November 5, 2025

Tracking a Dragon: Investigating a DragonForce-affiliated ransomware attack with Darktrace

Darktrace investigates a DragonForce-affiliated ransomware attack targeting the manufacturing sector. The blog details the attack lifecycle, from network scanning and credential brute-forcing to data exfiltration and file encryption.

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

Tracking a Dragon: Investigating a DragonForce-affiliated ransomware attack with Darktrace

Nov 2025

What is DragonForce?

DragonForce is a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) platform that emerged in late 2023, offering broad-scale capabilities and infrastructure to threat actors. Recently, DragonForce has been linked to attacks targeting the UK retail sector, resulting in several high-profile cases [1][2]. Moreover, the group launched an affiliate program offering a revenue share of roughly 20%, significantly lower than commissions reported across other RaaS platforms [3].

This Darktrace case study examines a DragonForce-linked RaaS infection within the manufacturing industry. The earliest signs of compromise were observed during working hours in August 2025, where an infected device started performing network scans and attempted to brute-force administrative credentials. After eight days of inactivity, threat actors returned and multiple devices began encrypting files via the SMB protocol using a DragonForce-associated file extension. Ransom notes referencing the group were also dropped, suggesting the threat actor is claiming affiliation with DragonForce, though this has not been confirmed.

Despite Darktrace’s detection of the attack in its early stages, the customer’s deployment did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability configured, allowing the threat to progress to data exfiltration and file encryption.

Darktrace's Observations

While the initial access vector was not clearly defined in this case study, it was likely achieved through common methods previously employed out by DragonForce affiliates. These include phishing emails leveraging social engineering tactics, exploitation of public-facing applications with known vulnerabilities, web shells, and/or the abuse of remote management tools.

Darktrace’s analysis identified internal devices performing internal network scanning, brute-forcing credentials, and executing unusual Windows Registry operations. Notably, Windows Registry events involving "Schedule\Taskcache\Tasks" contain subkeys for individual tasks, storing GUIDs that can be used to locate and analyze scheduled tasks. Additionally, Control\WMI\Security holds security descriptors for WMI providers and Event Tracing loggers that use non-default security settings respectively.

Furthermore, Darktrace identified data exfiltration activity over SSH, including connections to an ASN associated with a malicious hosting service geolocated in Russia.

1. Network Scan & Brute Force

Darktrace identified anomalous behavior in late August to early September 2025, originating from a source device engaging in internal network scanning followed by brute-force attempts targeting administrator credential, including “administrator”, “Admin”, “rdpadmin”, “ftpadmin”.

Upon further analysis, one of the HTTP connections seen in this activity revealed the use of the user agent string “OpenVAS-VT”, suggesting that the device was using the OpenVAS vulnerability scanner. Subsequently, additional devices began exhibiting network scanning behavior. During this phase, a file named “delete.me” was deleted by multiple devices using SMB protocol. This file is commonly associated with network scanning and penetration testing tool NetScan.

2. Windows Registry Key Update

Following the scanning phase, Darktrace observed the initial device then performing suspicious Winreg operations. This included the use of the ”BaseRegOpenKey” function across multiple registry paths.

Additional operations such as “BaseRegOpenKey” and “BaseRegQueryValue” were also seen around this time. These operations are typically used to retrieve specific registry key values and allow write operations to registry keys.

The registry keys observed included “SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WMI\Security” and “Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Schedule\Taskcache\Tasks”. These keys can be leveraged by malicious actors to update WMI access controls and schedule malicious tasks, respectively, both of which are common techniques for establishing persistence within a compromised system.

3. New Administrator Credential Usage

Darktrace subsequently detected the device using a highly privileged credential, “administrator”, via a successful Kerberos login for the first time. Shortly after, the same credential was used again for a successful SMB session.

These marked the first instances of authentication using the “administrator” credential across the customer’s environment, suggesting potential malicious use of the credential following the earlier brute-force activity.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of administrator credentials being used in Kerberos login events by an infected device.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of administrator credentials being used in SMB sessions by an infected device.

4. Data Exfiltration

Prior to ransomware deployment, several infected devices were observed exfiltrating data to the malicious IP 45.135.232[.]229 via SSH connections [7][8]. This was followed by the device downloading data from other internal devices and transferring an unusually large volume of data to the same external endpoint.

The IP address was first seen on the network on September 2, 2025 - the same date as the observed data exfiltration activity preceding ransomware deployment and encryption.

Further analysis revealed that the endpoint was geolocated in Russia and registered to the malicious hosting provider Proton66. Multiple external researchers have reported malicious activity involving the same Proton66 ASN (AS198953 Proton66 OOO) as far back as April 2025. These activities notably included vulnerability scanning, exploitation attempts, and phishing campaigns, which ultimately led to malware [4][5][6].

Data Exfiltration Endpoint details.

Endpoint: 45.135.232[.]229
ASN: AS198953 Proton66 OOO
Transport protocol: TCP
Application protocol: SSH
Destination port: 22

Figure 3: Darktrace’s summary of the external IP 45.135.232[.]229, first detected on September 2, 2025. The right-hand side showcases model alerts triggered related to this endpoint including multiple data exfiltration related model alerts.

Further investigation into the endpoint using open-source intelligence (OSINT) revealed that it led to a Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) Manager console webpage. This interface is typically used to configure and manage web servers. However, threat actors have been known to exploit similar setups, using fake certificate warnings to trick users into downloading malware, or deploying malicious IIS modules to steal credentials.

Figure 4: Live screenshot of the destination (45.135.232[.]229), captured via OSINT sources, displaying a Microsoft IIS Manager console webpage.

5. Ransomware Encryption & Ransom Note

Multiple devices were later observed connecting to internal devices via SMB and performing a range of actions indicative of file encryption. This suspicious activity prompted Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst to launch an autonomous investigation, during which it pieced together associated activity and provided concrete timestamps of events for the customer’s visibility.

During this activity, several devices were seen writing a file named “readme.txt” to multiple locations, including network-accessible webroot paths such as inetpub\ and wwwroot\. This “readme.txt” file, later confirmed to be the ransom note, claimed the threat actors were affiliated with DragonForce.

At the same time, devices were seen performing SMB Move, Write and ReadWrite actions involving files with the “.df_win” extension across other internal devices, suggesting that file encryption was actively occurring.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of SMB events (excluding Read events) where the device was seen moving or writing files with the “.df_win” extension.

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of a spike in SMB Write events with the filename “readme.txt” on September 9, indicating the start of file encryption.

Conclusion

The rise of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) and increased attacker customization is fragmenting tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), making it increasingly difficult for security teams to prepare for and defend against each unique intrusion. RaaS providers like DragonForce further complicate this challenge by enabling a wide range of affiliates, each with varying levels of sophistication [9].

In this instance, Darktrace was able to identify several stages of the attack kill chain, including network scanning, the first-time use of privileged credentials, data exfiltration, and ultimately ransomware encryption. Had the customer enabled Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability, it would have taken timely action to interrupt the attack in its early stages, preventing the eventual data exfiltration and ransomware detonation.

Credit to Justin Torres, Senior Cyber Analyst, Nathaniel Jones, VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISO, & Emma Foulger, Global Threat Research Operations Lead.

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

[related-resource]

Appendices

References:

1. https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/dragonforce-goup-ms-coop-harrods/

2. https://www.picussecurity.com/resource/blog/dragonforce-ransomware-attacks-retail-giants

3. https://blog.checkpoint.com/security/dragonforce-ransomware-redefining-hybrid-extortion-in-2025/

4. https://www.trustwave.com/en-us/resources/blogs/spiderlabs-blog/proton66-part-1-mass-scanning-and-exploit-campaigns/

5. https://www.trustwave.com/en-us/resources/blogs/spiderlabs-blog/proton66-part-2-compromised-wordpress-pages-and-malware-campaigns/

6. https://www.broadcom.com/support/security-center/protection-bulletin/proton66-infrastructure-tied-to-expanding-malware-campaigns-and-c2-operations

7. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.135.232.229

8. https://spur.us/context/45.135.232.229

9. https://www.group-ib.com/blog/dragonforce-ransomware/

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

· 45.135.232[.]229 - Endpoint Associated with Data Exfiltration

· .readme.txt – Ransom Note File Extension

· .df_win – File Encryption Extension Observed

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

DragonForce TTPs vs Darktrace Models

Initial Access:

· Anomalous Connection::Callback on Web Facing Device

Command and Control:

· Compromise::SSL or HTTP Beacon

· Compromise::Beacon to Young Endpoint

· Compromise::Beaconing on Uncommon Port

· Compromise::Suspicious SSL Activity

· Anomalous Connection::Devices Beaconing to New Rare IP

· Compromise::Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

· DNS Tunnel with TXT Records

Tooling:

· Anomalous File::EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File::Masqueraded File Transfer

· Anomalous File::Numeric File Download

· Anomalous File::Script from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File::Uncommon Microsoft File then Exe

· Anomalous File::Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File::Uncommon Microsoft File then Exe

· Anomalous File::Internet Facing System File Download

Reconnaissance:

· Device::Suspicious SMB Query

· Device::ICMP Address Scan

· Anomalous Connection::SMB Enumeration

· Device::Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

· Anomalous Connection::Possible Share Enumeration Activity

· Device::Possible Active Directory Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection::Large Volume of LDAP Download

· Device::Suspicious LDAP Search Operation

Lateral Movement:

· User::Suspicious Admin SMB Session

· Anomalous Connection::Unusual Internal Remote Desktop

· Anomalous Connection::Unusual Long Remote Desktop Session

· Anomalous Connection::Unusual Admin RDP Session

· User::New Admin Credentials on Client

· User::New Admin Credentials on Server

· Multiple Device Correlations::Spreading New Admin Credentials

· Anomalous Connection::Powershell to Rare External

· Device::New PowerShell User Agent

· Anomalous Active Directory Web Services

· Compromise::Unusual SVCCTL Activity

Evasion:

· Unusual Activity::Anomalous SMB Delete Volume

· Persistence

· Device::Anomalous ITaskScheduler Activity

· Device::AT Service Scheduled Task

· Actions on Objectives

· Compromise::Ransomware::Suspicious SMB Activity (EM)

· Anomalous Connection::Sustained MIME Type Conversion

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

· Compromise::Ransomware::Possible Ransom Note Write

· Data Sent to Rare Domain

· Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

· Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst Coverage/Investigation Events:

· Web Application Vulnerability Scanning of Multiple Devices

· Port Scanning

· Large Volume of SMB Login Failures

· Unusual RDP Connections

· Widespread Web Application Vulnerability Scanning

· Unusual SSH Connections

· Unusual Repeated Connections

· Possible Application Layer Reconnaissance Activity

· Unusual Administrative Connections

· Suspicious Remote WMI Activity

· Extensive Unusual Administrative Connections

· Suspicious Directory Replication Service Activity

· Scanning of Multiple Devices

· Unusual External Data Transfer

· SMB Write of Suspicious File

· Suspicious Remote Service Control Activity

· Access of Probable Unencrypted Password Files

· Internal Download and External Upload

· Possible Encryption of Files over SMB

· SMB Writes of Suspicious Files to Multiple Devices

_{The content provided in this blog is published by Darktrace for general informational purposes only and reflects our understanding of cybersecurity topics, trends, incidents, and developments at the time of publication. While we strive to ensure accuracy and relevance, the information is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Darktrace makes no guarantees regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information presented and expressly disclaims all warranties.}

_{Nothing in this blog constitutes legal, technical, or professional advice, and readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein. Any references to third-party organizations, technologies, threat actors, or incidents are for informational purposes only and do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or recommendation.}

_{Darktrace, its affiliates, employees, or agents shall not be held liable for any loss, damage, or harm arising from the use of or reliance on the information in this blog.}

_{The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content.}

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

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

Inside the SOC

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

May 1, 2026

Kiri Addison

Senior Director of Product

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

May 6, 2026

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Software supply-chain attacks in 2026

Software supply-chain attacks now represent the primary threat shaping the 2026 security landscape. Rather than relying on exploits at the perimeter, attackers are targeting the connective tissue of modern engineering environments: package managers, CI/CD automation, developer systems, and even the security tools organizations inherently trust.

These incidents are not isolated cases of poisoned code. They reflect a structural shift toward abusing trusted automation and identity at ecosystem scale, where compromise propagates through systems designed for speed, not scrutiny. Ephemeral build runners, regardless of provider, represent high‑trust, low‑visibility execution zones.

The Axios compromise and the cascading Trivy campaign illustrate how quickly this abuse can move once attacker activity enters build and delivery workflows. This blog provides an overview of the latest supply chain and security tool incidents with Darktrace telemetry and defensive actions to improve organizations defensive cyber posture.

1. Why the Axios Compromise Scaled

On 31 March 2026, attackers hijacked the npm account of Axios’s lead maintainer, publishing malicious versions 1.14.1 and 0.30.4 that silently pulled in a malicious dependency, plain‑crypto‑[email protected]. Axios is a popular HTTP client for node.js and processes 100 million weekly downloads and appears in around 80% of cloud and application environments, making this a high‑leverage breach [1].

The attack chain was simple yet effective:

A compromised maintainer account enabled legitimate‑looking malicious releases.
The poisoned dependency executed Remote Access Trojans (RATs) across Linux, macOS and Windows systems.
The malware beaconed to a remote command-and-control (C2) server every 60 seconds in a loop, awaiting further instructions.
The installer self‑cleaned by deleting malicious artifacts.

All of this matters because a single maintainer compromise was enough to project attacker access into thousands of trusted production environments without exploiting a single vulnerability.

A view from Darktrace

Multiple cases linked with the Axios compromise were identified across Darktrace’s customer base in March 2026, across both Darktrace / NETWORK and Darktrace / CLOUD deployments.

In one Darktrace / CLOUD deployment, an Azure Cloud Asset was observed establishing new external HTTP connectivity to the IP 142.11.206[.]73 on port 8000. Darktrace deemed this activity as highly anomalous for the device based on several factors, including the rarity of the endpoint across the network and the unusual combination of protocol and port for this asset. As a result, the triggering the "Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port" model was triggered in Darktrace / CLOUD. Detection was driven by environmental context rather than a known indicator at the time. Subsequent reporting later classified the destination as malicious in relation to the Axios supply‑chain compromise, reinforcing the gap that often exists between initial attacker activity and the availability of actionable intelligence. [5]

Additionally, shortly before this C2 connection, the device was observed communicating with various endpoints associated with the NPM package manager, further reinforcing the association with this attack.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual external connection to 142.11[.]206[.]73 via port 8000.

Within Axios cases observed within Darktrace / NETWORK customer environments, activity generally focused on the use of newly observed cURL user agents in outbound connections to the C2 URL sfrclak[.]com/6202033, alongside the download of malicious files.

In other cases, Darktrace / NETWORK customers with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration received alerts flagging newly observed system executables and process launches associated with C2 communication.

Figure 2: A Security Integration Alert from Microsoft Defender for Endpoint associated with the Axios supply chain attack.

2. Why Trivy bypassed security tooling trust

Between late February and March 22, 2026, the threat group TeamPCP leveraged credentials from a previous incident to insert malicious artifacts across Trivy’s distribution ecosystem, including its CI automation, release binaries, Visual Studio Code extensions, and Docker container images [2].

While public reporting has emphasized GitHub Actions, Darktrace telemetry highlights attacker execution within CI/CD runner environments, including ephemeral build runners. These execution contexts are typically granted broad trust and limited visibility, allowing malicious activity within build automation to blend into expected operational workflows, regardless of provider.

This was a coordinated multi‑phase attack:

75 of 76 of trivy-action tags and all setup‑trivy tags were force‑pushed to deliver a malicious payload.
A malicious binary (v0.69.4) was distributed across all major distribution channels.
Developer machines were compromised, receiving a persistent backdoor and a self-propagating worm.
Secrets were exfiltrated at scale, including SSH keys, Kuberenetes tokens, database passwords, and cloud credentials across Amazon Web Service (AWS), Azure, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Within Darktrace’s customer base, an AWS EC2 instance monitored by Darktrace / CLOUD appeared to have been impacted by the Trivy attack. On March 19, the device was seen connecting to the attacker-controlled C2 server scan[.]aquasecurtiy[.]org (45.148.10[.]212), triggering the model 'Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server’ in Darktrace / CLOUD.

Despite this limited historical context, Darktrace assessed this activity as suspicious due to the rarity of the destination endpoint across the wider deployment. This resulted in the triggering of a model alert and the generation of a Cyber AI Analyst incident to further analyze and correlate the attack activity.

TeamPCP’s continued abused of GitHub Actions against security and IT tooling has also been observed more recently in Darktrace’s customer base. On April 22, an AWS asset was seen connecting to the C2 endpoint audit.checkmarx[.]cx (94.154.172[.]43). The timing of this activity suggests a potential link to a malicious Bitwarden package distributed by the threat actor, which was only available for a short timeframe on April 22. [4][3]

‍

Figure 3: A model alert flagging unusual external connectivity from the AWS asset, as seen in Darktrace / CLOUD .

‍

While the Trivy activity originated within build automation, the underlying failure mode mirrors later intrusions observed via management tooling. In both cases, attackers leveraged platforms designed for scale and trust to execute actions that blended into normal operational noise until downstream effects became visible.

Quest KACE: Legacy Risk, Real Impact

The Quest KACE System Management Appliance (SMA) incident reinforces that software risk is not confined to development pipelines alone. High‑trust infrastructure and management platforms are increasingly leveraged by adversaries when left unpatched or exposed to the internet.

Throughout March 2026, attackers exploited CVE 2025-32975 to authentication on outdated, internet-facing KACE appliances, gaining administrative control and pushing remote payloads into enterprise environments. Organizations still running pre-patch versions effectively handed adversaries a turnkey foothold, reaffirming a simple strategic truth: legacy management systems are now part of the supply-chain threat surface, and treating them as “low-risk utilities” is no longer defensible [3].

Within the Darktrace customer base, a potential case was identified in mid-March involving an internet-facing server that exhibited the use of a new user agent alongside unusual file downloads and unexpected external connectivity. Darktrace identified the device downloading file downloads from "216.126.225[.]156/x", "216.126.225[.]156/ct.py" and "216.126.225[.]156/n", using the user agents, "curl/8.5.0" & "Python-urllib/3.9".

The timeframe and IoCs observed point towards likely exploitation of CVE‑2025‑32975. As with earlier incidents, the activity became visible through deviations in expected system behavior rather than through advance knowledge of exploitation or attacker infrastructure. The delay between observed exploitation and its addition to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalogue underscores a recurring failure: retrospective validation cannot keep pace with adversaries operating at automation speed.

The strategic pattern: Ecosystem‑scale adversaries

The Axios and Trivy compromises are not anomalies; they are signals of a structural shift in the threat landscape. In this post-trust era, the compromise of a single maintainer, repository token, or CI/CD tag can produce large-scale blast radiuses with downstream victims numbering in the thousands. Attackers are no longer just exploiting vulnerabilities; they are exploiting infrastructure privileges, developer trust relationships, and automated build systems that the industry has generally under secured.

Supply‑chain compromise should now be treated as an assumed breach scenario, not a specialized threat class, particularly across build, integration, and management infrastructure. Organizations must operate under the assumption that compromise will occur within trusted software and automation layers, not solely at the network edge or user endpoint. Defenders should therefore expect compromise to emerge from trusted automation layers before it is labelled, validated, or widely understood.

The future of supply‑chain defense lies in continuous behavioral visibility, autonomous detection across developer and build environments, and real‑time anomaly identification.

As AI increasingly shapes software development and security operations, defenders must assume adversaries will also operate with AI in the loop. The defensive edge will come not from predicting specific compromises, but from continuously interrogating behavior across environments humans can no longer feasibly monitor at scale.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISCO), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References:

1) https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/hackers-hijack-axios-npm-package/

2) https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/trivy-hack-spreads-infostealer-via.html

3) https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/hackers-exploit-cve-2025-32975-cvss-100.html

4) https://www.endorlabs.com/learn/shai-hulud-the-third-coming----inside-the-bitwarden-cli-2026-4-0-supply-chain-attack

5) https://socket.dev/blog/axios-npm-package-compromised?trk=public_post_comment-text

IoCs

- 142.11.206[.]73 – IP Address – Axios supply chain C2

- sfrclak[.]com – Hostname – Axios supply chain C2

- hxxp://sfrclak[.]com:8000/6202033 - URI – Axios supply chain payload

- 45.148.10[.]212 – IP Address – Trivy supply chain C2

- scan.aquasecurtiy[.]org – Hostname - Trivy supply chain C2

- 94.154.172[.]43 – IP Address - Checkmarx/Bitwarden supply chain C2

- audit.checkmarx[.]cx – Hostname - Checkmarx/Bitwarder supply chain C2

- 216.126.225[.]156 – IP Address – Quest KACE exploitation C2

- 216.126.225[.]156/32 - URI – Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/ct.py - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/n - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/x - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- e1ec76a0e1f48901566d53828c34b5dc – MD5 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- d3beab2e2252a13d5689e9911c2b2b2fc3a41086 – SHA1 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- ab6677fcbbb1ff4a22cc3e7355e1c36768ba30bbf5cce36f4ec7ae99f850e6c5 – SHA256 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 83b7a106a5e810a1781e62b278909396 – MD5 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- deb4b5841eea43cb8c5777ee33ee09bf294a670d – SHA1 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- b1b2f1e36dcaa36bc587fda1ddc3cbb8e04c3df5f1e3f1341c9d2ec0b0b0ffaf – SHA256 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Pattern of Life Block

Device / New User Agent

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Anomalous File / New User Agent Followed By Numeric File Download

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

Email

May 6, 2026

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

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.

About the author

Kiri Addison

Senior Director of Product

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Tracking a Dragon: Investigating a DragonForce-affiliated ransomware attack with Darktrace

Tracking a Dragon: Investigating a DragonForce-affiliated ransomware attack with Darktrace

What is DragonForce?

Darktrace's Observations

1. Network Scan & Brute Force

2. Windows Registry Key Update

3. New Administrator Credential Usage

4. Data Exfiltration

5. Ransomware Encryption & Ransom Note

Conclusion

Appendices

References:

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

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

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Jenkins Honeypot Reveals Emerging Botnet Targeting Online Games

How a Compromised eScan Update Enabled Multi‑Stage Malware and Blockchain C2

Blog

Network

May 6, 2026

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Software supply-chain attacks in 2026

1. Why the Axios Compromise Scaled

A view from Darktrace

2. Why Trivy bypassed security tooling trust

Quest KACE: Legacy Risk, Real Impact

The strategic pattern: Ecosystem‑scale adversaries

Appendices

References:

IoCs

Darktrace Model Detections

Blog

Email

May 6, 2026

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

What are email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

Recent examples of prompt injection attacks

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

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

How does Darktrace catch these types of attacks?

Ask your email provider about email-delivered AI prompt injection

Questions to ask your email security provider