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

/

Network

/

June 24, 2026

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

applescript-led mac os intrusionDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

Darktrace’s Threat Research team is publishing this analysis to help defenders understand an active pattern of macOS tradecraft observed in multiple customer environments. This post summarizes the behaviors observed, how they were assessed, and what defenders can do now.

Across multiple environments, Darktrace observed a consistent MacOS intrusion pattern beginning with ClickFix-style user-assisted “update” execution and transitioning into AppleScript-driven post-compromise activity and sustained outbound signaling.

While individual indicators were low-confidence, the repeated convergence of weak behavioral signals — including HTTP POST beaconing, rare or IP-only destinations, SSL anomalies, and abnormal client characteristics — provided a defensible indication of command-and-control establishment Darktrace detection and response in these cases was driven by behavior over artifacts. In the highest-confidence instances, automated containment disrupted outbound signaling before sustained tasking could occur.

Background

ClickFix-style activity typically relies on user-assisted execution and plausible “update” pretexting, followed by post-execution use of native tools to keep the footprint light. In MacOS environments, AppleScript and other built-in scripting mechanisms enable flexible post-compromise workflows while minimizing stable file-based indicators.

Following execution, affected devices exhibited a consistent behavioral pattern. AppleScript or equivalent native scripting activity was observed initiating follow-on workflows, after which outbound communications began to establish a structured rhythm.

These communications were characterized by repeated HTTP POST requests to low-prevalence or IP-only endpoints, often combined with unusual SSL properties and client identifiers that diverged from baseline device behavior. Individually, these signals were weak. When correlated across time and devices, they formed a pattern consistent with control establishment rather than benign software activity.

In higher-confidence cases, Autonomous Response actions were able to reduce or halt outbound signaling, interrupting the attacker’s ability to maintain control.

Detection Timeline

In representative cases, the sequence unfolded as follows:

Stage 1 – Initial Execution

Initial activity began with suspicious or masqueraded execution on a MacOS endpoint, consistent with ClickFix-style user deception.

Stage 2 – Post-Execution Scripting

This was followed closely by native scripting activity, most commonly AppleScript, indicating the transition into post-execution workflow.

Stage 3 – Outbound Communications

Outbound communications then emerged, initially sporadic but quickly forming a consistent cadence of HTTP POST requests to rare external endpoints.

Stage 4 – Anomaly Convergence

As activity persisted, additional anomalies became visible — unusual SSL characteristics, abnormal user agents, and connections to infrastructure with no prior network prevalence.

Stage 5 – Autonomous Response

In the most mature stages of the activity, automated containment actions disrupted outbound communications on affected devices, limiting the attacker’s ability to continue tasking while investigations progressed.

Darktrace coverage and detections

The following use-case highlights systems likely affected by malicious macOS intrusion activity linked by Microsoft to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) [1], with indications of suspicious behavior observed between March 1 and May 3, 2026. The activity overlaps with patterns described in recent reporting on DPRK-nexus MacOS intrusions [1], though attribution confidence in this case remains moderate and based on behavioral alignment rather than solely infrastructure linkage.

Analyst confidence emerged through the correlation of multiple weak signals across time and devices. This included model coverage for rare external communications, sustained beaconing patterns, repeated HTTP POSTs, and anomalous client characteristics. Where enabled, Autonomous Response actions disrupted the most active outbound paths to reduce the attacker’s ability to maintain control while Darktrace’s investigation continued.

Notably, this highly anomalous behavior included:

  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us associated with IP address, 148.72.73[.]98 [2][3] over port 443
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, check02id[.]com associated with IP address, 83.136.210[.]180 [4] over port 7365
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoints, 104.145.210[.]107 [5] over port 8443 and 83.136.208[.]48 [6] over port 443
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, 83.136.208[.]246 [7] over port 6783 with observed URI `/api/daemon` and a PowerShell user agent

Darktrace’s detection initially highlighted a desktop device (running MacOS) engaging in anomalous behavior as early as March 12, 2026. Starting on March 12, the source device triggered a ‘Possible Doppelganger Attack’ alert including connectivity to the hostname "zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98" over port 443 (TCP, HTTPS, H2). This model highlights a device connecting to a location that is rare but masquerades as legitimate software, such as Zoom in this case, a commonly used technique to blend into expected traffic [2] [3].

 Initial connectivity observed to the rare external hostname, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98, over port 443.
Figure 1: Initial connectivity observed to the rare external hostname, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98, over port 443.

This was followed roughly seven later by a connection to 104.145.210[.]107 over port 8443, during which approximately 250 KiB of data of inbound data and 30 MiB of outbound data was observed, triggering the ‘Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint’ in Darktrace.

Quickly after this connection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response intervened, blocking the device’s access to the unusual external location and halting the data exfiltration attempt.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of unusual data exfiltration, shortly followed by an Autonomous Response action to block it.

The device continued to consistently trigger model alerts relating to unusual external connectivity, including 'Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname', 'Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed' alerts, until well after 3 PM that day.

Figure 3: Additional external connectivity to new IP without a hostname, including connectivity to 83.136.208[.]246, alongside an anomalous ‘curl/8.7.1’ user agent and ‘/api/daemon’ URI.
Figure 4: Continued external SSL connectivity to IP 83.136.208[.]48, including connectivity to 83.136.208[.]246, alongside an anomalous ‘curl/8.7.1’ user agent and ‘/api/daemon’ URI.
Figure 5: Continued external HTTP connectivity to hostname, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180, alongside an anomalous ‘Go-http-client/1,1’ user agent.

From March 13 to March 28, the device continued exhibit unusual connectivity to various endpoints (e.g., 83.136.208[.]48, 83.136.208[.]246, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180), with the 'Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname' model consistently triggering.

Windows OS Case

Pivoting over to an additional device, this time running Windows OS, anomalous behavior was also observed between March 30 and April 20. Notably, on March 30, the device was observed making a large number of suspicious external connection attempts to 83.136.208[.]246 over port 6783, all of which failed.

A further indicator was observed on April 1 with PowerShell connectivity to the same rare endpoint (83.136.208[.]246, port 6783), using the URI '/api/daemon' and the user agent 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; fr-FR) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.26100.7920'.  Additional alerts included 'New User Agent to IP Without Hostname' and 'Anomalous Github Download', alongside activity involving the same endpoint.

Figure 6 : ‘Anomalous Powershell to Rare External Destination’ and ‘Github Download’ model alerts. This behavior involved connectivity with the endpoints ‘83.136.208[.]246’ and ‘github[.]com’.

The device continued triggering 'Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname' & 'PowerShell to External Rare' alerts between April 4 and April 20 across multiple related endpoints (i.e., 83.136.208[.]48, 83.136.208[.]246, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180).

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was able to block suspicious PowerShell attempts to unusual external locations, as shown below in an example from April 20.

Figure 7:  Autonomous Response intervening to block an unusual PowerShell connection to an external destination.

Cyber AI Analyst investigations

In higher-confidence instances, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst investigations helped connect otherwise separate model alerts into a single incident narrative, highlighting the attacker’s progression from post-execution scripting into sustained outbound signaling. This contextual stitching is particularly valuable in macOS scenarios where static artefacts are limited, and behavioral sequencing defines the intrusion.

Cyber AI Analyst investigations highlighted alerts on March 12, including unusual repeated connections and possible SSL command-and-control (C2) to multiple endpoints:

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation linking events into a unified incident.

Autonomous Response

In addition to the containment actions detailed earlier, Autonomous Response implemented multiple additional measures to contain suspicious activity throughout the course of this attack. Whenever unusual external connectivity was detected, Darktrace blocked it, closing down potential C2 channels. Likewise, when data exfiltration attempts were identified, these connections were stopped to prevent the potential loss of sensitive data.

Figure 9: Autonomous Response actions implemented by Darktrace in response to suspicious connectivity in mid-March.

Furthermore, in cases where a device was deemed to have carried out a significant number of anomalous activities, Darktrace enforced a “pattern of life” on the device, preventing it from deviating from its expected behavior while allowing legitimate business operations to continue uninterrupted.

Figure 10: Autonomous Response actions implemented by Darktrace in response to suspicious connectivity in April, including the “Enforce Pattern of Life” action.

Conclusion

macOS intrusion tradecraft continues to shift toward native tooling and lightweight control channels designed to evade signature-led controls.

The repeated convergence of rare destinations, POST-based signaling, and anomalous client behavior — observed across time and across devices — provided sufficient evidence to act early and with confidence.

As macOS tradecraft continues to evolve, the defender advantage increasingly lies not in signatures, but in the ability to reason from behavior.

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISO)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage:

/ NETWORK-based model alerts:

·       Anomalous Connection::Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection::Rare External SSL Self-Signed

·       Anomalous Connection::Powershell to Rare External

·       Anomalous Connection::New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection::Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·       Compromise::Fast Beaconing to DGA

·       Compromise::Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·       Device::Anomalous Github Download

·       Device::New PowerShell User Agent

·       Unusual Activity::Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

/ NETWORK-based Autonomous Response model alerts:

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Breach

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IP/Hostname:

·       zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98

·       83.136.208[.]246

·       check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180

·       83.136.208[.]48

·       104.145.210[.]107

URIs:

·       /api/daemon

Destination Port Usage:

·       6783

·       5202

·       443

·       7365

·       8443

ASN:

·       AS400897 PETROSKY

·       AS398256 AS-ULTAHOST

User agents:

·       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; fr-FR) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.26100.7920

·       Go-http-client/1.1

·       curl/8.7.1

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Technique Name - Tactic - ID - Sub-Technique of)

·       Browser Session Hijacking - COLLECTION - T1185

·       Web Protocols - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - T1071

·       Install Digital Certificate - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1608.003 - T1608

·       PowerShell - EXECUTION - T1059.001 - T1059

·       Domain Generation Algorithms - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1568.002 - T1568

·       Non-Standard Port - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1571

·       Malware - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1588.001 - T1588

·       Web Service - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1102

·       Code Repositories - COLLECTION - T1213.003 - T1213

·       Exploitation of Remote Services - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1210

·       Exfiltration Over C2 Channel - EXFILTRATION - T1041

·       Exfiltration to Cloud Storage - EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - T1567

References:

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/04/16/dissecting-sapphire-sleets-macos-intrusion-from-lure-to-compromise/

[2] https://radar.securityalliance.org/advisory-on-dprk-unc1069-fake-microsoft-teams-and-zoom-calls/

[3] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/uswebob.us

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.210.180/community

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/104.145.210.107/community

[6] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.208.48/community

[7] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.208.246/community

[8] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/applescript-abuse-unpacking-a-macos-phishing-campaign

Continue reading
About the author
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

/

June 24, 2026

A New Security Challenge: The Curious Case of Prompt Language Analysis

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Why prompt analysis is emerging as a key AI security challenge

If securing AI has been one of the defining cybersecurity conversations of the past year, prompt analysis is quickly becoming one of its most interesting frontiers.

Security leaders are under pressure to understand how AI is being used across the business. In some organizations, that means governing employee use of chatbots. In others, it means overseeing copilots embedded into SaaS platforms, monitoring coding assistants, or assessing the growing footprint of autonomous agents. However different these use cases may appear on the surface, they share a common factor: humans and machines are usually interacting with enterprise systems through language.  

How prompt language differs from traditional security telemetry

For years, defenders have become used to working with familiar forms of telemetry: email traffic, network connections, API calls, endpoint processes, authentication events. Prompt language is different. It is not simply another log source. It is an expression of intent, instruction, curiosity, urgency, and sometimes manipulation. It reflects the end-goal of a user or agent, but not always with enough surrounding context to interpret the risk correctly.

Why existing security approaches only partially explain prompt risk

A growing number of vendors are approaching the task of securing AI from the angle they know best. Perimeter vendors are extending web or browser controls into AI usage. Identity vendors are emphasizing agent permissions and access governance. Data security and DLP providers are focusing on content inspection and exfiltration risk. All of these perspectives matter, but individually can’t fully explain the problem.

The challenge with securing AI is not just that a new application category has emerged. It is that language has become a new operating layer in the enterprise.

Employees now use prompts to summarize documents, generate code, analyze spreadsheets, query internal knowledge, and trigger multi-step actions through agents. In each case, prompt language acts as the interface between human intent and machine execution. That makes prompts incredibly valuable from a security perspective as they can hint at misuse, policy violations, data exposure, or attempts to circumvent controls. However, they can also be deeply ambiguous when viewed in isolation. That ambiguity is the heart of the issue.

Prompts as behavioral signals, not just text to classify

A prompt by itself tells you what was asked. It does not necessarily tell you whether the request is expected, risky, accidental, or entirely legitimate in context. Two nearly identical prompts can carry very different meanings depending on the role and function of who issued them, what systems they can access, and what actions followed. In other words, prompts are not just text to classify. They are behavioral signals to interpret.

Example: How context changes prompt risk entirely

Consider a common enterprise scenario. An employee is pulled into a new project with an aggressive deadline. Almost overnight, their use of AI tools spikes. They begin prompting more frequently, working across unfamiliar documents, querying new data sources, and interacting with more systems than usual to accelerate delivery. Viewed narrowly, this may look suspicious. Prompt volume increases, file access patterns change, API and SaaS activity rise. From some vantage points, it may resemble insider risk or unmanaged AI usage.

But now add context. Imagine that, earlier that day, the employee received instructions from a senior leader asking them to support a time-sensitive initiative. Their communication history shows that this leader is a legitimate reporting-line superior. Their recent collaboration patterns align with the new project team. Their subsequent activity, while unusual for that individual’s baseline, is consistent with the business task they were assigned.

What initially looked like a risk event may actually be a normal response to business pressure. Without the surrounding context of communication, organizational relationships, and broader behavioral patterns, prompt activity alone could generate more noise than insight.

The reverse is also true. A prompt may appear benign on the surface while the context around it suggests elevated risk. A request that seems routine could originate from a compromised user, a newly connected external agent, a shadow AI workflow, or a user acting outside their normal role. The language itself may not contain anything obviously malicious, but the surrounding conditions may tell a very different story.

What security teams need to analyze prompts effectively

The future of prompt analysis is not just about understanding language. It is about understanding language in context.

To do that well, security teams need more than prompt inspection. They need to understand:

  • Who is issuing the prompt, whether human or agent
  • How that identity normally behaves across the enterprise
  • What systems, data, and workflows are connected to the interaction
  • Which relationships and communications explain the surrounding activity
  • Whether the downstream actions align with expected business behavior

When those layers are absent, prompt analysis can become another isolated control surface: useful in theory, but limited in practice. Security teams may detect unusual wording but miss the operational function behind it, overreact to benign changes in behavior, or miss subtle misuse because the prompt itself did not appear dangerous.

How organizations should think about prompt analysis going forward

Security teams have seen this pattern before. In the cloud, posture without runtime context left important gaps. In identity, access control without behavioral understanding missed misuse that looked legitimate on paper. In data security, content inspection without business context often created friction without resolving risk. AI is exposing the same lesson again: controls are strongest when they are coordinated, not isolated. As organizations work to secure AI and identify gaps across their security operations, prompt analysis will become an increasingly important source of insight, but only as part of a broader strategy.

Prompt analysis will undoubtedly become more common, as prompts are one of the clearest windows into how people and agents are using AI systems. However, what matters most is not simply collecting prompts or filtering dangerous phrases, but being able to place that language inside a wider behavioral and operational picture.

Organizations that already have a broader understanding of how work gets done across the enterprise will be better positioned to make sense of prompt language as this category matures. They will be better able to distinguish urgency from abuse, experimentation from exfiltration, and productive AI adoption from hidden risk.

Figure 1: Darktrace / SECURE AI reconstructs the full sequence of events, showing every user and agent interaction in context, with risky prompts highlighted and categorized, including PII, sensitive data, and other policy violations.

At Darktrace, this is the key lesson emerging from the market: prompt language does matter, but it does not stand alone. It is most valuable when treated as a new behavioral input that can enrich understanding across the enterprise, not as a self-contained source of truth.

Why prompts become less useful when analyzed in isolation

The curious case of prompt language analysis, then, is this: the more important prompts become, the less useful they are in a vacuum.

The real opportunity is not just to see what was asked. It is to understand why it was asked, what it meant in that moment, and what happened next.

For a deeper look at how organizations are approaching this challenge from the strengths of prompt analysis to its limitations in isolation see Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches, which expands on the role prompt-level controls play within a broader, context-driven security strategy.

Continue reading
About the author
Nabil Zoldjalali
VP, Field CISO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI