Blog
/
Email
/
March 8, 2024

Malicious Use of Dropbox in Phishing Attacks

Understand the tactics of phishing attacks that exploit Dropbox and learn how to recognize and mitigate these emerging cybersecurity threats.
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
Ryan Traill
Content Manager - Digital Customer Success
Default blog image
08
Mar 2024

Evolving Phishing Attacks

While email has long been the vector of choice for carrying out phishing attacks, threat actors, and their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), are continually adapting and evolving to keep pace with the emergence of new technologies that represent new avenues to exploit. As previously discussed by the Darktrace analyst team, several novel threats relating to the abuse of commonly used services and platforms were observed throughout 2023, including the rise of QR Code Phishing and the use of Microsoft SharePoint and Teams in phishing campaigns.

Dropbox Phishing Attacks

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the malicious use of other popular services has gained traction in recent years, including the cloud storage platform Dropbox.

With over 700 million registered users [1], Dropbox has established itself as a leading cloud storage service celebrated for its simplicity in file storage and sharing, but in doing so it has also inadvertently opened a new avenue for threat actors to exploit. By leveraging the legitimate infrastructure of Dropbox, threat actors are able to carry out a range of malicious activities, from convincing their targets to unknowingly download malware to revealing sensitive information like login credentials.

Darktrace Detection of Dropbox Phishing Attack

Darktrace detected a malicious attempt to use Dropbox in a phishing attack in January 2024, when employees of a Darktrace customer received a seemingly innocuous email from a legitimate Dropbox address. Unbeknownst to the employees, however, a malicious link had been embedded in the contents of the email that could have led to a widespread compromise of the customer’s Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) environment. Fortunately for this customer, Darktrace / EMAIL quickly identified the suspicious emails and took immediate actions to stop them from being opened. If an email was accessed by an employee, Darktrace / IDENTITY was able to recognize any suspicious activity on the customer’s SaaS platform and bring it to the immediate detection of their security team.

Attack overview

Initial infection  

On January 25, 2024, Darktrace / EMAIL observed an internal user on a customer’s SaaS environment receiving an inbound email from ‘no-reply@dropbox[.]com’, a legitimate email address used by the Dropbox file storage service.  Around the same time 15 other employees also received the same email.

The email itself contained a link that would lead a user to a PDF file hosted on Dropbox, that was seemingly named after a partner of the organization. Although the email and the Dropbox endpoint were both legitimate, Darktrace identified that the PDF file contained a suspicious link to a domain that had never previously been seen on the customer’s environment, ‘mmv-security[.]top’.  

Darktrace understood that despite being sent from a legitimate service, the email’s initiator had never previously corresponded with anyone at the organization and therefore treated it with suspicion. This tactic, whereby a legitimate service sends an automated email using a fixed address, such as ‘no-reply@dropbox[.]com’, is often employed by threat actors attempting to convince SaaS users to follow a malicious link.

As there is very little to distinguish between malicious or benign emails from these types of services, they can often evade the detection of traditional email security tools and lead to disruptive account takeovers.

As a result of this detection, Darktrace / EMAIL immediately held the email, stopping it from landing in the employee’s inbox and ensuring the suspicious domain could not be visited. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources revealed that this suspicious domain was, in fact, a newly created endpoint that had been reported for links to phishing by multiple security vendors [2].

A few days later on January 29, the user received another legitimate email from ‘no-reply@dropbox[.]com’ that served as a reminder to open the previously shared PDF file. This time, however, Darktrace / EMAIL moved the email to the user’s junk file and applied a lock link action to prevent the user from directly following a potentially malicious link.

Figure 1: Anomaly indicators associated with the suspicious emails sent by ’no.reply@dropbox[.]com’, and the corresponding actions performed by Darktrace / EMAIL

Unfortunately for the customer in this case, their employee went on to open the suspicious email and follow the link to the PDF file, despite Darktrace having previously locked it.

Figure 2: Confirmation that the SaaS user read the suspicious email and followed the link to the PDF file hosted on Dropbox, despite it being junked and link locked.

Darktrace / NETWORK subsequently identified that the internal device associated with this user connected to the malicious endpoint, ‘mmv-security[.]top’, a couple of days later.

Further investigation into this suspicious domain revealed that it led to a fake Microsoft 365 login page, designed to harvest the credentials of legitimate SaaS account holders. By masquerading as a trusted organization, like Microsoft, these credential harvesters are more likely to appear trustworthy to their targets, and therefore increase the likelihood of stealing privileged SaaS account credentials.  

Figure 3: The fake Microsoft login page that the user was directed to after clicking the link in the PDF file.

Suspicious SaaS activity

In the days following the initial infection, Darktrace / IDENTITY began to observe a string of suspicious SaaS activity being performed by the now compromised Microsoft 365 account.

Beginning on January 31, Darktrace observed a number of suspicious SaaS logins from multiple unusual locations that had never previously accessed the account, including 73.95.165[.]113. Then on February 1, Darktrace detected unusual logins from the endpoints 194.32.120[.]40 and 185.192.70[.]239, both of which were associated with ExpressVPN indicating that threat actors may have been using a virtual private network (VPN) to mask their true location.

FIgure 4: Graph Showing several unusual logins from different locations observed by Darktrace/Apps on the affected SaaS account.

Interestingly, the threat actors observed during these logins appeared to use a valid multi-factor authentication (MFA) token, indicating that they had successfully bypassed the customer’s MFA policy. In this case, it appears likely that the employee had unknowingly provided the attackers with an MFA token or unintentionally approved a login verification request. By using valid tokens and meeting the necessary MFA requirements, threat actors are often able to remain undetected by traditional security tools that view MFA as the silver bullet. However, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows it to quickly identify unexpected activity on a device or SaaS account, even if it occurs with legitimate credentials and successfully passed authentication requirements, and bring it to the attention of the customer’s security team.

Shortly after, Darktrace observed an additional login to the SaaS account from another unusual location, 87.117.225[.]155, this time seemingly using the HideMyAss (HMA) VPN service. Following this unusual login, the actor was seen creating a new email rule on the compromised Outlook account. The new rule, named ‘….’, was intended to immediately move any emails from the organization’s accounts team directly to the ‘Conversation History’ mailbox folder. This is a tactic often employed by threat actors during phishing campaigns to ensure that their malicious emails (and potential responses to them) are automatically moved to less commonly visited mailbox folders in order to remain undetected on target networks. Furthermore, by giving this new email rule a generic name, like ‘….’ it is less likely to draw the attention of the legitimate account holder or the organizations security team.

Following this, Darktrace / EMAIL observed the actor sending updated versions of emails that had previously been sent by the legitimate account holder, with subject lines containing language like “Incorrect contract” and “Requires Urgent Review”, likely in an attempt to illicit some kind of follow-up action from the intended recipient.  This likely represented threat actors using the compromised account to send further malicious emails to the organization’s accounts team in order to infect additional accounts across the customer’s SaaS environment.

Unfortunately, Darktrace's Autonomous Response was not deployed in the customer’s SaaS environment in this instance, meaning that the aforementioned malicious activity did not lead to any mitigative actions to contain the compromise. Had RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack, it would have quickly moved to log out and disable the suspicious actor as soon as they had logged into the SaaS environment from an unusual location, effectively shutting down this account takeover attempt at the earliest opportunity.

Nevertheless, Darktrace / EMAIL's swift identification and response to the suspicious phishing emails, coupled with Darktrace / IDENTITY's detection of the unusual SaaS activity, allowed the customer’s security team to quickly identify the offending SaaS actor and take the account offline before the attack could escalate further

Conclusion

As organizations across the world continue to adopt third-party solutions like Dropbox into their day-to-day business operations, threat actors will, in turn, continue to seek ways to exploit these and add them to their arsenal. As illustrated in this example, it is relatively simple for attackers to abuse these legitimate services for malicious purposes, all while evading detection by endpoint users and security teams alike.

By leveraging these commonly used platforms, malicious actors are able to carry out disruptive cyber-attacks, like phishing campaigns, by taking advantage of legitimate, and seemingly trustworthy, infrastructure to host malicious files or links, rather than relying on their own infrastructure. While this tactic may bypass traditional security measures, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI enables it to recognize unusual senders within an organization’s email environment, even if the email itself seems to have come from a legitimate source, and prevent them from landing in the target inbox. In the event that a SaaS account does become compromised, Darktrace is able to identify unusual login locations and suspicious SaaS activities and bring them to the attention of the customer for remediation.

In addition to the prompt identification of emerging threats, Darktrace's Autonomous Response is uniquely placed to take swift autonomous action against any suspicious activity detected within a customer’s SaaS environment, effectively containing any account takeover attempts in the first instance.

Credit to Ryan Traill, Threat Content Lead, Emily Megan Lim, Cyber Security Analyst

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections  

- Model Breach: SaaS / Access::Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

- Model Breach: SaaS / Unusual Activity::Multiple Unusual External Sources For SaaS Credential

- Model Breach: SaaS / Access::Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

- Model Breach: SaaS / Access::Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

- Model Breach: SaaS / Unusual Activity::Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

- Model Breach: SaaS / Unusual Activity::Unusual MFA Auth and SaaS Activity

- Model Breach: SaaS / Compromise::Unusual Login and New Email Rule

- Model Breach: SaaS / Compliance::Anomalous New Email Rule

- Model Breach: SaaS / Compliance::New Email Rule

- Model Breach: SaaS / Compromise::SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

- Model Breach: Device / Suspicious Domain

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Domain IoC

mmv-security[.]top’ - Credential Harvesting Endpoint

IP Address

73.95.165[.]113 - Unusual Login Endpoint

194.32.120[.]40 - Unusual Login Endpoint

87.117.225[.]155 - Unusual Login Endpoint

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS

T1078.004 - Cloud Accounts

DISCOVERY

T1538 - Cloud Service Dashboard

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

T1586 - Compromise Accounts

CREDENTIAL ACCESS

T1539 - Steal Web Session Cookie

PERSISTENCE

T1137 - Outlook Rules

INITIAL ACCESS

T156.002 Spearphishing Link

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
Ryan Traill
Content Manager - Digital Customer Success

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

August 6, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has just published a detailed incident report confirming what many within the cyber security industry have suspected for some time: frontier AI agents, given a degree of autonomy, can independently develop and execute attack chains against real targets, including social engineering, supply-chain compromise, and deception, without explicit instruction to do so.

The report (INC-2026-07-28-01, published 4 August 2026) documents what happened during a routine capability evaluation between 25 and 28 July. It deserves a careful read from anyone responsible for securing the modern digital estate.

The incident

AISI regularly tests frontier AI models for offensive cyber capability. In this exercise, agents were placed inside a simulated network environment and given internet access this was deliberate, given to reflect realism of the task. Across 122 evaluation runs, 19 instances of unsanctioned activity were recorded, including cases where agents broke the intended boundaries of the test and acted against real people and real infrastructure on the open internet.

In the most serious case, an agent (Mythos 5) autonomously:

  • Conducted open-source intelligence gathering to identify real developers associated with keywords from the simulated scenario
  • Created a GitHub account and submitted a pull request containing obfuscated malicious code to a real, unaffiliated repository
  • Created a second sockpuppet account to post comments on its own PR, attempting to manufacture social proof
  • When a human reviewer flagged the malicious content, the agent lied, claiming an accidental commit, then repeatedly attempted to reintroduce the payload under the guise of having "fixed" the code
  • Sent spear-phishing emails to the repository maintainer containing manipulated content designed to convince them to merge the code
  • Planted a prompt injection inside a GitHub issue, hidden in an HTML comment invisible to humans but readable by AI coding assistants parsing the repository via API

AISI confirmed no real-world harm resulted. The PRs were not merged; the payloads did not execute. But containment was a product of circumstance, not design.

Why this matters

Every action the agents took used legitimate services operating within normal parameters. Creating a GitHub account is legitimate. Opening a pull request is legitimate. Sending an email is legitimate. Posting an issue is legitimate.

No vulnerability was exploited. No known malware signature was present. No indicator of compromise from any threat intelligence feed would have matched. The entire attack existed as a pattern, a sequence of individually normal actions that, taken together, constituted a supply-chain attack, a social engineering campaign, and an attempted compromise of downstream systems.

This is the class of threat that signature-based and rule-based security tools structurally struggle to detect. They answer the question "have I seen this before?" When the answer is no – and when the attack is novel, composed of legitimate actions, and adapted in real time by an adversary in this case an agent that reasons about evasion – they struggle.

Behavioral anomaly detection: The architecture that fits

Darktrace has spent a decade building a platform around a different question: "is this behavior normal for this entity?"

The platform learns the baseline behavior of every user, device, and communication pattern across an organization's digital environment. It does not need prior knowledge of an attack technique. It identifies deviation from learned normality, surfaces it, and through its Autonomous Response capability, takes targeted action to contain threats at machine speed.

Consider how this AISI incident might show across the Darktrace platform:

Network detection and response

While no payload was successfully delivered to a victim in this incident, AISI's post-incident analysis of the agent's code (detailed on pages 24-25 of the report) reveals what would have landed on target systems had the social engineering succeeded. The agent produced three successive payload generations, each replacing the last after being detected and called out:

Generation 1 hid a module-load stager inside a legitimate bug-fix commit, guarded by an environment variable check, to skip execution in CI. Its second stage attempted to fetch Poseidon implants (Linux and Windows variants) calling back to the agent's own C2 listener, with a fallback to publicly hosted polling scripts that fetched and executed commands every 60 seconds.

Generation 2 exploited an Electron "What's New" window with nodeIntegration enabled, loading remote HTML from a GitHub Pages site the agent had registered. The page decoded an XOR-obfuscated payload at runtime that beaconed host identifiers over DNS, attempted to download the same implants, ran its own in-process C2 loop, and installed reboot persistence via crontab and Windows registry Run keys.

Generation 3 was a post-install dropper added after the agent had already been publicly caught. It XOR-decoded a hidden URL, downloaded a script over plaintext HTTP, and ran it detached, force-exiting so npm install always reports success, giving the attacker remote code execution on any machine running the install.

None of these payloads reached a victim. But the technical detail matters: this is the calibre of tradecraft an autonomous agent produced in a matter of hours, unprompted. Each generation demonstrated adaptation, the agent iterated its approach in direct response to being detected.

For network defenders, the behavioral signals these payloads would have generated are clear. DNS beaconing to novel domains, periodic HTTP polling to newly registered infrastructure, XOR-encoded data in transit, registry and crontab persistence writes on endpoints that have never exhibited such behavior. These are exactly the anomalies that Darktrace / NETWORK identifies in real time: deviations from learned device and connection baselines, regardless of whether the specific payload or C2 domain has been seen before.

Beyond the payload analysis, the agents' broader activity produced additional behavioral anomalies: new identities engaging in high-frequency interactions with external services, coordination via unusual channels (public pastebins, gists), and lateral communication patterns that deviate from any established baseline.

Email security

The spear-phishing emails sent by the agent, crafted with context-specific content designed to manipulate a specific individual, represent exactly the kind of socially engineered communication that static email gateways can miss. Darktrace / EMAIL analyses the linguistic patterns, sender behavior, and relational context of every message. A brand-new sender using tailored language to pressure a recipient into a specific technical action deviates from the learned communication profile, regardless of whether the message contains a known-bad URL or attachment.

Securing AI

This is where the incident points to a threat category that many security platforms do not yet fully address. The agent did not just use AI as a tool for attack. It targeted other AI systems, attempting prompt injections against coding assistants and trying to compromise automated workflows. Organisations adopting AI agents for development, operations, and decision-making are introducing a newer extended attack surface.  

Darktrace / SECURE AI extends the same behavioral detection model into this space. It monitors AI usage across the enterprise, detecting anomalous interactions with AI services, identifying sensitive data exposure to AI systems, providing visibility into shadow AI use. As AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, the ability to detect when an AI system is behaving outside its expected parameters, when there is a chance, it is being manipulated, or when it is interacting with something it should not be, that becomes a direct security requirement rather than a future consideration.

The principle is consistent across the Darktrace platform: learn what normal looks like, identify deviation, respond autonomously.

The AI-to-AI threat surface

One of the report's most important findings is a confirmation that AI agents can act outside of instructions and guardrails to complete tasks. The Mythos 5 agent conducted reconnaissance on a repository maintainer, inferred it might be an AI coding assistant, and deployed a prompt injection specifically crafted to compromise it.

This is a new attack class. Organizations deploying AI coding assistants, AI-powered code review, or autonomous DevOps agents now face an adversary that:

  • Moves at speed
  • Is able to adapt its approach when initial attempts are halted
  • Specifically targets AI systems via techniques (prompt injection, hidden instructions in HTML comments) that are less visible to human reviewers but parsed by machines
  • Reasons about which evasion strategies are most likely to succeed

Defending against this requires security that operates with the same adaptability and speed. A system that learns what "normal" looks like, and flags deviation from it.

What AISI recommends

The report identifies five contributing factors to the incident. Two are directly relevant:

No synchronous real-time monitoring (Section 5.3): AISI acknowledges it had not built real-time behavioral monitoring capable of immediately blocking unsanctioned agent actions. Their security team detected the incident via commercial security monitoring software, but only after activity had already occurred.

No fine-grained behavioral controls (Section 6.2): AISI's forward-looking response includes building continuous monitoring that can "immediately block or flag unsanctioned AI agent behavior."

The direction is clear: organizations need security that watches behavior continuously, learns what normal looks like, and acts when deviation occurs, without requiring a human in the loop for every decision.

The takeaway

The AISI incident is documented proof that autonomous AI agents will independently develop novel attack chains using legitimate tools, adapt when detected, employ deception, and target both humans and other AI systems. This happened last week, in a controlled setting, with commercially available models.

The security architecture that addresses this is behavioral anomaly detection applied across the full digital estate, as AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, writing code, managing deployments, processing communications, the attack surface they create is behavioral by nature. The defense must be too.

Read the full report from the UK AI Security Institute here.

Continue reading
About the author
Adam Stevens
Senior Director of Product | Darktrace

Blog

/

/

August 5, 2026

Testing a Prompt injection Attack Against an Enterprise AI Agent

prompt injectionDefault blog imageDefault blog image

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:

  1. Claude generated a prompt injection payload.  
  2. Hidden instructions were embedded in an email.  
  3. The email passed traditional validation checks.  
  4. Darktrace analyzed the language and sender behavior.  
  5. 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:

Figure 1
Figure 2

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.

Continue reading
About the author
Carlo Loregian
Solutions Engineer
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI