Blog
/
Network
/
September 13, 2023

How Darktrace Stopped Akira Ransomware

Learn how Darktrace is uniquely placed to identify and contain the novel Akira ransomware strain, first observed in March 2023.
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
Manoel Kadja
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
13
Sep 2023

Introduction to Akira Ransomware

In the face of a seemingly never-ending production line of novel ransomware strains, security teams across the threat landscape are continuing to see a myriad of new variants and groups targeting their networks. Naturally, new strains and threat groups present unique challenges to organizations. The use of previously unseen tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) means that threat actors can often completely bypass traditional rule and signature-based security solutions, thus rendering an organization’s digital environment vulnerable to attack.

What is Akira Ransomware?

One such example of a novel ransomware family is Akira, which was first observed in the wild in March 2023. Much like many other strains, Akira is known to target corporate networks worldwide, encrypting sensitive files and demanding huge sums of money to retrieve the data and stop it from being posted online [1].

Key characteristics of Akira Ransomware

  • Targeted Attacks: Focuses on specific industries and organizations, often targeting those with valuable data.
  • Double Extortion Tactics: Employs double extortion by encrypting data and threatening to release it publicly if the ransom is not paid.
  • Advanced Encryption: Utilizes sophisticated encryption algorithms to ensure that data recovery is impossible without the decryption key.
  • Custom Ransom Notes: Delivers personalized ransom notes tailored to the victim, often containing detailed instructions and specific payment demands.
  • Stealth Techniques: Uses advanced evasion techniques to avoid detection by security tools and to remain undetected for extended periods.
  • Fast Encryption Process: Known for its rapid encryption process, minimizing the time window for detection and response by the victim.
  • Frequent Updates: Regularly updates its malware to bypass the latest security defenses and to improve its effectiveness.
  • Professional Communication: Maintains professional and often polite communication with victims to facilitate ransom payments and decryption.

Darktrace AI capabilities detect Akira Ransomware

In late May 2023, Darktrace observed multiple instances of Akira ransomware affecting networks across its customer base. Thanks to its anomaly-based approach to threat detection, Darktrace successfully identified the novel ransomware attacks and provided full visibility over the cyber kill chain, from the initial compromise to the eventual file encryptions and ransom notes. In cases where Darktrace was enabled in autonomous response mode, these attacks were mitigated the early stages of the attack, thus minimizing any disruption or damage to customer networks.

Initial access and privileged escalation

Methods used by Akira ransomware for privileged escalation

The Akira ransomware group typically uses spear-phishing campaigns containing malicious downloads or links as their primary initial access vector; however, they have also been known to use Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) brute-force attacks to access target networks [2].

While Darktrace did observe the early access activities that are detailed below, it is very likely that the actual initial intrusion happened prior to this, through targeted phishing attacks that fell outside of Darktrace’s purview. The first indicators of compromise (IoCs) that Darktrace observed on customer networks affected by Darktrace were typically unusual RDP sessions, and the use of compromised administrative credentials.

Darktrace detection of initial access and priviledged escalation

On one Darktrace customer’s network (customer A), Darktrace identified a highly privileged credential being used for the first time on an internal server on May 21, 2023. Around a week later, this server was observed establishing RDP connections with multiple internal destination devices via port 3389. Further investigation carried out by the customer revealed that this credential had indeed been compromised. On May 30, Darktrace detected another device scanning internal devices and repeatedly failing to authenticate via Kerberos.

As the customer had integrated Darktrace with Microsoft Defender, their security team received additional cyber threat intelligence from Microsoft which, coupled with the anomaly alerts provided by Darktrace, helped to further contextualize these anomalous events. One specific detail gleaned from this integration was that the anomalous scanning activity and failed authentication attempts were carried out using the compromised administrative credentials mentioned earlier.

By integrating Microsoft Defender with Darktrace, customers can efficiently close security gaps across their digital infrastructure. While Darktrace understands customer environments and provides valuable network-level insights, by integrating with Microsoft Defender, customers can further enrich these insights with endpoint-specific information and activity.

In another customer’s network (customer B), Darktrace detected a device, later observed writing a ransom note, receiving an unusual RDP connection from another internal device. The RDP cookie used during this activity was an administrative RDP cookie that appeared to have been compromised. This device was also observed making multiple connections to the domain, api.playanext[.]com, and using the user agent , AnyDesk/7.1.11, indicating the use of the AnyDesk remote desktop service.

Although this external domain does not appear directly related to Akira ransomware, open-source intelligence (OSINT) found associations with multiple malicious files, and it appeared to be associated with the AnyDesk user agent, AnyDesk/6.0.1 [3]. The connections to this endpoint likely represented the malicious use of AnyDesk to remotely control the customer’s device, rather than Akira command-and-control (C2) infrastructure or payloads. Alternatively, it could be indicative of a spoofing attempt in which the threat actor is attempting to masquerade as legitimate remote desktop service to remain undetected by security tools.

Around the same time, Darktrace observed many devices on customer B’s network making anomalous internal RDP connections and authenticating via Kerberos, NTLM, or SMB using the same administrative credential. These devices were later confirmed to be affected by Akira Ransomware.

Figure 1 shows how Darktrace detected one of those internal devices failing to login via SMB multiple times with a certain credential (indication of a possible SMB/NTLM brute force), before successfully accessing other internal devices via SMB, NTLM and RDP using the likely compromised administrative credential mentioned earlier.

Figure 1: Model Breach Event Log indicating unusual SMB, NTLM and RDP activity with different credentials detected which led to the Darktrace model breaches, "Unusual Admin RDP Session” and “Successful Admin Brute-Force Activity”.

Darktrace models observed for initial access and privilege escalation:

  • Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches
  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session
  • New Admin Credentials on Server
  • Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force Indicator
  • Unusual Activity / Successful Admin Brute-Force Activity

Internal Reconnaissance and Lateral Movement

The next step Darktrace observed during Akira Ransomware attacks across the customer was internal reconnaissance and lateral movement.

How Akira Ransomware conducts internal reconnaissance

In another customer’s environment (customer C), after authenticating via NTLM using a compromised credential, a domain controller was observed accessing a large amount of SMB shares it had never previously accessed. Darktrace understood that this SMB activity represented a deviation in the device’s expected behavior and recognized that it could be indicative of SMB enumeration. Darktrace observed the device making at least 196 connections to 34 unique internal IPs via port 445. SMB actions read, write, and delete were observed during those connections. This domain controller was also one of many devices on the customer’s network that was received incoming connections from an external endpoint over port 3389 using the RDP protocol, indicating that the devices were likely being remotely controlled from outside the network. While there were no direct OSINT links with this endpoint and Akira ransomware, the domain controller in question was later confirmed to be compromised and played a key role in this phase of the attack.

Moreover, this represents the second IoC that Darktrace observed that had no obvious connection to Akira, likely indicating that Akira actors are establishing entirely new infrastructure to carry out their attacks, or even utilizing newly compromised legitimate infrastructure. As Darktrace adopts an anomaly-based approach to threat detection, it can recognize suspicious activity indicative of an emerging ransomware attack based on its unusualness, rather than having to rely on previously observed IoCs and lists of ‘known-bads’.

Darktrace further observed a flurry of activity related to lateral movement around this time, primarily via SMB writes of suspicious files to other internal destinations. One particular device on customer C’s network was detected transferring multiple executable (.exe) and script files to other internal devices via SMB.

Darktrace recognized that these transfers represented a deviation from the device’s normal SMB activity and may have indicated threat actors were attempting to compromise additional devices via the transfer of malicious software.

Figure 2: Advanced Search results showing 20 files associated with suspicious SMB write activity, amongst them executable files and dynamic link libraries (DLLs).

Darktrace DETECT models observed for internal reconnaissance and lateral movement:

  • Device / RDP Scan
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Anomalous Connection / Possible Share Enumeration Activity
  • Scanning of Multiple Devices (Cyber AI Analyst Incident)
  • Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance
  • Compliance / Incoming Remote Desktop
  • Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC
  • Unusual Activity / Internal Data Transfer
  • Security Integration / Lateral Movement and Integration Detection
  • Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Ransomware deployment

In the final phase of Akira ransomware attacks detected on Darktrace customer networks, Darktrace identified the file extension “.akira” being added after encryption to a variety of files on the affected network shares, as well as a ransom note titled “akira_readme.txt” being dropped on affected devices.

On customer A’s network, after nearly 9,000 login failures and 2,000 internal connection attempts indicative of scanning activity, one device was detected transferring suspicious files over SMB to other internal devices. The device was then observed connecting to another internal device via SMB and continuing suspicious file activity, such as appending files on network shares with the “.akira” extension, and performing suspicious writes to SMB shares on other internal devices.

Darktrace’s autonomous threat investigator, Cyber AI Analyst™, was able to analyze the multiple events related to this encryption activity and collate them into one AI Analyst incident, presenting a detailed and comprehensive summary of the entire incident within 10 minutes of Darktrace’s initial detection. Rather than simply viewing individual breaches as standalone activity, AI Analyst can identify the individual steps of an ongoing attack to provide complete visibility over emerging compromises and their kill chains. Not only does this bolster the network’s defenses, but the autonomous investigations carried out by AI Analyst also help to save the security team’s time and resources in triaging and monitoring ongoing incidents.

Figure 3: Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst incident correlated multiple model breaches together to show Akira ransomware encryption activity.

In addition to analyzing and compiling Darktrace model breaches, AI Analyst also leveraged the host-level insights provided by Microsoft Defender to enrich its investigation into the encryption event. By using the Security Integration model breaches, AI Analyst can retrieve timestamp and device details from a Defender alert and further investigate any unusual activity surrounding the alert to present a full picture of the suspicious activity.

In customer B’s environment, following the unusual RDP sessions and rare external connections using the AnyDesk user agent, an affected device was later observed writing around 2,000 files named "akira_readme.txt" to multiple internal SMB shares. This represented the malicious actor dropping ransom notes, containing the demands and extortion attempts of the actors.

Figure 4: Model Breach Event Log indicating the ransom note detected on May 12, 2023, which led to the Darktrace DETECT model breach, Anomalous Server Activity / Write to Network Accessible WebRoot.
Figure 5: Packet Capture (PCAP) demonstrating the Akira ransom note captured from the connection details seen in Figure 4.

As a result of this ongoing activity, an Enhanced Monitoring model breach, a high-fidelity detection model type that detects activities that are more likely to be indicative of compromise, was escalated to Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) who, in turn were able to further investigate and triage this ransomware activity. Customers who have subscribed to Darktrace’s Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service would receive an alert from the SOC team, advising urgent follow up action.

Darktrace detection models observed during ransomware deployment:

  • Security Integration / Integration Ransomware Incident
  • Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection
  • Security Integration / Integration Ransomware Detected
  • Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity (Proactive Threat Notification Alerted by the Darktrace SOC)
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB
  • Anomalous Server Activity /Write to Network Accessible WebRoot
  • Anomalous Server Activity /Write to Network Accessible WebRoot

Darktrace autonomous response neutralizes Akira Ransomware

When Darktrace is configured in autonomous response mode, it is able to follow up successful threat identifications with instant autonomous actions that stop malicious actors in their tracks and prevent them from achieving their end goals.

In the examples of Darktrace customers affected by Akira Ransomware outlined above, only customer A had autonomous response mode enabled during their ransomware attack. The autonomous response capability of Darktrace helped the customer to minimize disruption to the business through multiple targeted actions on devices affected by ransomware.

One action carried out by Darktrace's Autonomous Respose was to block all on-going traffic from affected devices. In doing so, Darktrace effectively shuts down communications between devices affected by Akira and the malicious infrastructure used by threat actors, preventing the spread of data on the client network or threat actor payloads.

Another crucial response action applied on this customer’s network was combat Akira was to “Enforce a Pattern of Life” on affected devices. This action is designed to prevent devices from performing any activity that would constitute a deviation from their expected behavior, while allowing them to continue their ‘usual’ business operations without causing any disruption.

While the initial intrusion of the attack on customer A’s network likely fell outside of the scope of Darktrace’s visibility, Darktrace was able to minimize the disruption caused by Akira, containing the ransomware and allowing the customer to further investigate and remediate.

Darktrace Autonomous Response model breaches:

  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Ransomware Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Server Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block
  • Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block
  • Antigena / Network /Insider Threat /Antigena SMB Enumeration Block

Conclusion

The impact of cyber attacks

Novel ransomware strains like Akira Ransomware present a significant challenge to security teams across the globe due to the constant evolution of attack methods and tactics, making it huge a challenge for security teams to stay up to date with the most current threat intelligence.  

Therefore, it is paramount for organizations to adopt a technology designed around an intelligent decision maker able to identify unusual activity that could be indicative of a ransomware attack without depending solely on rules, signatures, or statistic lists of malicious IoCs.

Importance of AI-powered cybersecurity solutions

Darktrace identified Akira ransomware at every stage of the attack’s kill chain on multiple customer networks, even when threat actors were utilizing seemingly legitimate services (or spoofed versions of them) to carry out malicious activity. While this may have gone unnoticed by traditional security tools, Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection enabled it to recognize malicious activity for what it was. When enabled in autonomous response mode, Darktrace is able to follow up initial detections with machine-speed preventative actions to stop the spread of ransomware and minimize the damage caused to customer networks.  

There is no silver bullet to defend against novel cyber-attacks, however Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection and autonomous response capabilities are uniquely placed to detect and respond to cyber disruption without latency.

Credit to: Manoel Kadja, Cyber Analyst, Nahisha Nobregas, SOC Analyst.

Appendices

IOC - Type - Description/Confidence

202.175.136[.]197 - External destination IP -Incoming RDP Connection

api.playanext[.]com - External hostname - Possible RDP Host

.akira - File Extension - Akira Ransomware Extension

akira_readme.txt - Text File - Akira Ransom Note

AnyDesk/7.1.11 - User Agent -AnyDesk User Agent

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic & Technique

DISCOVERY

T1083 - File and Directory Discovery

T1046 - Network Service Scanning

T1135 - Network Share Discovery

RECONNAISSANCE

T1595.002 - Vulnerability Scanning

CREDENTIAL ACCESS, COLLECTION

T1557.001 - LLMNR/NBT-NS Poisoning and SMB Relay

DEFENSE EVASION, LATERAL MOVEMENT

T1550.002 - Pass the Hash

DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS

T1078 - Valid Accounts

DEFENSE EVASION

T1006 - Direct Volume Access

LATERAL MOVEMENT

T1563.002 - RDP Hijacking

T1021.001 - Remote Desktop Protocol

T1080 - Taint Shared Content

T1021.002 - SMB/Windows Admin Shares

INITIAL ACCESS

T1190 - Exploit Public-Facing Application

T1199 - Trusted Relationship

PERSISTENCE, INITIAL ACCESS

T1133 - External Remote Services

PERSISTENCE

T1505.003 - Web Shell

IMPACT

T1486 - Data Encrypted for Impact

References

[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/meet-akira-a-new-ransomware-operation-targeting-the-enterprise/

[2] https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/cert-in-warns-against-akira-ransomware/#:~:text=Spread%20Methods%3A%20Akira%20ransomware%20is,Desktop%20connections%20to%20infiltrate%20systems

[3] https://hybrid-analysis.com/sample/0ee9baef94c80647eed30fa463447f000ec1f50a49eecfb71df277a2ca1fe4db?environmentId=100

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2026.

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
Manoel Kadja
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

July 17, 2026

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

Photo of a sports stadiumDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations

Key takeaways

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

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

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

But it also changes the security model.

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

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

Approved AI vs. shadow AI in stadium operations

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

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

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

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

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

Why game day increases AI cybersecurity risk

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

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

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

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

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

The supply chain is part of the stadium attack surface

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

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

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

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

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

Four questions for securing AI in stadium operations

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

1. Where is AI being used?

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

2. What can the AI access?

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

3. What can the AI do?

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

4. What does normal look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Darktrace helps secure AI in stadium operations

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

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

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

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

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

/

July 15, 2026

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

Default blog imageDefault blog image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exploitation before disclosure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity is the real control plane

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

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

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

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

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

AI accelerates the threat  

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

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

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

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

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

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

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

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com]

2. AI as an Attack Surface

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

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

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

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

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

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

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