Understanding your organization's attack surface and why it poses a risk
As business infrastructures continue to increase in breadth and complexity, it's important to keep ahead of changes within your own organization's attack surface and stay ahead of attackers.
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
Vincent Thiele
Deputy CISO
Share
02
Jun 2021
What is the attack surface of an organization?
Your attack surface is the sum of the exposed and internet-facing assets, and the associated risks a hacker can exploit to carry out a cyber-attack. Over the past decade or so, that attack surface has changed dramatically. Long gone are the days when the only things exposed to the outside world were your website and your mail server.
Today, increased complexity means that many organization often have huge attack surfaces – in fact, we believe that the attack surface has grown by around 1000% in the past 10 years.
Definition and components of the attack surface
The attack surface of an organization refers to the sum of all points where an unauthorized user (the attacker) can try to enter data to or extract data from an environment. Reducing the attack surface is a fundamental aspect of cybersecurity. Here are some components of the attack surface:
Exposed Assets:
Endpoints: Devices like computers, smartphones, tablets, and IoT devices that connect to the network.
Servers: Including web servers, database servers, application servers, and cloud-based servers.
Applications: Software applications, including those running on the network, desktop applications, and cloud applications.
Network Infrastructure: Routers, switches, firewalls, and other network devices.
Internet-Facing Assets:some text
Websites and Web Applications: Publicly accessible websites and web services.
APIs: Application Programming Interfaces that can be accessed over the internet.
Email Servers: Servers responsible for handling incoming and outgoing emails.
Cloud Services: Services hosted on cloud platforms like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud.
Evolution of the attack surface
If that wasn’t enough of a challenge in itself, the modern attack surface is constantly evolving. The explosion of connected technologies means there are a host of new threat points within organizations: from third-party SaaS and IaaS providers, to VPNs, and from marketing partners who run campaigns and build infrastructures for you to the challenges of BYOD and shadow IT.
On top of this, the agile development world of DevOps is an additional challenge with apps being central to most financial institutions’ business models. The use of bi-weekly sprints and continuous deployments means infrastructures are in an almost constant state of change.
Below is just a quick snapshot of some of the areas where different departments can make changes to your attack surface under the radar and that you need to be aware of when trying to protect your data:
Cloud adoption, migrations – Exposed assets and storage buckets
Development Team – New Assets and Testing
Networks – New Netblocks and advertisements
Marketing – New subdomains for landing pages hosted at design companies
Sales – Campaigns and e-Commerce
IT operations – Configuration Changes, Patching, New Assets, and services
Security – Fixes, Agent deployments, new assets
Mergers and Acquisitions – Risk associated with newly acquired assets
Subsidiaries – Complexities of assets not controlled
Supply Chain Risk – Hosting providers, third parties
And that’s without taking into account the effects of the Covid pandemic. Changing infrastructure due to new working practices alongside the turbo-boost that digital transformation has been given resulting in a rapid shift to the cloud of everything from HR services to core business applications, have added a whole new layer of possible weak points and attack vectors for organisations. Every one of these factors increases the risk of your business’s data being compromised in some way.
Attackers are changing too
But it’s not just the proper indexing and management of new assets that you need to be concerned about. Attackers are getting more and more sophisticated in the techniques and technologies they use to locate and exploit vulnerabilities, and different areas of exploitation are appearing all the time.
Many companies already deploy a range of both defensive and offensive techniques to defend their networks from cyber attacks, including advanced, complex and expensive Threat Intelligence teams that track campaigns run by cyber criminals.
However, even if you do have the money and resources to create skilled teams like this, something as simple as a web server with an exploitable vulnerability can easily go unnoticed, leaving it open for a threat actor to exploit that asset. And in the end, manually checking and fixing every little misconfiguration is not the kind of repetitive work you employ an expert team for.
Don't be undone by simple mistakes
Malicious or just simple mistakes are almost impossible to track and control, and they can result in the most extensive exposures to a business. There are constant examples of configuration changes implemented that resulted in regulatory breaches or opening vulnerabilities that have been exploited. Security teams will focus on external and internal actors, but monitoring resulting changes requires an external view.
With your attack surface moving and changing all the time, it is crucial to be in control of this on a day-to-day basis, and to understand the risks posed to your organization. Yet, having the comprehensive overview that allows you to be in control and to protect against threat actors has seemingly never been more difficult to achieve.
Attack surface management
If your organization continues to take an inside-out approach to your security, you will not be able to see the blind spots that will ultimately introduce the brand's biggest risk. Instead, you can see how a threat actor sees your business and your brand by deploying an effective attack surface solution that gives you a comprehensive view of where your possible threats are.
Ultimately, this allows you to take back control of your attack surface by monitoring risk, confirming changes have been made, and monitoring security policy governance. Such an automated solution will not only help detect the biggest security threats, but will also provide the insights into your overall attack surface, giving you all the data needed to take your security to the next level.
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.
The Next Step After Mythos: Defending in a World Where Compromise is Expected
Is Anthropic’s Mythos a turning point for cybersecurity?
Anthropic’s recent announcements around their Mythos model, alongside the launch of Project Glasswing, have generated significant interest across the cybersecurity industry.
The closed-source nature of the Mythos model has understandably attracted a degree of skepticism around some of the claims being made. Additionally, Project Glasswing was initially positioned as a way for software vendors to accelerate the proactive discovery of vulnerabilities in their own code; however, much of the attention has focused on the potential for AI to identify exploitable vulnerabilities for those with malicious intent.
Putting questions around the veracity of those claims to one side – which, for what it’s worth, do appear to be at least partially endorsed by independent bodies such as the UK’s AI Security Institute – this should not be viewed as a critical turning point for the industry. Rather, it reflects the natural direction of travel.
How Mythos affects cybersecurity teams
At Darktrace, extolling the virtues of AI within cybersecurity is understandably close to our hearts. However, taking a step back from the hype, we’d like to consider what developments like this mean for security teams.
Whether it’s Mythos or another model yet to be released, it’s worth remembering that there is no fundamental difference between an AI discovered vulnerability and one discovered by a human. The change is in the paceof discovery and, some may argue, the lower the barrier to entry.
In the hands of a software developer, this is unquestionably positive. Faster discovery enables earlier remediation and more proactive security. But in the hands of an attacker, the same capability will likely lead to a greater number of exploitable vulnerabilities being used in the wild and, critically, vulnerabilities that are not yet known to either the vendor or the end user.
That said, attackers have always been able to find exploitable vulnerabilities and use them undetected for extended periods of time. The use of AI does not fundamentally change this reality, but it does make the process faster and, unfortunately, more likely to occur at scale.
While tools such as Darktrace / Attack Surface Management and / Proactive Exposure Management can help security teams prioritize where to patch, the emergence of AI-driven vulnerability discovery reinforces an important point: patching alone is not a sufficient control against modern cyber-attacks.
Rethinking defense for a world where compromise is expected
Rather than assuming vulnerabilities can simply be patched away, defenders are better served by working from the assumption that their software is already vulnerable - and always will be -and build their security strategy accordingly.
Under that assumption, defenders should expect initial access, particularly across internet exposed assets, to become easier for attackers. What matters then is how quickly that foothold is detected, contained, and prevented from expanding.
For defenders, this places renewed emphasis on a few core capabilities:
Secure-by-design architectures and blast radius reduction, particularly around identity, MFA, segmentation, and Zero Trust principles
Early, scalable detection and containment, favoring behavioral and context-driven signals over signatures alone
Operational resilience, with the expectation of more frequent early-stage incidents that must be managed without burning out teams
How Darktrace helps organizations proactively defend against cyber threats
At Darktrace, we support security teams across all three of these critical capabilities through a multi-layered AI approach. Our Self-Learning AI learns what’s normal for your organization, enabling real-time threat detection, behavioral prediction, incident investigation and autonomous response. - all while empowering your security team with visibility and control.
Reducing blast radius through visibility and control
Secure-by-design principles depend on understanding how users, devices, and systems behave. By learning the normal patterns of identity and network activity, Darktrace helps teams identify when access is being misused or when activity begins to move beyond expected boundaries. This makes it possible to detect and contain lateral movement early, limiting how far an attacker can progress even after initial access.
Detecting and containing threats at the earliest stage
As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery, defenders need to identify exploitation before it is formally recognized. Darktrace’s behavioral understanding approach enables detection of subtle deviations from normal activity, including those linked to previously unknown vulnerabilities.
A key example of this is our research on identifying cyber threats before public CVE disclosures, demonstrating that assessing activity against what is normal for a specific environment, rather than relying on predefined indicators of compromise, enables detection of intrusions exploiting previously unknown vulnerabilities days or even weeks before details become publicly available.
Additionally, our Autonomous Response capability provides fast, targeted containment focused on the most concerning events, while allowing normal business operations to continue. This has consistently shown that even when attackers use techniques never seen before, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response can contain threats before they have a chance to escalate.
Scaling response without increasing operational burden
As early-stage incidents become more frequent, the ability to investigate and respond efficiently becomes critical. Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst’s AI-driven investigation capabilities automatically correlate activity across the environment, prioritizing the most significant threats and reducing the need for manual triage. This allows security teams to respond faster and more consistently, without increasing workload or burnout.
What effective defense looks like in an AI-accelerated landscape
Developments like Mythos highlight a reality that has been building for some time: the window between exposure and exploitation is shrinking, and in many cases, it may disappear entirely. In that environment, relying on patching alone becomes increasingly reactive, leaving little room to respond once access has been established.
The more durable approach is to assume that compromise will occur and focus on controlling what happens next. That means identifying early signs of misuse, containing threats before they spread, and maintaining visibility across the environment so that isolated signals can be understood in context.
AI plays a role on both sides of this equation. While it enables attackers to move faster, it also gives defenders the ability to detect subtle changes in behavior, prioritize what matters, and respond in real time. The advantage will not come from adopting AI in isolation, but from applying it in a way that reduces the gap between detection and action.
AI may be accelerating parts of the attack lifecycle, but the fundamentals of defense, detection, and containment still apply. If anything, they matter more than ever – and AI is just as powerful a tool for defenders as it is for attackers.
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)
![Darktrace’s detection of the unusual external connection to 142.11[.]206[.]73 via port 8000.](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/69fa6d343ee828935a4a00f5_Screenshot%202026-05-05%20at%203.20.33%E2%80%AFPM.png)
