March 17, 2026

When Reality Diverges from the Playbook: Darktrace Identifies Encryption in a World Leaks Ransomware Attack

World Leaks, a rebrand of Hunters International, are known for their extortion-only attack model, abandoning the tactic of file encryption. However, contrary to these claims, Darktrace detected a World Leaks compromise where a ransomware payload was deployed, and customer data was encrypted.

Written by

Tiana Kelly

Senior Cyber Analyst & Team Lead

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

Tiana Kelly

Senior Cyber Analyst & Team Lead

EaaS, World Leaks, a rebrand of Hunters International, are known for their extortion-only attack model, abandoning the tactic of file encryption. However, contrary to these claims, Darktrace detected a World Leaks compromise where a ransomware payload was deployed, and customer data was encrypted.

Mar 2026

As-a-Service Cybercrime Models

As-a-Service cybercrime models reduce the barrier to entry for cyber criminals as they no longer need expertise in every domain. Threat actors can increasingly outsource or supplement missing skills through the broader cybercrime-as-a-service ecosystem, and thus these models continue to grow in popularity within the cybercriminal underground. This has led to multiple templates in this sphere, such as Phishing-as-a-Service, Botnet-as-a-Service, DDoS-as-a-Service, and notably Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) [1].

What is Extortion-as-a-Service?

Extortion-as-a-Service (EaaS) businesses function as a formalized way for cyber threat actors to offer extortion services to others for a fee or profit share and represents an evolution of extortion operations from the double-extortion ransomware model. Advancing from the RaaS model, extortion has become a distinct profit stream, separate from the encryption payload. This separation of functions, data theft, negotiation, and publicity, sets the stage for EaaS [1].

The EaaS model reflects a broader trend in cybercriminal activity, in which threat actors increasingly prioritize data theft and public exposure over traditional ransomware encryption. This shift reduces operational complexity while increasing pressure on victims through reputational damage. This approach has become increasingly popular among threat actors as, unlike encryption-based attacks, these operations are more difficult to detect and remediate [2]. It reflects a trend of ‘hack-and-leak’ operations that prioritize stealth, speed, and reputational damage over traditional encryption-based ransomware attacks [3].

World Leaks Overview

World Leaks emerged in early 2024 as a direct rebrand of the Hunters International ransomware group, which was notorious for encrypting victims’ data and demanding payment for decryption keys. In mid-2025, Hunters International shifted to an extortion-only model due to law enforcement scrutiny and reduced profitability, rebranding itself as World Leaks.

World Leaks functions as an affiliate-based EaaS operation which provides proprietary Storage Software exfiltration tooling to affiliates while maintaining a four-platform infrastructure consisting of a main data leak site hosted on the Dark Web where victim data is published, a victim negotiation portal with live chat, an affiliate management panel, and an insider journalist platform granting media outlets 24-hour advance access to stolen data before public release [4]. Since its emergence, World Leaks has published data stolen from dozens of organizations globally on its data leak site, serving both as a pressure tactic and a means for building reputation among cyber criminals.

World Leaks (known associations include Hive Ransomware, Secp0 Ransomware, and UNC6148) have been known to target the industrial (manufacturing) sector, along with healthcare organizations, technology firms and more generally, industries with valuable intellectual property [4]. Victims targeted have spanned multiple countries, with most located in the US, as well as Canada and several countries across Europe [5].

World Leaks’ Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) [3][4]

World Leaks’ typical attack pattern involves the exploitation of credentials with inadequate access controls, e.g. lacking multi-factor authentication (MFA), moving through reconnaissance, lateral movement and data exfiltration, notably without an encryption element.

Initial Access:

Initial access is typically gained through the exploitation of compromised virtual private network (VPN) credentials lacking MFA through valid accounts, as well as phishing campaigns. The targeting of internet-facing VPN infrastructure, RDP, and public-facing applications also represent common attack vectors in World Leaks incidents.

Lateral Movement:

SMB, RDP, and SSH are used for lateral movement via remote services. Notably, the group is also known to use PsExec and Rclone as part of their lateral movement activities.

Persistence:

Registry key modifications, scheduled tasks creation, account manipulation.

Exfiltration:

Data exfiltration is carried out through custom storage software tooling via TOR connections. Cloud storage services used for exfiltration particularly include MEGA. World Leaks also carry out direct data transfer through established command-and-control (C2) infrastructure.

Unlike Hunters International, which combined encryption with extortion, World Leaks claims to have abandoned the use of encryption. Some reports note that operations since January 2025 represent a pivot toward eliminating encryption entirely, instead relying on custom exfiltration tooling with SOCKSv5 proxy and TOR-based communications [4]. However, in early 2026, Darktrace detected an incident that directly contradicted this claim: World Leaks carried out an attack that involved both the exfiltration and encryption of customer data.

Darktrace’s Coverage of World Leaks Ransomware

Organizations today face a growing challenge: keeping pace with increasingly fast-moving threats. This incident highlights a common problem, when time-limited mitigations expire or human security teams cannot respond quickly enough, attackers are often able to regain the upper hand. A recent Darktrace detection of World Leaks ransomware provides a clear example of this challenge in practice.

In January 2026, Darktrace identified the presence of ransomware and data encryption linked to World Leaks within the network of an organization within the healthcare sector. Although Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was active in the customer’s environment and initially blocking suspicious connectivity, buying time for the customer to remediate, the attack continued once these mitigative actions expired. Darktrace continued to apply Autonomous Response actions as the attack progressed, working to inhibit the attackers at each stage of the intrusion.

Investigations carried out by Darktrace revealed that threat actors likely gained initial access via a Fortigate appliance in mid-October, indicating a three-month dwell time, before employing living-off-the-land (LOTL) techniques for lateral movement. C2 communications were established using Cloudflare Tunnel (formerly Argo Tunnel). As part of the Actions on Objectives attack phase, a significant volume of data was exfiltrated to the MEGA cloud storage platform, followed by the encryption of customer data.

‍

Initial access/ Lateral movement

Darktrace analysts identified the likely patient-zero device within the network as a Fortigate appliance. In October 2025, this device was seen conducting brute-force activity using the compromised ‘administrator’ credential to gain a foothold deeper within the customer’s environment. Masquerading as a privileged user, the threat actor then went on to launch activity on remote devices via PsExec, a common administrative tool that allows users to execute processes on remote systems without manually installing client software, providing significant power to attackers when abused. Around the time, Darktrace detected an unknown device on the network attempting to authenticate via NTLM. As this device had not previously been seen on the network, it likely belonged to the attacker.

Reconnaissance

As part of the reconnaissance phase of the attack, port and network scanning was carried out in an attempt to identify open UDP and TCP ports within the network.

Lateral movement & C2

Around one month after entering the customer’s network, the World Leaks threat actors began tunnelling activity using Cloudflare Tunnel. Darktrace detected connections to several hostnames including: region2.v2.argotunnel[.]com; h2.cftunnel[.]com; region1.v2.argotunnel[.]com. This tunnelling activity continued until January of 2026, when encryption occurred. Cloudflare tunnels are known to be abused by attackers as they enable the use of temporary infrastructure to scale operations, allowing rapid deployment and teardown. Furthermore, leveraging of Cloudflare’s infrastructure to create these rate-limited tunnels (used to relay traffic from an attacker-controlled server to a local machine) makes such malicious activity harder to detect by both defenders and traditional security measures, particularly those that rely on static blocklists [6].

Further lateral movement was carried out using common remote management tools such as Windows Remote Management (WinRM) RDP, allowing the World Leaks threat actors to access local devices within the victim organization’s network.

As this attack progressed, Darktrace detected multiple files being written over SMB. These files included Windows\Temp\chromeremotedesktophost.msi, which was written from the patient-zero device to another internal device as part of lateral movement efforts. Following this transfer, and prior to subsequent data exfiltration activity, a network server was observed connecting to the hostname remotedesktop-pa[.]googleapis[.]com, an API endpoint required for Chrome Remote Desktop, indicating that Chrome RDP was used by the threat actor in this stage of the attack.

Other files written over SMB included the script programdata\syc\OpenSSHUtils.psm1 (which can be used legitimately to configure OpenSSH) and the executable programdata\syc\ssh‑sk‑helper.exe (a legitimate OpenSSH component used to support security keys). These files were written from the suspected patient‑zero device to an internal domain controller using the ‘administrator’ credential.

Thereafter, SSH connections to external IP address 51.15.109[.]222 were observed, providing another channel between the malicious actors and victim machines. Darktrace recognized that the use of SSH by the devices seen connecting to this IP address was highly anomalous, indicating that this suspicious activity formed part of the attack.

Writes of the script programdata\syc\OpenSSHUtils.psm1 were also observed into January, highlighting the continuation of the attack that had begun three months earlier.

On December 19 and 20, Darktrace detected a DNS server within the customer’s network making anomalous outgoing connections to an external IP address not previously seen in the environment: 193.161.193[.]99. This IP address has been reported by open-source-intelligence (OSINT) as being associated with C2 infrastructure, having been linked to several remote access trojans (RATs) and botnets in the past.

This activity a shift towards the infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) model, underscoring the growing trend around As-a-Service Cybercrime models and the increasing the industrialization of botnets. The presence of extensive digital botnets, often leased to other criminal organizations, means the group gaining initial access is not necessarily the same group conducting ransomware deployment or data theft; botnets now act as shared underlying infrastructure enabling multiple forms of cybercriminal activity [7].

Furthermore, connections to this IP address (193.161.193[.]99) were made over port 1194, which is associated with OpenVPN, suggesting that World Leaks may have leveraged it to obfuscate C2 communication with attacker-controlled infrastructure.

*Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the IP address 193.161.193[.]99, noting that it was first seen within the customer’s network on December 19, 2025.*

Data exfiltration

In November, Darktrace detected the threat actors carrying out one of their Attack on Objective tactics: data exfiltration. Multiple local devices within the compromised network began transferring data to Backblaze and MEGA domains, both of which provide cloud storage services; 80+GB of data was transferred to MEGA in late December 2025. Endpoints associated with this activity included: backblazeb2[.]com and gfs302n520[.]userstorage[.]mega[.]co[.]nz, as well as related user agents such as AS40401 BACKBLAZE) and MegaClient/10.3.0/64.

Notably, Darktrace researchers identified two known World Leaks TTPs in this attack: the use of MEGA, a known tool abused by the group, and Rclone, a command-line tool used to manage files on cloud storage, which was observed in the user agent of the MEGA data-transfer connections: rclone/v1.69.0 [4].

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst Incident highlighting data upload activity to backblaze[.]com endpoints.\

Ransomware deployment & encryption

The encryption stage of this attack was confirmed by the presence of a ransom note found on the network in a file with a seemingly randomized nine-character string preceding README.txt, attributing the incident to World Leaks, along with an extension with the same nine characters appended to encrypted files. Darktrace also observed SMB writes of files named world.exe and task.bat, with the compromised ‘localadmin’ credential used during the SMB logins. It is likely that these files served as the vector for the ransomware payload.

*Figure 3: Packet Capture (PCAP) of the ransom note claiming that the attack was carried out by World Leaks.*

Conclusion

Though traditional ransomware relies on encryption, recent trends show that cyber threat actors no longer need to rely on noisy encryption tools and can eliminate much of the risk and technical complexity associated with encrypting systems. This is the model reportedly preferred by World Leaks after their rebrand from Hunters International.

In addition to reducing noise around these attacks, extortion‑only operations may be favored by threat actors over encryption‑focused ones for several reasons, including the fact that traditional security tools may struggle to detect data theft compared to encryption, that attackers leave less evidence behind when encryption is avoided, and that the long‑term impacts of stolen data on organizations can be greater than the loss of systems caused by encryption processes, which can be restored [8]. This is supported by analysis of data leak sites suggesting that almost 1,500 incidents in 2025 relied on data theft alone. Attackers can simply steal victim data and attempt to extort a ransom by threatening to publish it, without needing to deploy ransomware at all [9]. Furthermore, although World Leaks aims to function as an affiliate‑based EaaS operation, security teams should remain aware that their affiliates may have different criminal objectives.

Contrary to reports that World Leaks’ typical attack style has an extortion‑only objective, Darktrace detected an incident in which a World Leaks attack did end with the encryption of customer data. This highlights the need for adaptive defenses and reinforces the importance of network defenders staying proactive in the face of attacks, particularly as they may progress in ways that are unexpected compared to previous trends associated with a given threat actor.

Credit to Tiana Kelly (Senior Cyber Analyst and Analyst Manager) and Emily Megan Lim (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

IoCs

world.exe – Executable File – Possible Ransomware Payload
task.bat – Script File – Possible Ransomware Payload
‘^[A-Z][a-z]{3}[A-Z][a-z][A-Z]{3}[.]README[.]txt' – Ransom Note
[.]^[A-Z][a-z]{3}[A-Z][a-z][A-Z]{3} – Ransomware file extension

· 51.15.109[.]222 – IP Address - Possible C2 Infrastructure

· 193.161.193[.]99 – IP Address – Probable C2 Infrastructure

Darktrace Model Detections (Enhanced Monitoring models denoted with an asterisk)

· Device / Attack and Recon Tools

· Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

· Device / Anomalous NTLM Brute Force

· Compliance / Connection to Tunnelling Service

· Device / Suspicious New User Agents

· Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

· Compliance / SMB Drive Write

· Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

· Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB

· Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Alerts*

· Device / SMB Lateral Movement

· Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity

· Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

· Compromise / Ransomware / SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions

· Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity*

· Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

· Unusual Activity / SMB Access Failures

· Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer*

· Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares

· Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

· Unusual Activity / Unusual Mega Data Transfer*

· Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

· Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

· Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

· Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

· Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / Rare WinRM Outgoing

· Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Incoming Long Remote Desktop Session

· Anomalous Connection / Upload via Remote Desktop

· Anomalous File / Internal / Executable Uploaded to DC

· Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write

· Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

· Device / Anomalous Github Download

· Device / Anonymous NTLM Logins

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

· Device / New User Agent To Internal Server

· Device / Possible Brute-Force Activity

· Device / RDP Scan

· Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)

· Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Non-Admin)

· Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

· Unusual Activity / Successful Admin Brute-Force Activity

· Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

· Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

· Unusual Activity / Unusual File Storage Data Transfer

· User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

· Scanning of Multiple Devices

· Large Volume of SMB Login Failures to Multiple Devices

· Suspicious Chain of Administrative Connections

· SMB Write of Suspicious File

· Suspicious DCE-RPC Activity

· Unusual External Data Transfer

· Unusual External Data Transfer to Multiple Related Endpoints

· Unusual External Data Transfer to Endpoints

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

· Initial Access – T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application

· Defense Evasion, Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation – T1078 – Valid Accounts

· Resource Development – T1588.001 – Obtain Capabilities: Malware

· Reconnaissance – T1590.005 – Gather Victim Network Information: IP Addresses

· Reconnaissance – T1592.004 – Gather Victim Host Information: Client Configurations

· Reconnaissance – T1595.001 – Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks

· Reconnaissance – T1595.002 – Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning

· Reconnaissance – T1595.003 – Active Scanning: Wordlist Scanning

· Discovery – T1018 – Remote System Discovery

· Discovery – T1046 – Network Service Discovery

· Discovery – T1083 – File and Directory Discovery

· Discovery – T1135 – Network Share Discovery

· Command and Control – T1219 – Remote Access Tools

· Command and Control – T1219.002 – Remote Access Tools: Remote Desktop Software

· Command and Control – T1571 – Non-Standard Port

· Command and Control – T1572 – Protocol Tunneling

· Command and Control – T1573.001 – Encrypted Channel: Symmetric Cryptography

· Credential Access – T1110 – Brute Force

· Credential Access – T1110.001 – Brute Force: Password Guessing

· Defense Evasion – T1006 – Direct Volume Access

· Defense Evasion – T1564.005 – Hide Artifacts: Hidden File System

· Defense Evasion – T1564.012 – Hide Artifacts: File/Path Exclusions

· Execution – T1047 – Windows Management Instrumentation

· Execution – T1569.002 – System Services: Service Execution

· Lateral Movement – T1021 – Remote Services

· Lateral Movement – T1021.001 – Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol

· Lateral Movement – T1021.002 – Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares

· Lateral Movement – T1021.006 – Remote Services: Windows Remote Management

· Lateral Movement – T1080 – Taint Shared Content

· Lateral Movement – T1210 – Exploitation of Remote Services

· Lateral Movement – T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer

· Collection – T1039 – Data from Network Shared Drive

· Collection – T1074 – Data Staged

· Exfiltration – T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

· Exfiltration – T1048 – Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol

· Exfiltration – T1567.002 – Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage

References

[1] https://www.levelblue.com/blogs/levelblue-blog/extortion-as-a-service-the-latest-threat-actor-criminal-ecosystem/

[2] https://blackpointcyber.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/World-Leaks.pdf

[3] https://blackpointcyber.com/threat-profile/world-leaks-ransomware/

[4] https://www.halcyon.ai/threat-group/worldleaks

[5] https://www.moxfive.com/resources/moxfive-threat-actor-spotlight-world-leaks

[6] https://thehackernews.com/2024/08/cybercriminals-abusing-cloudflare.html

[7] https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/tw/security/news/threat-landscape/the-industrialization-of-botnets-automation-and-scale-as-a-new-threat-infrastructure

[8] https://www.morphisec.com/blog/ransomware-without-encryption-why-pure-exfiltration-attacks-are-surging-and-why-theyre-so-hard-to-catch/

[9] https://sed-cms.broadcom.com/sites/default/files/2026-01/RWN-2026-WP100_1.pdf

Written by

Tiana Kelly

Senior Cyber Analyst & Team Lead

Inside the SOC

Written by

Tiana Kelly

Senior Cyber Analyst & Team Lead

•

July 9, 2026

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

•

July 17, 2026

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

July 17, 2026

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

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]

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

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

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Darktrace Identifies Encryption in a World Leaks Ransomware Attack

When Reality Diverges from the Playbook: Darktrace Identifies Encryption in a World Leaks Ransomware Attack

As-a-Service Cybercrime Models

What is Extortion-as-a-Service?

World Leaks Overview

World Leaks’ Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) [3][4]

Initial Access:

Lateral Movement:

Persistence:

Exfiltration:

Darktrace’s Coverage of World Leaks Ransomware

Initial access/ Lateral movement

Reconnaissance

Lateral movement & C2

Data exfiltration

Ransomware deployment & encryption

Conclusion

Appendices

IoCs

Darktrace Model Detections (Enhanced Monitoring models denoted with an asterisk)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

When AI Infrastructure Becomes Part of the Attack Surface

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

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

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

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

How Attackers Abuse the Chinese Nezha Monitoring Tool

Blog

July 17, 2026

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

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations

Approved AI vs. shadow AI in stadium operations

Why game day increases AI cybersecurity risk

The supply chain is part of the stadium attack surface

Four questions for securing AI in stadium operations

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

How Darktrace helps secure AI in stadium operations

Blog

July 15, 2026

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

Exploitation before disclosure

Identity is the real control plane

AI accelerates the threat

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

2. AI as an Attack Surface

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

Conclusion

References