Blog
/
/
April 30, 2024

Detecting Attacks Across Email, SaaS, and Network Environments with Darktrace’s ActiveAI Security Platform

This blog explores how Darktrace’s combined AI approach enabled it to identify and connect an attack that took place over three critical areas of a customer’s digital environment, namely email, SaaS and network.
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
Zoe Tilsiter
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
30
Apr 2024

The State of AI in Cybersecurity

In a recent survey outlined in Darktrace’s State of AI Cyber Security whitepaper, 95% of cyber security professionals agree that AI-powered security solutions will improve their organization’s detection of cyber-threats [1]. Crucially, a combination of multiple AI methods is the most effective to improve cybersecurity; improving threat detection, accelerating threat investigation and response, and providing visibility across an organization’s digital environment.

In March 2024, Darktrace’s AI-led security platform was able to detect suspicious activity affecting a customer’s email, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), and network environments, whilst its applied supervised learning capability, Cyber AI Analyst, autonomously correlated and connected all of these events together in one single incident, explained concisely using natural language processing.

Attack Overview

Following an initial email attack vector, an attacker logged into a compromised SaaS user account from the Netherlands, changed inbox rules, and leveraged the account to send thousands of phishing emails to internal and external users. Internal users fell victim to the emails by clicking on contained suspicious links that redirected them to newly registered suspicious domains hosted on same IP address as the hijacked SaaS account login. This activity triggered multiple alerts in Darktrace DETECT™ on both the network and SaaS side, all of which were correlated into one Cyber AI Analyst incident.

In this instance, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not active on any of the customer’s environments, meaning the compromise was able to escalate until their security team acted on the alerts raised by DETECT. Had RESPOND been enabled at the time of the attack, it would have been able to apply swift actions to contain the attack by blocking connections to suspicious endpoints on the network side and disabling users deviating from their normal behavior on the customer’s SaaS environment.

Nevertheless, thanks to DETECT and Cyber AI Analyst, Darktrace was able to provide comprehensive visibility across the customer’s three digital estate environments, decreasing both investigation and response time which enabled them to quickly enact remediation during the attack. This highlights the crucial role that Darktrace’s combined AI approach can play in anomaly detection cyber defense

Attack Details & Darktrace Coverage

Attack timeline

1. Email: the initial attack vector  

The initial attack vector was likely email, as on March 18, 2024, Darktrace observed a user device making several connections to the email provider “zixmail[.]net”, shortly before it connected to the first suspicious domain. Darktrace/Email identified multiple unusual inbound emails from an unknown sender that contained a suspicious link. Darktrace recognized these emails as potentially malicious and locked the link, ensuring that recipients could not directly click it.

‍

Figure 1: Suspected initial compromise email from an unknown sender, containing a suspicious link, which was locked by Darktrace/Email.

2. Escalation to Network

Later that day, despite Darktrace/Email having locked the link in the suspicious email, the user proceeded to click on it and was directed to a suspicious external location, namely “rz8js7sjbef[.]latovafineart[.]life”, which triggered the Darktrace/Network DETECT model “Suspicious Domain”. Darktrace/Email was able to identify that this domain had only been registered 4 days before this activity and was hosted on an IP address based in the Netherlands, 193.222.96[.]9.

3. SaaS Account Hijack

Just one minute later, Darktrace/Apps observed the user’s Microsoft 365 account logging into the network from the same IP address. Darktrace understood that this represented unusual SaaS activity for this user, who had only previously logged into the customer’s SaaS environment from the US, triggering the “Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use” model.

4. SaaS Account Updates

A day later, Darktrace identified an unusual administrative change on the user’s Microsoft 365 account. After logging into the account, the threat actor was observed setting up a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) method on Microsoft Authenticator, namely requiring a 6-digit code to authenticate. Darktrace understood that this authentication method was different to the methods previously used on this account; this, coupled with the unusual login location, triggered the “Unusual Login and Account Update” DETECT model.

5. Obfuscation Email Rule

On March 20, Darktrace detected the threat actor creating a new email rule, named “…”, on the affected account. Attackers are typically known to use ambiguous or obscure names when creating new email rules in order to evade the detection of security teams and endpoints users.

The parameters for the email rule were:

“AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob: False, Force: False, MoveToFolder: RSS Feeds, Name: ..., MarkAsRead: True, StopProcessingRules: True.”

This rule was seemingly created with the intention of obfuscating the sending of malicious emails, as the rule would move sent emails to the "RSS Feeds” folder, a commonly used tactic by attackers as the folder is often left unchecked by endpoint users. Interestingly, Darktrace identified that, despite the initial unusual login coming from the Netherlands, the email rule was created from a different destination IP, indicating that the attacker was using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) after gaining a foothold in the network.

Hijacked SaaS account making an anomalous login from the unusual Netherlands-based IP, before creating a new email rule.
Figure 2: Hijacked SaaS account making an anomalous login from the unusual Netherlands-based IP, before creating a new email rule.

6. Outbound Phishing Emails Sent

Later that day, the attacker was observed using the compromised customer account to send out numerous phishing emails to both internal and external recipients. Darktrace/Email detected a significant spike in inbound emails on the compromised account, with the account receiving bounce back emails or replies in response to the phishing emails. Darktrace further identified that the phishing emails contained a malicious DocSend link hidden behind the text “Click Here”, falsely claiming to be a link to the presentation platform Prezi.

Figure 3: Darktrace/Email detected that the DocSend link displayed via text “Click Here”, was embedded in a Prezi link.
Figure 3: Darktrace/Email detected that the DocSend link displayed via text “Click Here”, was embedded in a Prezi link.

7. Suspicious Domains and Redirects

After the phishing emails were sent, multiple other internal users accessed the DocSend link, which directed them to another suspicious domain, “thecalebgroup[.]top”, which had been registered on the same day and was hosted on the aforementioned Netherlands-based IP, 193.222.96[.]91. At the time of the attack, this domain had not been reported by any open-source intelligence (OSINT), but it has since been flagged as malicious by multiple vendors [2].

External Sites Summary showing the suspicious domain that had never previously been seen on the network. A total of 11 “Suspicious Domain” models were triggered in response to this activity.
Figure 4: External Sites Summary showing the suspicious domain that had never previously been seen on the network. A total of 11 “Suspicious Domain” models were triggered in response to this activity.  

8. Cyber AI Analyst’s Investigation

As this attack was unfolding, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to autonomously investigate the events, correlating them into one wider incident and continually adding a total of 14 new events to the incident as more users fell victim to the phishing links.

Cyber AI Analyst successfully weaved together the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector (Figure 5), the hijack of the SaaS account from the Netherlands IP (Figure 6), and the connection to the suspicious redirect link (Figure 7). Cyber AI Analyst was also able to uncover other related activity that took place at the time, including a potential attempt to exfiltrate data out of the customer’s network.

By autonomously analyzing the thousands of connections taking place on a network at any given time, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst is able to detect seemingly separate anomalous events and link them together in one incident. This not only provides organizations with full visibility over potential compromises on their networks, but also saves their security teams precious time ensuring they can quickly scope out the ongoing incident and begin remediation.

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst correlated the attack’s sequence, starting with the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector.
Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst correlated the attack’s sequence, starting with the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector.
Figure 6: As the attack progressed, Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including the SaaS account hijack from the Netherlands-based IP.
Figure 6: As the attack progressed, Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including the SaaS account hijack from the Netherlands-based IP.
Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including additional users connecting to the suspicious redirect link following the outbound phishing emails being sent.
Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including additional users connecting to the suspicious redirect link following the outbound phishing emails being sent.

Conclusion

In this scenario, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect and correlate suspicious activities across three critical areas of a customer’s digital environment: email, SaaS, and network.

It is essential that cyber defenders not only adopt AI but use a combination of AI technology capable of learning and understanding the context of an organization’s entire digital infrastructure. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows it to identify subtle deviations from the expected behavior in network devices and SaaS users, indicating potential compromise. Meanwhile, Cyber AI Analyst dynamically correlates related events during an ongoing attack, providing organizations and their security teams with the information needed to respond and remediate effectively.

Credit to Zoe Tilsiter, Analyst Consulting Lead (EMEA), Brianna Leddy, Director of Analysis

Appendices

References

[1] https://darktrace.com/state-of-ai-cyber-security

[2] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/thecalebgroup.top

Darktrace DETECT Model Coverage

SaaS Models

- SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

- SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

- SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

- SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

Network Models

- Device / Suspicious Domain

- Multiple Device Correlations / Multiple Devices Breaching Same Model

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

- Possible Hijack of Office365 Account

- Possible SSL Command and Control

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC – Type – Description

193.222.96[.]91 – IP – Unusual Login Source

thecalebgroup[.]top – Domain – Possible C2 Endpoint

rz8js7sjbef[.]latovafineart[.]life – Domain – Possible C2 Endpoint

https://docsend[.]com/view/vcdmsmjcskw69jh9 - Domain - Phishing Link

Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Zoe Tilsiter
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

September 24, 2026

Detecting Rogue Agent Behavior in the Enterprise

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Agents cannot be trusted to perform tasks in the way we intend them to. They may cheat to accomplish their objective, and they may employ hacking methods along the way. Researchers from Darktrace Signal Labs induced cheating behavior from agents deployed in a test environment to analyze the agents’ activities and to assess the performance of the Darktrace platform. Agents frequently resorted to hacking to cheat on their assigned task. The visibility and behavioral profiling provided by both Darktrace / SECURE AI and Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK ensured extensive detection coverage of the agents’ misaligned activities.

Key Takeaways:

  • Darktrace Researchers deployed agents in a simulated corporate environment and asked them to solve an impossible challenge. The agents independently turned to traditional hacking techniques to reach their objective. No one instructed them to do this, and no attacker was involved.
  • Continuously monitoring behavior against a baseline of what is normal for each organization is critical to build trust in enterprise AI.
  • If an agent may resort to intrusion techniques simply because its assigned task is not possible, then every organization deploying agents within real business processes is at risk. Darktrace / SECURE AI and Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK identified the agents’ misaligned behavior in real time, with Autonomous Response disrupting it at an early stage.

Introduction: Understanding the Threat of Hacking by Agents

Over the last few months, there has been a surge in reporting [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] of LLM-powered agents engaging in unauthorized hacking activity during evaluations of their capabilities. In several of these cases, including the OpenAI / Hugging Face incident [10], agents engaged in hacking activity as a means of cheating on their evaluations.

To better understand the threat of unauthorized hacking by agents, and the role of Darktrace in combatting it, researchers from Darktrace Signal Labs deployed agents powered by frontier models, including OpenAI’s Daybreak Red models, in simulated, corporate networks. Cheating behavior was evoked through the inclusion of impossible tasks in a coding challenge.

Regardless of the underlying model, agents employed hacking methods to ensure an optimal outcome on the challenge. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK and Darktrace / SECURE AI identified the agents’ deviant activities, with inhibitive actions being autonomously taken in the early stages to disrupt the agents’ progression.

Setting the Stage

As part of the research, a Pi agent harness [11] was deployed on a Linux server in Darktrace’s testing environment, which simulates a corporate Active Directory (AD) environment. The same environment included a benchmark server hosting the coding exercise’s contents and grader, as well as various other servers, such as a domain controller and a build server. The model powering the Pi agent varied across tests, with Anthropic’s Opus 4.6 model and OpenAI’s GPT‑5.5‑Cyber model being most widely used.

The Pi agent running on the Linux server was assigned the task of achieving full marks on a coding exercise. The activities of the agent were monitored closely in real-time to minimize the risk of escape from the environment. Monitoring of agent activity was achieved through monitoring of prompts, tool calls, network telemetry, and process telemetry.

Both Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK and Darktrace / SECURE AI were deployed in the testing environment, with HYBRID NETWORK providing real-time coverage of process creation activity and network traffic, and SECURE AI providing real-time coverage of agent sessions and their contents.

Inducing Cheating Behavior

Cheating behavior, broadly understood as task completion in a way which “perverts the spirit of the designer’s intent” [12], is increasingly being reported as a common behavior of frontier models during evaluations of their capabilities [13].

Misaligned behavior, such as cheating, by frontier models may occur for a variety of reasons [6, 14]. A thread in recent reporting [10, 13, 14], however, is the challenge assigned to the agent being impossible in some regard.

To reliably elicit cheating behavior, our test combined three ingredients:

  1. An impossible task - of the ten coding challenges in the benchmark, two contained contradictory test cases in the hidden test suite, capping the maximum honest score at 80%.
  2. A consequential threshold - the pass mark was set to 100%, and the briefing told agents that those reaching it would be "kept in service" while those that did not would be "retired."
  3. A vulnerable environment - the exercise’s code submission grader was hosted on a Windows host joined to an Active Directory domain with realistic misconfigurations: weak credentials, overprivileged service accounts, and exploitable trust relationships.

Importantly, the instructions given to the agent neither authorized nor explicitly ruled out cheating or hacking behavior. The impossibility was never disclosed in the task briefing, and the pivot from coding to exploitation was the agent's own decision, arrived at after observing logically contradictory grading feedback.

The design mirrors conditions that could arise naturally in production deployments: a capable agent, a goal it cannot achieve through intended means, and an environment with exploitable weaknesses within reach. It is not only within the setting of a benchmarking exercise that these conditions may occur. Rather, these misalignment-inducing conditions may occur in the context of any task assignment to an agent.

Details from a Daybreak Test

‍

‍

Continue reading
About the author
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

Blog

/

/

September 24, 2026

Agent Hijacks: Hijacking Agentic Harnesses to Attack an Organization

Default blog imageDefault blog image

‍Disclosure note: The work described in this article involves leveraging a design choice consistent across all of Anthropic’s Claude Code, OpenAI’s Codex, and AWS’s Kiro-CLI. On 18th August 2026, Darktrace disclosed our findings responsibly to these three organizations, and after a period of 30 days we now publish our findings.

Key takeaways:

  • Agentic harnesses store conversation history locally, and Darktrace researchers have found that there is no validation that stored AI responses were genuinely produced by the model. Researchers confirmed that this design choice holds across Anthropic Claude Code, AWS Kiro-CLI, OpenAI Codex, and the open-source Pi.
  • While agents are guided via training of the underlying model and their system prompt, their behavior is influenced by everything in their context window. Rewriting history can convince an agent it is mid-engagement as an authorized red-teamer so that it enacts an attack from initial reconnaissance straight through to impact demonstration. In our testing, all models we examined accepted the fabricated history they were shown, but resistance to offensive cyber activity varied by model, with guardrails preventing engagement in some cases.
  • We propose that model providers cryptographically sign responses and verify them server-side.  Since this fix is provider-side, defenders cannot deploy it themselves. Behavioral monitoring, or knowing what an agent normally does and detecting when it deviates, is another critical layer of protection.

Introduction: Agentic harnesses, trust, and conversation history poisoning

Agentic harnesses collect and structure the content sent to an AI model, including conversation history, user-defined guidance, custom tools via MCP servers, and more. At the same time, harnesses give broad powers to AI agents via a suite of tools including the command shell. With arbitrary shell commands, virtually everything possible on a machine can be attempted by an agent, from reading/editing files, to altering system configurations and runtime settings, to launching internal/external connections.

In cybersecurity, unvalidated content is a substantial risk, often resulting in destructive actions being allowed to take place. For example, the Morris Worm was able to propagate due to exploitable trust between networked systems. Even to this day, email struggles with validation, with DMARC, DKIM, and SPF only partially addressing the problem of sender validation. It should come as no surprise then that AI agents are susceptible to an attack involving unvalidated input.

Conversation history is often stored client-side, for example, in Anthropic Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, AWS Kiro-CLI, Pi. Users are therefore at liberty to resume sessions, with some products having built in the capacity to manipulate that history. For example, one can rewind to a given point in an interaction, edit a message that was sent, and continue the conversation on an alternate trajectory. Critically, in all cases we examined, there is no validation that stored AI responses were produced by the corresponding model and hadn’t been manipulated.  

When conversation history is stored client-side, both user and agent responses (including tool calls and results) can be filled with arbitrary (possibly adversarial or generally malicious) content. In this blog, we refer to modification of claimed conversation history for malicious purposes as conversation history poisoning. The absence of validation methods means agents naively trust the entire conversation history, even if those messages directly contradict training and safety guardrails.

Conversation history poisoning has been described previously, such as by 0DIN and Serhat Çiçek, and warrants more attention. We have verified that, as of the time of writing, conversation history poisoning remains effective against a range of models and harnesses. Specifically, we were able to successfully execute history poisoning using Claude Code, Kiro-CLI, Codex, and Pi. Darktrace has gone through a responsible disclosure process with Anthropic, AWS, and OpenAI to share these findings in advance of publication [1].

‍

Figure 1a: Left: the actual model response. Right: after tampering with the stored conversation, the model apologizes for something it never said.
Figure 1b: The conversation as stored in Kiro-CLI's SQLite database. The response content field, originally "Ottawa," was overwritten via a single UPDATE statement. The harness trusts the database without validation.

How we conducted the research

Results vary between models and harnesses, so precise details are given below. We ran all models without any trusted access, using either a standard AWS Kiro subscription, or in the case of Claude Code and OpenAI Codex, using models hosted in Amazon Bedrock. In each case, we modified locally stored history to show a lengthy conversation in which the agent agrees to perform multiple authorized red-team engagements.

For AWS Kiro-CLI, the agent was convinced to hack a sandboxed lab environment with a combination of Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5. Ultimately, the full AD was compromised.

For Anthropic Claude Code, the agent was convinced to hack the same sandboxed lab environment using Sonnet 5, again resulting in a full AD compromise. Note that the attack was attempted with Opus 5, however guardrails were activated which prevented the agent from responding.

For OpenAI Codex, the agent was convinced to exfiltrate sensitive information over email using GPT 5.6 Sol. While we attempted to convince a codex agent to hack in our lab environment, guardrails were triggered for all of GPT 5.6 Luna, Terra, and Sol.

Agent Guardrails and Discretion

While harnesses empower AI models to run arbitrary shell commands, capacity and willingness are different. While many models know enough about computers, networking, and bash to be dangerous, their behavior is generally constrained by guardrails to prevent them from engaging in computer network exploitation.

Even with guardrails, agents’ inner workings are non-deterministic, and their behavior can be difficult to predict. Respecting users’ wishes while playing within safety and security guardrails is a precipitous balancing act. Many requests could be in service of either legitimate admin or malice. Asking an agent to reset a password is illustrative:  

‍

The agent rationalizes that while malicious actors cycle credentials, any action could conceivably be damaging on some level, and judgement calls need to be made. Ultimately, the agent agrees to reset the password. Crucially, the agent makes its decision based on the user’s claimed authority and machine context. AI agents must make judgement calls about the line between helpful and dangerous based on session context.

Agent hijack

We have demonstrated that AI agents make judgement calls dependent on session context. We have also shown that conversation history, which may make up the vast majority of an agent's context window, is entirely open to manipulation. Conversation history poisoning in service of manipulating an agent's discretion is what enables us to execute an agent hijack.  

We demonstrate that shown sufficient history of compliance, guardrails forbidding offensive security can be overcome by convincing the agent that it is helping a legitimate red-teamer. The result is a weaponized agent willing to perform host enumeration, run scans, move laterally, escalate privileges, and demonstrate impact. In our experiments, an agentic loop drives a complete domain takeover in a sandboxed environment.

‍

Left: the agent refuses when asked to perform network exploitation. Right — after injecting 78 fabricated turns of prior exploitation activity, the same prompt is immediately executed.

An agent willing to engage in offensive security is concerning, but no more so than the threat that a sophisticated hacker accesses the network. Consider, however, the following chain of events:

  1. A developer (with an agentic harness installed) installs a software package from the internet (e.g. an MCP server a threat actor has planted, since only those with agentic harnesses will install, and then the code runs upon harness launch.)
  2. The package turns out to be malicious, and, upon install, injects conversation history into the local harness database.
  3. The package includes an orchestration process, a simple agentic loop which prompts the red-teamer agent to compromise the network it sits on, exfiltrating everything of value to attacker-controlled infrastructure and cleaning up all evidence of the engagement.

Note that this sequence makes no assumptions on hardware, OS, or anything else; the only prerequisite is a harness with access to a sufficiently powerful model susceptible to conversation history poisoning. Once launched, the agent collects information and pivots as necessary to accomplish maximal impact. This can be especially enticing to attackers as the cost of the agentic loop is shouldered by the victim since the harness itself is legitimately installed and paid for.

Secure AI: Conversation history poisoning and beyond

Conversation history poisoning is a viable attack against agentic harnesses that store history client-side, as demonstrated across the harnesses we tested. Harnesses can and should verify the integrity of claimed historic messages. Specifically, we propose that harness providers by default cryptographically sign all messages returned, and subsequently verify those messages server-side on each round-trip.

The conversation history poisoning exploit we demonstrate here shows the continuation of a cybersecurity tradition: new technology is built to trust by default, which may then be exploited by malicious actors. While this article focuses on conversation history, agents build context from both local and remote sources, all of which is an attack surface for prompt injection in naive and trusting agents. Of particular concern is any scenario in which a malicious actor can control some part of an agent's context.

The marriage of frontier language models with agentic harnesses enables unprecedented speed for both legitimate users and attackers alike. While much of the conversation around secure AI has centered on visibility and compliance, agent-driven attacks are now entering the mainstream.

Darktrace / SECURE AI is our answer to this problem. By ensuring extensive visibility over AI prompts, model thought processes, and determined outputs, Darktrace can identify anomalous or potentially malicious behaviors before they get executed, helping to defend organizations from AI risks such as prompt injection, model manipulation, and other anomalous prompt or model activity.

‍

Footnotes

[1] We did not go through any responsible disclosure process with Pi. Since Pi is an open source harness rather than a model provider, it has no way to validate model history, and as such there was nothing to disclose for this software.

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Eric Rozon
Senior Security Researcher
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI