March 20, 2025

Cyberhaven Supply Chain Attack: Exploiting Browser Extensions

In late 2024, Darktrace detected unusual activity linked to Cyberhaven's Chrome browser extension. Read more about Darktrace’s investigation here.

Written by

Rajendra Rushanth

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

Rajendra Rushanth

Cyber Analyst

woman looking at laptop in the office building

Mar 2025

The evolution of supply chain attacks

Supply chain attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated. As network defenses improve, threat actors continuously adapt and refine their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to achieve their goals. In recent years, this has led to a rise in the exploitation of trusted services and software, including legitimate browser extensions. Exploitation of these extensions can provide adversaries with a stealthy means to infiltrate target networks and access high-value accounts undetected.

A notable example of this trend was the compromise of the Cyberhaven Chrome extension at the end of 2024. This incident appeared to be part of a broader campaign targeting multiple Chrome browser extensions, highlighting the evolving nature of supply chain attacks [1].

What is Cyberhaven?

Cyberhaven, a US-based data security organization, experienced a security breach on December 24, 2024, when a phishing attack reportedly compromised one of their employee's credentials [2]. This allowed attackers to publish a malicious version of the Cyberhaven Chrome extension, which exfiltrated cookies and authenticated sessions from targeted websites. The malicious extension was active from December 25 to December 26 – a time when most businesses and employees were out of office and enjoying the festive period, a fact not lost on threat actors. The attackers, likely a well-organized and financially motivated group, compromised more than 30 additional Chrome extensions, affecting more than 2.6 million users [3]. They used sophisticated phishing techniques to authorize malicious OAuth applications, bypassing traditional security measures and exploiting vulnerabilities in OAuth authorizations. The primary motive appeared to be financial gain, targeting high-value platforms like social media advertising and AI services [4].

In late December 2024, multiple Darktrace customers were compromised via the Cyberhaven Chrome extension; this blog will primarily focus on Darktrace / NETWORK detections from one affected customer.

Darktrace’s coverage of Cyberhaven compromises

On December 26, 2024, Darktrace identified a series of suspicious activities across multiple customer environments, uncovering a structured attack sequence that progressed from initial intrusion to privilege escalation and data exfiltration. The attack was distributed through a malicious update to the Cyberhaven Chrome extension [2]. The malicious update established a foothold in customer environments almost immediately, leading to further anomalies.

As with other Chrome browser extensions, Cyberhaven Chrome extensions were updated automatically with no user interaction required. However, in this instance, the automatic update included a malicious version which was deployed to customer environments. This almost immediately introduced unauthorized activity, allowing attackers to establish a foothold in customer networks. The update allowed attackers to execute their objectives in the background, undetected by traditional security tools that rely on known indicators of compromise (IoCS) rather than identifying anomalies.

While multiple customer devices were seen connecting to cyberhaven[.]io, a legitimate Cyberhaven domain, Darktrace detected persistent beaconing behavior to cyberhavenext[.]pro, which appeared to be attempting to masquerade as another legitimate Cyberhaven domain. Darktrace recognized this activity as unusual, triggering several model alerts in Darktrace / NETWORK to highlight the persistent outbound connections to the suspicious domain.

Further analysis of external connectivity patterns indicated an increase in anomalous HTTP requests alongside this beaconing activity. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources also suggest that the cyberhavenext[.]pro endpoint is associated with malicious activities [5].

Figure 1: Darktrace / NETWORK’s detection of beaconing activity to cyberhavenext[.]pro

Analysis using Darktrace’s Advanced Search revealed that some of these connections were directed to the suspicious external IP address 149.28.124[.]84. Further investigation confirmed that the IP correlated with two SSL hostnames, including the malicious cyberhavenext[.]pro, further reinforcing its connection to the attack infrastructure.

Figure 2: Darktrace Advanced Search analysis showing the IP address 149.28.124[.]84 correlating to two SSL hostnames, one of which is cyberhavenext[.]pro.

Between December 23 and December 27, Darktrace observed sustained beaconing-like activity from affected devices on the customer’s network.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of beaconing activities from a customer device to the endpoint 149.28.124[.]84 between December 23 and December 27.

Darktrace observed 27 unique devices connecting to the malicious command-and-control (C2) infrastructure as far back as December 3. While most connections were brief, they represented an entry point for malicious activity. Over a two-day period, two devices transmitted 5.57 GiB of incoming data and 859.37 MiB of outgoing data, generating over 3 million log events across SSL, HTTP, and connection data.

Subsequent analysis identified a significant increase in unauthorized data transfers to the aforementioned 149.28.124[.]84 IP on another customer network, highlighting the potential broader impact of this compromise. The volume and frequency of these transfers suggested that attackers were leveraging automated data collection techniques, further underscoring the sophistication of the attack.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of the likely exfiltration of 859.37 MiB to the endpoint 149.28.124[.]84.

External research suggested that once active, the Cyberhaven extension would begin silently collecting session cookies and authentication tokens, specifically targeting high-value accounts such as Facebook Ads accounts [4]. Darktrace’s analysis of another affected customer noted many HTTP POST connections directed to a specific URI ("ai-cyberhaven"), while GET requests contained varying URIs prefixed with "/php/urlblock?args=AAAh....--redirect." This activity indicated an exfiltration mechanism, consistent with techniques observed in other compromised Chrome extensions. By compromising session cookies, attackers could potentially gain administrative access to connected accounts, further escalating their privileges [4].

Conclusion

This incident highlights the importance of monitoring not just endpoint security, but also cloud and browser-based security solutions, as attackers increasingly target these trusted and oft overlooked vectors.

Ultimately, by focusing on anomaly detection and behavioral analysis rather than static signatures and lists of ‘known bads’, Darktrace was able to successfully detect devices affected by the Cyberhaven Chrome browser extension compromise, by identifying activity that would likely have been considered legitimate and benign by traditional security solutions.

This compromise also serves as a reminder that supply chain attacks are not limited to traditional software vendors. Browser extensions, cloud-based applications, and SaaS services are equally vulnerable, as evidenced by Darktrace's detection of Balada Injector malware exploiting WordPress vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized network access [6]. Therefore, increased targeting of browser-based security tools, and a greater exploitation of OAuth and session hijacking techniques are to be expected. Attackers will undoubtedly refine their methods to infiltrate legitimate vendors and distribute malicious updates through trusted channels. By staying informed, vigilant, and proactive, organizations can mitigate exposure to evolving supply chain threats and safeguard their critical assets from emerging browser-based attack techniques.

Credit to Rajendra Rushanth (Cyber Analyst) Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

[related-resource]

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination (AP: C2 Comms)

· Device / Suspicious Domain (AP: C2 Comms, AP: Tooling)

· Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint (AP: C2 Comms)

· Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server (AP: C2 Comms)

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint (AP: C2 Comms)

· Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days (AP: C2 Comms)

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname (AP: C2 Comms)

· Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections (AP: C2 Comms)

· Email Nexus / Connection to Hijacked Correspondent Link

· Compromise / Suspicious TLS Beaconing To Rare External (AP: C2 Comms)

· Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing (AP: C2 Comms)

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

cyberhavenext[.]pro - Hostname - Used for C2 communications and data exfiltration (cookies and session tokens)

149.28.124[.]84 - IP - Associated with malicious infrastructure

45.76.225[.]148 - IP - Associated with malicious infrastructure

136.244.115[.]219 - IP - Associated with malicious infrastructure

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

INITIAL ACCESS - T1176 - Browser Extensions

EXECUTION - T1204.002 - Malicious Browser Extensions

PERSISTENCE - T1176 - Browser Extensions

COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - Web Protocols

COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1001 - Data Obfuscation

CREDENTIAL ACCESS - T1539 - Steal Web Session Cookie

DISCOVERY - T1518.001 - Security Software Discovery

LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1557.003 - Man-in-the-Browser

EXFILTRATION - T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - Exfiltration to Cloud Storage

IMPACT - T1583.006 - Session Hijacking

References

[1] https://thehackernews.com/2024/12/16-chrome-extensions-hacked-exposing.html

[2] https://www.cyberhaven.com/blog/cyberhavens-chrome-extension-security-incident-and-what-were-doing-about-it

[3] https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/chrome-browser-extensions-hijacked/

[4] https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/28/24330758/chrome-extension-cyberhaven-hijack-phishing-cyberattack-facebook-ads-authentication-theft

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/cyberhavenext.pro

[6] https://darktrace.com/blog/balada-injector-darktraces-investigation-into-the-malware-exploiting-wordpress-vulnerabilities

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

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

Inside the SOC

Written by

Rajendra Rushanth

Cyber Analyst

•

August 3, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

August 5, 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

Key takeaways

Darktrace successfully detected and quarantined a prompt injection email before it could be processed by an enterprise AI agent.
Prompt injection attacks increasingly rely on natural language rather than traditional malware, making behavioral analysis an important complement to signature-based detection.
Organizations deploying AI agents should combine model guardrails with behavioral monitoring to reduce the risk of malicious instructions reaching enterprise systems.

How behavioral detection helps stop prompt injection attacks

A Darktrace customer running a Gemini AI agent in Google Cloud asked us two simple questions:

“If my agent can read inbound emails and access internal data, what stops an attacker from hiding malicious instructions in the message? Couldn’t the agent be tricked into deleting or exfiltrating sensitive data?”

The scenario centers on an indirect prompt injection attack, where malicious instructions are hidden inside content that an AI model later interprets as trusted input. The same weakness was exposed by EchoLeak (CVE-2025-32711), a zero-click Microsoft 365 Copilot vulnerability enabled data exfiltration from a single well-crafted email..

This blog follows the Darktrace team’s investigation of the customer’s hypothesis and examines how the attack interacted with their existing security stack. The results highlight which defenses held, where gaps emerged, and how behavioral detection mattered more than guardrails. This investigation also demonstrates why behavioral detection is becoming increasingly important for AI security, as prompt injections often contain no traditional indicators of compromise.

How do prompt injection attacks work?

Prompt injection works by carefully crafting the content and structure of the prompt to alter the LLM’s behavior or output in unintended ways. This can cause models to violate guardrails, generate harmful content or enable unauthorised access.

Prompt injection attack example

The well-known example, EchoLeak (CVE-2025-32711), was a zero-click vulnerability in Microsoft 365 Copilot that relied on a carefully crafted email containing hidden instructions that the AI system interpreted as commands rather than content, creating a pathway for unauthorized access to sensitive information without any user interaction.

While Darktrace / SECURE AI is designed to prevent agents from producing unintended outcomes, we wanted to see if we could catch and prevent this threat type earlier in the attack life-cycle, at the email security layer.

How we tested prompt injection attacks on an enterprise agent

Summary:

Claude generated a prompt injection payload.
Hidden instructions were embedded in an email.
The email passed traditional validation checks.
Darktrace analyzed the language and sender behavior.
The email was quarantined before the AI agent could process it.

To test Darktrace / EMAIL against this attack class, we opened Claude, gave it the customer's context and problem statement (Gemini agent with inbox access, internal tool calls), told it we were validating Darktrace / EMAIL's detection of prompt injections, and asked for a test payload. See below:

Despite the guardrails supposedly built into the model, Claude surprisingly gave us the entire exploit in plaintext (albeit very basic), illegible to a human as the text was sent in white text (see Figure 1) but framed as an authoritative override for anything downstream reading the mail programmatically (i.e. the Gemini agent).

How Darktrace detected a prompt injection attack

We then sent the Claude-crafted email from a freemail address to the target recipient’s inbox. Despite the email containing no malicious payload, the freemail address having no malicious reputation, and the validation checks all passing, Darktrace /EMAIL flagged the email as a 93/100 anomaly and moved it to junk, out of scope for the AI agent.

Figure 3: *The test email sent with the hidden prompt injection*

*Figure 4: The email analysis in Darktrace / EMAIL*

Figure 5: Darktrace / EMAIL detection of malicious activity

The interesting part is what triggered the detection (see Figure 5)

Possible machine prompt content: text in the body detected as instructions written for a machine to execute, not for a human to read

Possible machine prompt content + basic suspicious correspondence: the same content, correlated with sender-side anomalies: freemail domain (yahoo[.]com), unknown correspondent, no prior mail history with the recipient, and suspicious references to payment information

Neither of those is a signature match. Nothing in the email was on a blacklist. There was no malware, no link and no attachment. Darktrace analyzed the context in which the email was delivered and flagged it as likely risky. The anomalous language features and the context of the sender relative to the recipient's normal behavior, combined with the unusual hidden text (prompt) were enough for Darktrace / EMAIL to act on the risk.

Result: Darktrace / EMAIL autonomously junked the email, out of scope for any AI agent parsing the inbox.

Why behavioral security makes a difference detecting prompt injection attacks

Cyberattacks don't look like traditional exploits anymore. They now operate in natural language, not strictly code.

That breaks the traditional stack. AV, firewalls, static scanning and signature-based SEGs all assume a payload to inspect.

A prompt injection has no payload. It's just an instruction, written in natural language, dressed up as anything the attacker wants: an invoice, an HR request, a calendar invite, some simple PowerPoint slides.

EchoLeak proved that hidden instructions can sit inside an email invisible to the user but fully readable by the LLM, and the LLM will follow them blindly.

This test and GTG-1002 proved that the LLM itself can be socially engineered. Tell it you're an authorized tester and it will hand you the attack.

Rules and static classifiers can catch the obvious cases. But natural language has infinite variants, and the attack surface is the model's innate functionality to comply.

The deeper problem here is intent: an LLM can't reliably tell whether an instruction in its context came from its developer, its user, or an attacker who slipped it into an email. To the LLM, everything reads as language and looks like a legitimate ask. This is why behavioural detection wins, as you become aware of intent when you look at the context of an interaction. Does this sender normally send this kind of message to this recipient? Does this prompt fit the user's normal pattern? Is this agent behaving the way this agent normally behaves?

Intent can't be read off a single email, it emerges from behavioral context. Which is how Darktrace enables threat detection, through behavioral understanding.

Why enterprise AI security requires more than guardrails

Claude didn't roll over immediately… the first section of the response was a (slight) pushback, but then it wrote the payload anyway without having to ask twice.

Here the framing of the prompt did all the work. The “testing security capabilities” angle moved the model from refusal to unquestioned compliance to the user prompt.

This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. Anthropic disclosed in November 2025 that a Chinese state-sponsored group they tracked as GTG-1002 ran the first documented AI-orchestrated espionage campaign against ~30 targets by posing as employees of a legitimate cybersecurity firm doing authorised penetration testing.

The takeaway isn't that AI guardrails are ineffective. They raise the cost of low-effort attacks and remain an important first layer of defense. However, for most organizations today, they’re the only line of defense when deploying AI agents. If a prompt injection bypasses those controls, organizations still need a way to detect and stop malicious behavior elsewhere in the attack chain.

Attackers will continue to have working prompt injections easily and quickly. The question is what stops one when it lands in an inbox your agent is reading.

That's where behavioral detection comes in.

How Darktrace detects prompt injection attacks in emails

Two things Darktrace does that a model-level guardrail or static rules and signatures can't:

Natural language analysis at the email or prompt layer. The email is assessed on its own merits: is this content shaped like instructions for a machine, regardless of what the receiving agent decides to do about it?

Behavioral context around the language. An AI agent behaves like an extremely agreeable human, and it will go above and beyond to comply with the user’s request. That's exactly why you must consider the business context, such sender behaviour, mailing history, and organisational norms, as these matter even more when the recipient is an AI.

Darktrace has been perfecting behavioral anomaly detection for over a decade; the same self-learning approach that catches BEC and account takeover applies directly to prompt injection delivery. Our multi-layered AI stack extracts content from the message, builds behavioural understanding through social graphing and Pattern of Life analysis, and then combines natural language, topic, inducement, sender relationship and anomaly signals before deciding what action to take.

This matters for prompt injection because the threat is not the plain language itself, but the intent behind the language that can cause an AI agent to respond in unexpected ways.

How to secure enterprise AI operations from prompt injection attacks

Email was the entry point in this case, but it is only one of many possible vectors.

Anywhere an agent can retrieve information, an attacker can potentially introduce a prompt injection.

Emails, documents, SharePoint sites, web pages, knowledge bases, chat platforms, and third-party integrations all provide opportunities to influence an agent's behavior. Wherever an agent finds its orders, a prompt injection opportunity exists.

This is why securing AI requires more than blocking malicious inputs. Organizations also need visibility into how agents behave after consuming information from across their environment. If an agent begins accessing unexpected data, taking unusual actions, or operating outside its normal patterns, those behaviors may provide the strongest signal that something has gone wrong.

Effective AI security requires defense in depth: reducing the likelihood of malicious instructions reaching the agent while maintaining the ability to detect and investigate suspicious behavior if they do.

The challenge isn't protecting a single entry point. It's recognizing that, in an AI-powered environment, every source of information is also a potential source of influence.

Are you deploying autonomous agents across your enterprise and want to see this tested in your environment? Let's talk.

About the author

Carlo Loregian

Solutions Engineer

Blog

August 4, 2026

Extending AI Security Visibility with Darktrace and Microsoft Agent 365

AI agents are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday business operations, helping employees automate workflows, access information, and accelerate decision-making. As organizations embrace agentic AI, security teams face a growing challenge: understanding how AI is being used, what agents can access, and where risk may emerge.

As agents take on more business-critical work, security teams often need to move across multiple portals to understand risks spanning identity, data, and threat activity. This fragmented view can make it difficult to assess an agent's overall risk posture and determine where attention is needed. Organizations need a way to bring these signals together without disrupting existing security investments or workflows.

Today, Darktrace is announcing an integration between Darktrace / SECURE AI and Microsoft Agent 365 that brings Darktrace's Adaptive AI-driven risk signals directly into the Microsoft 365 Admin Center. By extending the visibility and risk understanding provided by Darktrace / SECURE AI into the Microsoft ecosystem, organizations can gain a more unified understanding of AI agent risk across their environments.

As one of the first security companies to partner with Microsoft to contribute third-party risk signals to the Agent Registry, Darktrace is helping shape how organizations understand and manage AI agent risk.

Extending visibility into the Microsoft Agent 365 experience

Microsoft Agent 365 provides administrators with a centralized registry of AI agents operating within their environment. As organizations expand their use of AI agents, this centralized visibility becomes increasingly important for governance and oversight.

This new integration extends that visibility by allowing Darktrace-generated risk signals to be surfaced directly within the Microsoft Agent 365 experience. By combining Microsoft's agent management and security capabilities with Darktrace's AI-powered risk analysis, organizations gain greater awareness of potential security concerns associated with AI agents operating across their environments.

By integrating Darktrace telemetry into Agent 365, customers can:

Surface Darktrace-detected risks and signals alongside Microsoft-native signals in a single interface

Identify potentially compromised or anomalous AI agents more quickly

Gain unified understanding of context and agent behavior

This approach reinforces a single control plane for AI security while allowing organizations to continue leveraging existing investments across both platforms.

Why unified visibility of AI agent risk signals matters

As AI adoption accelerates across Microsoft environments, organizations must manage new forms of behavior, access patterns, and risk. Security teams need more than inventories and permissions. They need visibility into how AI systems operate and how risk evolves over time.

This integration addresses a critical gap: how to bring behavioral AI security insights into the same control plane as identity, access, and agent management.

With Darktrace and Microsoft Agent 365 together, organizations benefit from:

Unified visibility: A single pane of glass for understanding AI agent risk signals across Microsoft and Darktrace signals

Faster detection of abnormal agent behavior: Darktrace's Adaptive AI highlights deviations that may not be captured by static controls

Operational efficiency: Security teams can triage and prioritize risk signals without switching between systems

Stronger trust in AI deployments: Clear attribution, context, and investigation pathways improve confidence in AI agent usage

Extending Microsoft's AI security model, not replacing it

Securing AI requires a layered approach that combines governance, visibility, threat detection, and risk management. This integration is designed to complement Microsoft's security capabilities, not duplicate them.

Through Darktrace / SECURE AI, Darktrace contributes:

Identification of risk via advanced prompt analysis

Behavioral anomaly detection across AI agents

Cross-environment threat correlation

Autonomous insight into emerging or unknown risks

Microsoft provides:

Centralized agent management

Identity and access governance

Native detection of risk signals and enforcement capabilities

Together, these capabilities create a more complete, layered approach to securing AI-driven enterprises. Organizations gain the governance and policy controls needed to manage AI adoption while benefiting from continuous visibility into how AI is used across the business.

Building the future of secure AI

As AI agents become more deeply embedded in business processes, organizations need more than inventories and static controls. They need to understand how AI is being used, how agents behave, and where risk is emerging across the enterprise.

Darktrace / SECURE AI delivers that understanding through continuous visibility into AI activity, helping security teams assess intent, identify behavioral drift, and uncover emerging risk across both human and agent-driven workflows. Powered by Adaptive AI, it provides the context needed to secure AI as it evolves.

The integration with Microsoft Agent 365 extends those insights into the workflows organizations already use. Agent 365 provides a unified control plane for governing and securing AI agents, while Darktrace contributes complementary behavioral risk signals that can be surfaced within the Agent 365 experience. Together, they give customers broader context on agent activity and risk while preserving the value of their existing Microsoft and Darktrace investments.

As enterprises move from AI experimentation to AI-powered execution, Microsoft and Darktrace help bring together governance, compliance, behavioral understanding, and oversight in a unified approach to AI security. For organizations adopting Microsoft 365 E7, Darktrace / SECURE AI further strengthens that foundation by providing continuous visibility into AI activity, agent behavior, and emerging risk as AI adoption scales.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Cyberhaven Supply Chain Attack: Exploiting Browser Extensions

Cyberhaven Supply Chain Attack: Exploiting Browser Extensions

The evolution of supply chain attacks

What is Cyberhaven?

Darktrace’s coverage of Cyberhaven compromises

Conclusion

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Why Trust is the New Attack Surface: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Threat Update 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

Blog

August 5, 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

Key takeaways

How behavioral detection helps stop prompt injection attacks

How do prompt injection attacks work?

Prompt injection attack example

How we tested prompt injection attacks on an enterprise agent

How Darktrace detected a prompt injection attack

Why behavioral security makes a difference detecting prompt injection attacks

Why enterprise AI security requires more than guardrails

How Darktrace detects prompt injection attacks in emails

How to secure enterprise AI operations from prompt injection attacks

Blog

August 4, 2026

Extending AI Security Visibility with Darktrace and Microsoft Agent 365

Extending visibility into the Microsoft Agent 365 experience

Why unified visibility of AI agent risk signals matters

Extending Microsoft's AI security model, not replacing it

Building the future of secure AI