance directly into what appears to be a trusted AI-generated output.

ShadowLeak is a prompt injection method to exfiltrate PII identified in September 2025. This was a flaw in ChatGPT (now patched by OpenAI) which worked via an agent connected to email. If attackers sent the target an email containing a hidden prompt, the agent was tricked into leaking sensitive information to the attacker with no user action or visible UI.

What’s the risk of email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

Enterprise AI assistants often have complete visibility across emails, documents, and internal platforms. This means an attacker does not need to compromise credentials or move laterally through an environment. If successful, they can influence the AI to retrieve relevant information seamlessly, without the labor of compromise and privilege escalation.

The first risk is data exfiltration. In a prompt injection scenario, malicious instructions may be embedded within an ordinary email. As in the ShadowLeak attack, when AI processes that content as part of a legitimate task, it may interpret the hidden text as an instruction. This could result in the AI disclosing sensitive data, summarizing confidential communications, or exposing internal context that would otherwise require significant effort to obtain.

The second risk is agentic workflow poisoning. As AI systems take on more active roles, prompt injection can influence how they behave over time. An attacker could embed instructions that persist across interactions, such as causing the AI to include malicious links in responses or redirect users to untrusted resources. In this way, the attacker inserts themselves into the workflow, effectively acting as a man-in-the-middle within the AI system.

Why can’t other solutions catch email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

AI prompt injection challenges many of the assumptions that traditional email security is built on. It does not fit the usual patterns of phishing, where the goal is to trick a user into clicking a link or opening an attachment.  

Most security solutions are designed to detect signals associated with user engagement: suspicious links, unusual attachments, or social engineering cues. Prompt injection avoids these indicators entirely, meaning there are fewer obvious red flags.

In this case, the intention is actually the opposite of user solicitation. The objective is simply for the email to be delivered and remain in the inbox, appearing benign and unremarkable. The malicious element is not something the recipient is expected to engage with, or even notice.

Detection is further complicated by the nature of the prompts themselves. Unlike known malware signatures or consistent phishing patterns, injected prompts can vary widely in structure and wording. This makes simple pattern-matching approaches, such as regex, unreliable. A broad rule set risks generating large numbers of false positives, while a narrow one is unlikely to capture the diversity of possible injections.

How does Darktrace catch these types of attacks?

The Darktrace approach to email security more generally is to look beyond individual indicators and assess context, which also applies here.  

For example, our prompt density score identifies clusters of prompt-like language within an email rather than just single occurrences. Instead of treating the presence of a phrase as a blocking signal, the focus is on whether there is an unusual concentration of these patterns in a way that suggests injection. Additional weighting can be applied where there are signs of obfuscation. For example, text that is hidden from the user – such as white font or font size zero – but still readable by AI systems can indicate an attempt to conceal malicious prompts.

This is combined with broader behavioral signals. The same communication context used to detect other threats remains relevant, such as whether the content is unusual for the recipient or deviates from normal patterns.

Ask your email provider about email-delivered AI prompt injection

Prompt injection targets not just employees, but the AI systems they rely on, so security approaches need to account for both.

Though there are clear indications of emerging activity, it remains to be seen how popular prompt injection will be with attackers going forward. Still, considering the potential impact of this attack type, it’s worth checking if this risk has been considered by your email security provider.

Questions to ask your email security provider

  • What safeguards are in place to prevent emails from influencing AI‑driven workflows over time?
  • How do you assess email content that’s benign for a human reader, but may carry hidden instructions intended for AI systems?
  • If an email contains no links, no attachments, and no social engineering cues, what signals would your platform use to identify malicious intent?

Visit the Darktrace / EMAIL product hub to discover how we detect and respond to advanced communication threats.  

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

Continue reading
About the author
Kiri Addison
Senior Director of Product

Blog

/

AI

/

April 30, 2026

Mythos vs Ethos: Defending in an Era of AI‑Accelerated Vulnerability Discovery

mythos vulnerability discoveryDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Anthropic’s Mythos and what it means for security teams

Recent attention on systems such as Anthropic Mythos highlights a notable problem for defenders. Namely that disclosure’s role in coordinating defensive action is eroding.

As AI systems gain stronger reasoning and coding capability, their usefulness in analyzing complex software environments and identifying weaknesses naturally increases. What has changed is not attacker motivation, but the conditions under which defenders learn about and organize around risk. Vulnerability discovery and exploitation increasingly unfold in ways that turn disclosure into a retrospective signal rather than a reliable starting point for defense.

Faster discovery was inevitable and is already visible

The acceleration of vulnerability discovery was already observable across the ecosystem. Publicly disclosed vulnerabilities (CVEs) have grown at double-digit rates for the past two years, including a 32% increase in 2024 according to NIST, driven in part by AI even prior to Anthropic’s Mythos model. Most notably XBOW topped the HackerOne US bug bounty leaderboard, marking the first time an autonomous penetration tester had done so.  

The technical frontier for AI capabilities has been described elsewhere as jagged, and the implication is that Mythos is exceptional but not unique in this capability. While Mythos appears to make significant progress in complex vulnerability analysis, many other models are already able to find and exploit weaknesses to varying degrees.  

What matters here is not which model performs best, but the fact that vulnerability discovery is no longer a scarce or tightly bounded capability.

The consequence of this shift is not simply earlier discovery. It is a change in the defender-attacker race condition. Disclosure once acted as a rough synchronization point. While attackers sometimes had earlier knowledge, disclosure generally marked the moment when risk became visible and defensive action could be broadly coordinated. Increasingly, that coordination will no longer exist. Exploitation may be underway well before a CVE is published, if it is published at all.

Why patch velocity alone is not the answer

The instinctive response to this shift is to focus on patching faster, but treating patch velocity as the primary solution misunderstands the problem. Most organizations are already constrained in how quickly they can remediate vulnerabilities. Asset sprawl, operational risk, testing requirements, uptime commitments, and unclear ownership all limit response speed, even when vulnerabilities are well understood.

If discovery and exploitation now routinely precede disclosure, then patching cannot be the first line of defense. It becomes one necessary control applied within a timeline that has already shifted. This does not imply that organizations should patch less. It means that patching cannot serve as the organizing principle for defense.

Defense needs a more stable anchor

If disclosure no longer defines when defense begins, then defense needs a reference point that does not depend on knowing the vulnerability in advance.  

Every digital environment has a behavioral character. Systems authenticate, communicate, execute processes, and access resources in relatively consistent ways over time. These patterns are not static rules or signatures. They are learned behaviors that reflect how an organization operates.

When exploitation occurs, even via previously unknown vulnerabilities, those behavioral patterns change.

Attackers may use novel techniques, but they still need to gain access, create processes, move laterally, and will ultimately interact with systems in ways that diverge from what is expected. That deviation is observable regardless of whether the underlying weakness has been formally named.

In an environment where disclosure can no longer be relied on for timing or coordination, behavioral understanding is no longer an optional enhancement; it becomes the only consistently available defensive signal.

Detecting risk before disclosure

Darktrace’s threat research has consistently shown that malicious activity often becomes visible before public disclosure.

In multiple cases, including exploitation of Ivanti, SAP NetWeaver, and Trimble Cityworks, Darktrace detected anomalous behavior days or weeks ahead of CVE publication. These detections did not rely on signatures, threat intelligence feeds, or awareness of the vulnerability itself. They emerged because systems began behaving in ways that did not align with their established patterns.

This reflects a defensive approach grounded in ‘Ethos’, in contrast to the unbounded exploration represented by ‘Mythos’. Here, Mythos describes continuous vulnerability discovery at speed and scale. Ethos reflects an understanding of what is normal and expected within a specific environment, grounded in observed behavior.

Revisiting assume breach

These conditions reinforce a principle long embedded in Zero Trust thinking: assume breach.

If exploitation can occur before disclosure, patching vulnerabilities can no longer act as the organizing principle for defense. Instead, effective defense must focus on monitoring for misuse and constraining attacker activity once access is achieved. Behavioral monitoring allows organizations to identify early‑stage compromise and respond while uncertainty remains, rather than waiting for formal verification.

AI plays a critical role here, not by predicting every exploit, but by continuously learning what normal looks like within a specific environment and identifying meaningful deviation at machine speed. Identifying that deviation enables defenders to respond by constraining activity back towards normal patterns of behavior.

Not an arms race, but an asymmetry

AI is often framed as fueling an arms race between attackers and defenders. In practice, the more important dynamic is asymmetry.

Attackers operate broadly, scanning many environments for opportunities. Defenders operate deeply within their own systems, and it’s this business context which is so significant. Behavioral understanding gives defenders a durable advantage. Attackers may automate discovery, but they cannot easily reproduce what belonging looks like inside a particular organization.

A changed defensive model

AI‑accelerated vulnerability discovery does not mean defenders have lost. It does mean that disclosure‑driven, patch‑centric models no longer provide a sufficient foundation for resilience.

As vulnerability volumes grow and exploitation timelines compress, effective defense increasingly depends on continuous behavioral understanding, detection that does not rely on prior disclosure, and rapid containment to limit impact. In this model, CVEs confirm risk rather than define when defense begins.

The industry has already seen this approach work in practice. As AI continues to reshape both offense and defense, behavioral detection will move from being complementary to being essential.

Continue reading
About the author
Andrew Hollister
Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI