July 24, 2025

Untangling the web: Darktrace’s investigation of Scattered Spider’s evolving tactics

Learn about a recent Scattered Spider attack observed by Darktrace, comparing tactics with those seen in previous attacks. Widespread use of LOTL techniques alongside continued changes in TTPs such as their recent use of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) platforms can make it challenging for security teams to harden defenses.

Written by

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

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

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

man on computer doing work scattered spider cybersecurity

Jul 2025

What is Scattered Spider?

Scattered Spider is a native English-speaking group, also referred to, or closely associated with, aliases such as UNC3944, Octo Tempest and Storm-0875. They are primarily financially motivated with a clear emphasis on leveraging social engineering, SIM swapping attacks, exploiting legitimate tooling as well as using Living-Off-the-Land (LOTL) techniques [1][2].

In recent years, Scattered Spider has been observed employing a shift in tactics, leveraging Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) platforms in their attacks. This adoption reflects a shift toward more scalable attacks with a lower barrier to entry, allowing the group to carry out sophisticated ransomware attacks without the need to develop it themselves.

While RaaS offerings have been available for purchase on the Dark Web for several years, they have continued to grow in popularity, providing threat actors a way to cause significant impact to critical infrastructure and organizations without requiring highly technical capabilities [12].

This blog focuses on the group’s recent changes in tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) reported by open-source intelligence (OSINT) and how TTPs in a recent Scattered Spider attack observed by Darktrace compare.

How has Scattered Spider been reported to operate?

First observed in 2022, Scattered Spider is known to target various industries globally including telecommunications, technology, financial services, and commercial facilities.

Overview of key TTPs

Scattered Spider has been known to utilize the following methods which cover multiple stages of the Cyber Kill Chain including initial access, lateral movement, evasion, persistence, and action on objective:

Social engineering [1]:

Impersonating staff via phone calls, SMS and Telegram messages; obtaining employee credentials (MITRE techniques T1598,T1656), multi-factor authentication (MFA) codes such as one-time passwords, or convincing employees to run commercial remote access tools enabling initial access (MITRE techniques T1204,T1219,T1566)

Phishing using specially crafted domains containing the victim name e.g. victimname-sso[.]com
MFA fatigue: sending repeated requests for MFA approval with the intention that the victim will eventually accept (MITRE technique T1621)

SIM swapping [1][3]:

Includes hijacking phone numbers to intercept 2FA codes
This involves the actor migrating the victim's mobile number to a new SIM card without legitimate authorization

Reconnaissance, lateral movement & command-and-control (C2) communication via use of legitimate tools:

Examples include Mimikatz, Ngrok, TeamViewer, and Pulseway [1]. A more recently reported example is Teleport [3].

Financial theft through their access to victim networks: Extortion via ransomware, data theft (MITRE technique T1657) [1]

Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) techniques [4]:

Exploiting vulnerable drivers to evade detection from Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) security products (MITRE technique T1068) frequently used against Windows devices.

LOTL techniques

LOTL techniques are also closely associated with Scattered Spider actors once they have gained initial access; historically this has allowed them to evade detection until impact starts to be felt. It also means that specific TTPs may vary from case-to-case, making it harder for security teams to prepare and harden defences against the group.

Prominent Scattered Spider attacks over the years

While attribution is sometimes unconfirmed, Scattered Spider have been linked with a number of highly publicized attacks since 2022.

Smishing attacks on Twilio: In August 2022 the group conducted multiple social engineering-based attacks. One example was an SMS phishing (smishing) attack against the cloud communication platform Twilio, which led to the compromise of employee accounts, allowing actors to access internal systems and ultimately target Twilio customers [5][6].

Phishing and social engineering against MailChimp: Another case involved a phishing and social engineering attack against MailChimp. After gaining access to internal systems through compromised employee accounts the group conducted further attacks specifically targeting MailChimp users within cryptocurrency and finance industries [5][7].

Social engineering against Riot Games: In January 2023, the group was linked with an attack on video game developer Riot Games where social engineering was once again used to access internal systems. This time, the attackers exfiltrated game source code before sending a ransom note [8][9].

Attack on Caesars & MGM: In September 2023, Scattered Spider was linked with attacked on Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International, two of the largest casino and gambling companies in the United States. It was reported that the group gathered nearly six terabytes of stolen data from the hotels and casinos, including sensitive information of guests, and made use of the RaaS strain BlackCat [10].

Ransomware against Marks & Spencer: More recently, in April 2025, the group has also been linked to the alleged ransomware incident against the UK-based retailer Marks & Spencer (M&S) making use of the DragonForce RaaS [11].

How a recent attack observed by Darktrace compares

In May 2025, Darktrace observed a Scattered Spider attack affecting one of its customers. While initial access in this attack fell outside of Darktrace’s visibility, information from the affected customer suggests similar social engineering techniques involving abuse of the customer’s helpdesk and voice phishing (vishing) were used for reconnaissance.

Initial access

It is believed the threat actor took advantage of the customer’s third-party Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications, such as Salesforce during the attack.

Such applications are a prime target for data exfiltration due to the sensitive data they hold; customer, personnel, and business data can all prove useful in enabling further access into target networks.

Techniques used by Scattered Spider following initial access to a victim network tend to vary more widely and so details are sparser within OSINT. However, Darktrace is able to provide some additional insight into what techniques were used in this specific case, based on observed activity and subsequent investigation by its Threat Research team.

Lateral movement

Following initial access to the customer’s network, the threat actor was able to pivot into the customer’s Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) environment.

Darktrace observed the threat actor spinning up new virtual machines and activating cloud inventory management tools to enable discovery of targets for lateral movement.

In some cases, these virtual machines were not monitored or managed by the customer’s security tools, allowing the threat actor to make use of additional tooling such as AnyDesk which may otherwise have been blocked.

Tooling in further stages of the attack sometimes overlapped with previous OSINT reporting on Scattered Spider, with anomalous use of Ngrok and Teleport observed by Darktrace, likely representing C2 communication. Additional tooling was also seen being used on the virtual machines, such as Pastebin.

Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of C2 beaconing to a teleport endpoint with hostname CUSTOMERNAME.teleport[.]sh, likely in an attempt to conceal the traffic.

Leveraging LOTL techniques

Alongside use of third-party tools that may have been unexpected on the network, various LOTL techniques were observed during the incident; this primarily involved the abuse of standard network protocols such as:

SAMR requests to alter Active Directory account details
Lateral movement over RDP and SSH
Data collection over LDAP and SSH

Coordinated exfiltration activity linked through AI-driven analysis

Multiple methods of exfiltration were observed following internal data collection. This included SSH transfers to IPs associated with Vultr, alongside significant uploads to an Amazon S3 bucket.

While connections to this endpoint were not deemed unusual for the network at this stage due to the volume of traffic seen, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was still able to identify the suspiciousness of this behavior and launched an investigation into the activity.

Cyber AI Analyst successfully correlated seemingly unrelated internal download and external upload activity across multiple devices into a single, broader incident for the customer’s security team to review.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst Incident summary showing a clear outline of the observed activity, including affected devices and the anomalous behaviors detected.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of internal data downloads and subsequent external uploads to an Amazon S3 bucket.

Exfiltration and response

Unfortunately, as Darktrace was not configured in Autonomous Response mode at the time, the attack was able to proceed without interruption, ultimately escalating to the point of data exfiltration.

Despite this, Darktrace was still able to recommend several Autonomous Response actions, aimed at containing the attack by blocking the internal data-gathering activity and the subsequent data exfiltration connections.

These actions required manual approval by the customer’s security team and as shown in Figure 3, at least one of the recommended actions was subsequently approved.

Had Darktrace been enabled in Autonomous Response mode, these measures would have been applied immediately, effectively halting the data exfiltration attempts.

Figure 4: Further recommendations for Autonomous Response actions in Darktrace‘s Incident Interface, with surgical response targeting both the internal data collection and subsequent exfiltration.

Scattered Spider’s use of RaaS

In this recent Scattered Spider incident observed by Darktrace, exfiltration appears to have been the primary impact. While no signs of ransomware deployment were observed here, it is possible that this was the threat actors’ original intent, consistent with other recent Scattered Spider attacks involving RaaS platforms like DragonForce.

DragonForce emerged towards the end of 2023, operating by offering their platform and capabilities on a wide scale. They also launched a program which offered their affiliates 80% of the eventual ransom, along with tools for further automation and attack management [13].

The rise of RaaS and attacker customization is fragmenting TTPs and indicators, making it harder for security teams to anticipate and defend against each unique intrusion.

While DragonForce appears to be the latest RaaS used by Scattered Spider, it is not the first, showcasing the ongoing evolution of tactics used the group.

In addition, the BlackCat RaaS strain was reportedly used by Scattered Spider for their attacks against Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International [10].

In 2024 the group was also seen making use of additional RaaS strains; RansomHub and Qilin [15].

What security teams and CISOs can do to defend against Scattered Spider

The ongoing changes in tactics used by Scattered Spider, reliance on LOTL techniques, and continued adoption of evolving RaaS providers like DragonForce make it harder for organizations and their security teams to prepare their defenses against such attacks.

CISOs and security teams should implement best practices such as MFA, Single Sign-On (SSO), notifications for suspicious logins, forward logging, ethical phishing tests.

Also, given Scattered Spider’s heavy focus on social engineering, and at times using their native English fluency to their advantage, it is critical to IT and help desk teams are reminded they are possible targets.

Beyond social engineering, the threat actor is also adept at taking advantage of third-party SaaS applications in use by victims to harvest common SaaS data, such as PII and configuration data, that enable the threat actor to take on multiple identities across different domains.

With Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI, anomaly-based detection, and Autonomous Response inhibitors, businesses can halt malicious activities in real-time, whether attackers are using known TTPs or entirely new ones. Offerings such as Darktrace /Attack Surface Management enable security teams to proactively identify signs of malicious activity before it can cause an impact, while more generally Darktrace’s ActiveAI Security Platform can provide a comprehensive view of an organization’s digital estate across multiple domains.

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Zaki Al-Dhamari (Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISO), and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

---------------------

^{The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and is provided "as is" without any representations or warranties, express or implied. While Darktrace makes reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content related to cybersecurity threats such as Scattered Spider, we make no warranties or guarantees regarding the completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information for any purpose.}

^{This blog post does not constitute professional cybersecurity advice, and should not be relied upon as such. Readers should seek guidance from qualified cybersecurity professionals or legal counsel before making any decisions or taking any actions based on the content herein.}

^{No warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of performance, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement, is given with respect to the contents of this post.}

^{Darktrace expressly disclaims any liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained in this blog.}

Appendices

References

[1] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-320a

[2] https://attack.mitre.org/groups/G1015/

[3] https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/scattered-spider-rapid7-insights-observations-and-recommendations/

[4] https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/scattered-spider-attempts-to-avoid-detection-with-bring-your-own-vulnerable-driver-tactic/

[5] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/06/alleged-boss-of-scattered-spider-hacking-group-arrested/?web_view=true

[6] https://www.cxtoday.com/crm/uk-teenager-accused-of-hacking-twilio-lastpass-mailchimp-arrested/

[7] https://mailchimp.com/newsroom/august-2022-security-incident/

[8] https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/02/0ktapus-hackers-are-back-and-targeting-tech-and-gaming-companies-says-leaked-report/

[9] https://www.pcmag.com/news/hackers-behind-riot-games-breach-stole-league-of-legends-source-code

[10] https://www.bbrown.com/us/insight/a-look-back-at-the-mgm-and-caesars-incident/

[11] https://cyberresilience.com/threatonomics/scattered-spider-uk-retail-attacks/

[12] https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/ransomware/ransomware-as-a-service-raas/

[13] https://www.group-ib.com/blog/dragonforce-ransomware/
[14] https://blackpointcyber.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DragonForce.pdf
[15] https://x.com/MsftSecIntel/status/1812932749314978191?lang=en

Select MITRE tactics associated with Scattered Spider

Tactic – Technique – Technique Name

Reconnaissance - T1598 - Phishing for Information

Initial Access - T1566 – Phishing

Execution - T1204 - User Execution

Privilege Escalation - T1068 - Exploitation for Privilege Escalation

Defense Evasion - T1656 - Impersonation

Credential Access - T1621 - Multi-Factor Authentication Request Generation

Lateral Movement - T1021 - Remote Services

Command and Control - T1102 - Web Service

Command and Control - T1219 - Remote Access Tools

Command and Control - T1572 - Protocol Tunneling

Exfiltration - T1567 - Exfiltration Over Web Service

Impact - T1657 - Financial Theft

Select MITRE tactics associated with DragonForce

Tactic – Technique – Technique Name

Initial Access, Defense Evasion, Persistence, Privilege Escalation - T1078 - Valid Accounts

Initial Access, Persistence - T1133 - External Remote Services

Initial Access - T1190 - Exploit Public-Facing Application

Initial Access - T1566 – Phishing

Execution - T1047 - Windows Management Instrumentation

Privilege Escalation - T1068 - Exploitation for Privilege Escalation

Lateral Movement - T1021 - Remote Services

Impact - T1486 - Data Encrypted for Impact

Impact - T1657 - Financial Theft

Select Darktrace models

Compliance / Internet Facing RDP Server

Compliance / Incoming Remote Access Tool

Compliance / Remote Management Tool on Server

Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download

Anomalous Server Activity/ New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device

Device / Internet Facing System with High Priority Alert

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP

Anomalous Connection / High Priority DRSGetNCChanges

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal SSH

Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

Compliance / Pastebin

Anomalous Connection / Possible Tunnelling to Rare Endpoint

Compromise / Beaconing Activity to External Rare

Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

Compromise / SSH to Rare External AWS

Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Connection / Large Volume of LDAP Download

Unusual Activity / Internal Data Transfer on New Device

Anomalous Connection / Download and Upload

Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Compromise / Ransomware/Suspicious SMB Activity

Written by

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

Inside the SOC

Written by

Emma Foulger

Global Threat Research Operations Lead

•

April 7, 2026

Nathaniel Bill

Malware Research Engineer

Director of Product Management | Darktrace

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Cloud

April 9, 2026

Bringing Together SOC and IR teams with Automated Threat Investigations for the Hybrid World

The investigation gap: Why incident response is slow, fragmented and reactive

Modern investigations often fall apart the moment analysts move beyond an initial alert. Whether detections originate in cloud or on-prem environments, SOC and Incident Response (IR) teams are frequently hindered by fragmented tools and data sources, closed ecosystems, and slow, manual evidence collection just to access the forensic context they need. SOC analysts receive alerts without the depth required to confidently confirm or dismiss a threat, while IR teams struggle with inconsistent visibility across cloud, on‑premises, and contained endpoints, creating delays, blind spots, and incomplete attack timelines.

This gap between SOC and Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) slows response and forces teams into reactive and inefficient investigation patterns. Security teams struggle to collect high‑fidelity forensic data during active incidents, particularly from cloud workloads, on‑prem systems, and XDR‑contained endpoints where traditional tools cannot operate without deploying new agents or disrupting containment. The result is a fragmented response process where investigations slow down, context gets lost, and critical attacker activity can slip through the cracks.

What’s new at Darktrace

‍

Helping teams move from detection to root cause faster, more efficiently, and with greater confidence

The latest update to Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation eliminates the traditional handoff between the SOC and IR teams, enabling analysts to seamlessly pivot from alert into forensic investigation. It also brings on-demand and automated data capture through Darktrace / ENDPOINT as well as third-party detection platforms, where investigators can safely collect critical forensic data from network contained endpoints, preserving containment while accelerating investigation and response.

Together, this solidifies / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation as an investigation-first platform beyond the cloud, fit for any organization that has adopted a multi-technology infrastructure. In practice, when these various detection sources and host‑level forensics are combined, investigations move from limited insight to complete understanding quickly, giving security teams the clarity and deep context required to drive confident remediation and response based on the exact tactics, techniques and procedures employed.

‍

Integrated forensic context inside every incident workflow

SOC analysts now have seamless access to forensic evidence at the exact moment they need it. There is a new dedicated Forensics tab inside Cyber AI Analyst™ incidents, allowing users to move instantly from detection to rich forensic context in a single click, without the need to export data or get other teams involved.

For investigations that previously required multiple tools, credentials, or intervention by a dedicated team, this change represents a shift toward truly embedded incident‑driven forensics – accelerating both decision‑making and response quality at the point of detection.

Figure 1: The forensic investigation associated with the Cyber AI Analyst™ incident appears in a dedicated ‘Forensics’ tab, with the ability to pivot into the / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation UI for full context and deep analysis workflows.

‍

Reliable automated and manual hybrid evidence capture across any environment

Across cloud, on‑premises, and hybrid environments, analysts can now automate or request on‑demand forensic evidence collection the moment a threat is detected via Darktrace / ENDPOINT. This allows investigators to quickly capture high-fidelity forensic data from endpoints already under protection, accelerating investigations without additional tooling or disrupting systems. Especially in larger environments where the ability to scale is critical, automated data capture across hybrid environments significantly reduces response time and enables consistent, repeatable investigations.

Unlike EDR‑only solutions, which capture only a narrow slice of activity, these workflows provide high‑quality, cross‑environment forensic depth, even on third‑party XDR‑contained devices that many vendor ecosystems cannot reach.

The result is a single, unified process for capturing the forensic context analysts need no matter where the threat originates, even in third-party vendor protected areas.

Figure 2: The ability to acquire, process, and investigate devices with the Darktrace / ENDPOINT agent installed using the ‘Darktrace Endpoint’ import provider

Figure 3: A Linux device that has the Darktrace / ENDPOINT agent installed has been acquired and processed by / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

‍

Investigation‑first design flexible for hybrid organizations

Luckily, taking advantage of automated forensic data capture of non-cloud assets won’t be subject to those who purely use Darktrace / ENDPOINT. This functionality is also available where CrowdStrike, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, or SentinelOne agents are deployed. In the case of CrowdStrike, Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation can also perform a triage capture of a device that has been contained using CrowdStrike’s network containment capability. What’s critical here is the fact that investigators can safely acquire additional forensic evidence without breaking or altering containment. That massively improves investigation and response time without adding more risk factors.

Figure 4: ‘cado.xdr.test2’ has been contained using CrowdStrike’s network containment capability

Figure 5: Successful triage capture of contained endpoint ‘cado.xdr.test2’ using / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

The benefits of extending forensics to on‑premises and endpoint environments

Despite Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation originating as a cloud‑first solution, the challenges of incident response are not limited to the cloud. Many investigations span on‑premises servers, unmanaged endpoints, legacy systems, or devices locked inside third‑party ecosystems.

By extending automated investigation capabilities into on‑premises environments and endpoints, Darktrace delivers several critical benefits:

Unified investigations across hybrid infrastructure and a heterogeneous security stack
Consistent forensic depth regardless of asset type
Faster and more accurate root-cause analysis
Stronger incident response readiness

‍

Figure 6: Unified alerts from cloud and on-prem environments, grouped into incident-centric investigations with forensic depth

Simplifying deep investigations across hybrid environments

These enhancements move Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation closer to a vision out of reach for most security teams: seamless, integrated, high‑fidelity forensics across cloud, on‑prem, and endpoint environments where other solutions usually stop at detection. Automated forensics as a whole is fueling faster outcomes with complete clarity throughout the end-to-end investigation process, which now takes teams from alert to understanding in minutes compared to days or even weeks. All without added agents, disruptions, or specialized teams. The result is an incident response lifecycle that finally matches the reality of modern infrastructure.

‍

Ready to see Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation in your environment? Request a demo.

Hear from industry-leading experts on the latest developments in AI cybersecurity at Darktrace LIVE. Coming to a city near you.

[related-resource]

About the author

Paul Bottomley

Director of Product Management | Darktrace

Blog

AI

April 10, 2026

How to Secure AI and Find the Gaps in Your Security Operations

secuing AI testing gaps security operations

What “securing AI” actually means (and doesn’t)

Security teams are under growing pressure to “secure AI” at the same pace which businesses are adopting it. But in many organizations, adoption is outpacing the ability to govern, monitor, and control it. When that gap widens, decision-making shifts from deliberate design to immediate coverage. The priority becomes getting something in place, whether that’s a point solution, a governance layer, or an extension of an existing platform, rather than ensuring those choices work together.

At the same time, AI governance is lagging adoption. 37% of organizations still lack AI adoption policies, shadow AI usage across SaaS has surged, and there are notable spikes in anomalous data uploads to generative AI services.

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize the dual nature of AI risk. Much of the industry has focused on how attackers will use AI to move faster, scale campaigns, and evade detection. But what’s becoming just as significant is the risk introduced by AI inside the organization itself. Enterprises are rapidly embedding AI into workflows, SaaS platforms, and decision-making processes, creating new pathways for data exposure, privilege misuse, and unintended access across an already interconnected environment.

Because the introduction of complex AI systems into modern, hybrid environments is reshaping attacker behavior and exposing gaps between security functions, the challenge is no longer just having the right capabilities in place but effectively coordinating prevention, detection, investigation, response, and remediation together. As threats accelerate and systems become more interconnected, security depends on coordinated execution, not isolated tools, which is why lifecycle-based approaches to governance, visibility, behavioral oversight, and real-time control are gaining traction.

From cloud consolidation to AI systems what we can learn

We have seen a version of AI adoption before in cloud security. In the early days, tooling fragmented into posture, workload/runtime, identity, data, and more. Gradually, cloud security collapsed into broader cloud platforms. The lesson was clear: posture without runtime misses active threats; runtime without posture ignores root causes. Strong programs ran both in parallel and stitched the findings together in operations.

Today’s AI wave stretches that lesson across every domain. Adversaries are compressing “time‑to‑tooling” using LLM‑assisted development (“vibecoding”) and recycling public PoCs at unprecedented speed. That makes it difficult to secure through siloed controls, because the risk is not confined to one layer. It emerges through interactions across layers.

Keep in mind, most modern attacks don’t succeed by defeating a single control. They succeed by moving through the gaps between systems faster than teams can connect what they are seeing. Recent exploitation waves like React2Shell show how quickly opportunistic actors operationalize fresh disclosures and chain misconfigurations to monetize at scale.

In the React2Shell window, defenders observed rapid, opportunistic exploitation and iterative payload diversity across a broad infrastructure footprint, strains that outpace signature‑first thinking.

You can stay up to date on attacker behavior by signing up for our newsletter where Darktrace’s threat research team and analyst community regularly dive deep into threat finds.

Ultimately, speed met scale in the cloud era; AI adds interconnectedness and orchestration. Simple questions — What happened? Who did it? Why? How? Where else? — now cut across identities, SaaS agents, model/service endpoints, data egress, and automated actions. The longer it takes to answer, the worse the blast radius becomes.
‍

The case for a platform approach in the age of AI

Think of security fusion as the connective tissue that lets you prevent, detect, investigate, and remediate in parallel, not in sequence. In practice, that looks like:

Unified telemetry with behavioral context across identities, SaaS, cloud, network, endpoints, and email—so an anomalous action in one plane automatically informs expectations in others. (Inside‑the‑SOC investigations show this pays off when attacks hop fast between domains.)

Pre‑CVE and “in‑the‑wild” awareness feeding controls before signatures—reducing dwell time in fast exploitation windows.

Automated, bounded response that can contain likely‑malicious actions at machine speed without breaking workflows—buying analysts time to investigate with full context. (Rapid CVE coverage and exploit‑wave posts illustrate how critical those first minutes are.)

Investigation workflows that assume AI is in the loop—for both defenders and attackers. As adversaries adopt “agentic” patterns, investigations need graph‑aware, sequence‑aware reasoning to prioritize what matters early.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s reflected in the Darktrace posts that consistently draw readership: timely threat intel with proprietary visibility and executive frameworks that transform field findings into operating guidance.

The five questions that matter (and the one that matters more)

When alerted to malicious or risky AI use, you’ll ask:

What happened?

Who did it?

Why did they do it?

How did they do it?

Where else can this happen?

The sixth, more important question is: How much worse does it get while you answer the first five? The answer depends on whether your controls operate in sequence (slow) or in fused parallel (fast).

What to watch next: How the AI security market will likely evolve

Security markets tend to follow a familiar pattern. New technologies drive an initial wave of specialized tools (posture, governance, observability) each focused on a specific part of the problem. Over time, those capabilities consolidate as organizations realize the new challenge is coordination.

AI is accelerating the shift of focus to coordination because AI-powered attackers can move faster and operate across more systems at once. Recent exploitation waves show exactly this. Adversaries can operationalize new techniques and move across domains, turning small gaps into full attack paths.

Anticipate a continued move toward more integrated security models because fragmented approaches can’t keep up with the speed and interconnected nature of modern attacks.

Building the Groundwork for Secure AI: How to Test Your Stack’s True Maturity

AI doesn’t create new surfaces as much as it exposes the fragility of the seams that already exist.

Darktrace’s own public investigations consistently show that modern attacks, from LinkedIn‑originated phishing that pivots into corporate SaaS to multi‑stage exploitation waves like BeyondTrust CVE‑2026‑1731 and React2Shell, succeed not because a single control failed, but because no control saw the whole sequence, or no system was able to respond at the speed of escalation.

Before thinking about “AI security,” customers should ensure they’ve built a security foundation where visibility, signals, and responses can pass cleanly between domains. That requires pressure‑testing the seams.

Below are the key integration questions and stack‑maturity tests every organization should run.
‍

1. Do your controls see the same event the same way?

Integration questions

When an identity behaves strangely (impossible travel, atypical OAuth grants), does that signal automatically inform your email, SaaS, cloud, and endpoint tools?
Do your tools normalize events in a way that lets you correlate identity → app → data → network without human stitching?

Why it matters

Darktrace’s public SOC investigations repeatedly show attackers starting in an unmonitored domain, then pivoting into monitored ones, such as phishing on LinkedIn that bypassed email controls but later appeared as anomalous SaaS behavior.

If tools can’t share or interpret each other's context, AI‑era attacks will outrun every control.

Tests you can run

Shadow Identity Test

Create a temporary identity with no history.
Perform a small but unusual action: unusual browser, untrusted IP, odd OAuth request.
Expected maturity signal: other tools (email/SaaS/network) should immediately score the identity as high‑risk.

Context Propagation Test

Trigger an alert in one system (e.g., endpoint anomaly) and check if other systems automatically adjust thresholds or sensitivity.
Low maturity signal: nothing changes unless an analyst manually intervenes.

‍

2. Does detection trigger coordinated action, or does everything act alone?

Integration questions

When one system blocks or contains something, do other systems automatically tighten, isolate, or rate‑limit?
Does your stack support bounded autonomy — automated micro‑containment without broad business disruption?

Why it matters

In public cases like BeyondTrust CVE‑2026‑1731 exploitation, Darktrace observed rapid C2 beaconing, unusual downloads, and tunneling attempts across multiple systems. Containment windows were measured in minutes, not hours.

Tests you can run

Chain Reaction Test

Simulate a primitive threat (e.g., access from TOR exit node).
Your identity provider should challenge → email should tighten → SaaS tokens should re‑authenticate.
Weak seam indicator: only one tool reacts.

Autonomous Boundary Test

Induce a low‑grade anomaly (credential spray simulation).
Evaluate whether automated containment rules activate without breaking legitimate workflows.

‍

3. Can your team investigate a cross‑domain incident without swivel‑chairing?

Integration questions

Can analysts pivot from identity → SaaS → cloud → endpoint in one narrative, not five consoles?
Does your investigation tooling use graphs or sequence-based reasoning, or is it list‑based?

Why it matters

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst and DIGEST research highlights why investigations must interpret structure and progression, not just standalone alerts. Attackers now move between systems faster than human triage cycles.

Tests you can run

One‑Hour Timeline Build Test

Pick any detection.
Give an analyst one hour to produce a full sequence: entry → privilege → movement → egress.
Weak seam indicator: they spend >50% of the hour stitching exports.

Multi‑Hop Replay Test

Simulate an incident that crosses domains (phish → SaaS token → data access).
Evaluate whether the investigative platform auto‑reconstructs the chain.

‍

4. Do you detect intent or only outcomes?

Integration questions

Can your stack detect the setup behaviors before an attack becomes irreversible?
Are you catching pre‑CVE anomalies or post‑compromise symptoms?

Why it matters

Darktrace publicly documents multiple examples of pre‑CVE detection, where anomalous behavior was flagged days before vulnerability disclosure. AI‑assisted attackers will hide behind benign‑looking flows until the very last moment.

Tests you can run

Intent‑Before‑Impact Test

Simulate reconnaissance-like behavior (DNS anomalies, odd browsing to unknown SaaS, atypical file listing).
Mature systems will flag intent even without an exploit.

CVE‑Window Test

During a real CVE patch cycle, measure detection lag vs. public PoC release.
Weak seam indicator: your detection rises only after mass exploitation begins.

‍

5. Are response and remediation two separate universes?

Integration questions

When you contain something, does that trigger root-cause remediation workflows in identity, cloud config, or SaaS posture?
Does fixing a misconfiguration automatically update correlated controls?

Why it matters

Darktrace’s cloud investigations (e.g., cloud compromise analysis) emphasize that remediation must close both runtime and posture gaps in parallel.

Tests you can run

Closed‑Loop Remediation Test

Introduce a small misconfiguration (over‑permissioned identity).
Trigger an anomaly.
Mature stacks will: detect → contain → recommend or automate posture repair.

Drift‑Regression Test

After remediation, intentionally re‑introduce drift.
The system should immediately recognize deviation from known‑good baseline.

‍

6. Do SaaS, cloud, email, and identity all agree on “normal”?

Integration questions

Is “normal behavior” defined in one place or many?
Do baselines update globally or per-tool?

Why it matters

Attackers (including AI‑assisted ones) increasingly exploit misaligned baselines, behaving “normal” to one system and anomalous to another.

Tests you can run

Baseline Drift Test

Change the behavior of a service account for 24 hours.
Mature platforms will flag the deviation early and propagate updated expectations.

Cross‑Domain Baseline Consistency Test

Compare identity’s risk score vs. cloud vs. SaaS.
Weak seam indicator: risk scores don’t align.

‍

Final takeaway

Security teams should ask be focused on how their stack operates as one system before AI amplifies pressure on every seam.

Only once an organization can reliably detect, correlate, and respond across domains can it safely begin to secure AI models, agents, and workflows.

About the author

Nabil Zoldjalali

VP, Field CISO

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Inside Scattered Spider: Evolving TTPs Exposed

Untangling the web: Darktrace’s investigation of Scattered Spider’s evolving tactics

What is Scattered Spider?

How has Scattered Spider been reported to operate?

Overview of key TTPs

Social engineering [1]:

SIM swapping [1][3]:

Reconnaissance, lateral movement & command-and-control (C2) communication via use of legitimate tools:

Financial theft through their access to victim networks: Extortion via ransomware, data theft (MITRE technique T1657) [1]

Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) techniques [4]:

LOTL techniques

Prominent Scattered Spider attacks over the years

How a recent attack observed by Darktrace compares

Initial access

Lateral movement

Leveraging LOTL techniques

Coordinated exfiltration activity linked through AI-driven analysis

Exfiltration and response

Scattered Spider’s use of RaaS

What security teams and CISOs can do to defend against Scattered Spider

Appendices

References

Select MITRE tactics associated with Scattered Spider

Select MITRE tactics associated with DragonForce

Select Darktrace models

Darktrace Identifies New Chaos Malware Variant Exploiting Misconfigurations in the Cloud

Bringing Together SOC and IR teams with Automated Threat Investigations for the Hybrid World

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

How Chinese-Nexus Cyber Operations Have Evolved – And What It Means For Cyber Risk and Resilience

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

When Reality Diverges from the Playbook: Darktrace Identifies Encryption in a World Leaks Ransomware Attack

Blog

Cloud

April 9, 2026

Bringing Together SOC and IR teams with Automated Threat Investigations for the Hybrid World

The investigation gap: Why incident response is slow, fragmented and reactive

What’s new at Darktrace

Helping teams move from detection to root cause faster, more efficiently, and with greater confidence

Integrated forensic context inside every incident workflow

Reliable automated and manual hybrid evidence capture across any environment

Investigation‑first design flexible for hybrid organizations

The benefits of extending forensics to on‑premises and endpoint environments

Simplifying deep investigations across hybrid environments

Blog

AI

April 10, 2026

How to Secure AI and Find the Gaps in Your Security Operations

What “securing AI” actually means (and doesn’t)

From cloud consolidation to AI systems what we can learn

The case for a platform approach in the age of AI

What to watch next: How the AI security market will likely evolve

Building the Groundwork for Secure AI: How to Test Your Stack’s True Maturity

1. Do your controls see the same event the same way?

2. Does detection trigger coordinated action, or does everything act alone?

3. Can your team investigate a cross‑domain incident without swivel‑chairing?

4. Do you detect intent or only outcomes?

5. Are response and remediation two separate universes?

6. Do SaaS, cloud, email, and identity all agree on “normal”?

Final takeaway