December 4, 2025

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

Atomic Stealer is rapidly emerging as a significant macOS threat, using infostealing and backdoor capabilities to target Apple users worldwide. Darktrace observed campaigns in 24 countries, detecting activity across multiple kill chain stages and providing recommended actions to contain attacks.

Written by

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

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

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

Dec 2025

The Rise of Infostealers Targeting Apple Users

In a threat landscape historically dominated by Windows-based threats, the growing prevalence of macOS information stealers targeting Apple users is becoming an increasing concern for organizations. Infostealers are a type of malware designed to steal sensitive data from target devices, often enabling attackers to extract credentials and financial data for resale or further exploitation. Recent research identified infostealers as the largest category of new macOS malware, with an alarming 101% increase in the last two quarters of 2024 [1].

What is Atomic Stealer?

Among the most notorious is Atomic macOS Stealer (or AMOS), first observed in 2023. Known for its sophisticated build, Atomic Stealer can exfiltrate a wide range of sensitive information including keychain passwords, cookies, browser data and cryptocurrency wallets.

Originally marketed on Telegram as a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS), Atomic Stealer has become a popular malware due to its ability to target macOS. Like other MaaS offerings, it includes services like a web panel for managing victims, with reports indicating a monthly subscription cost between $1,000 and $3,000 [2]. Although Atomic Stealer’s original intent was as a standalone MaaS product, its unique capability to target macOS has led to new variants emerging at an unprecedented rate

Even more concerning, the most recent variant has now added a backdoor for persistent access [3]. This backdoor presents a significant threat, as Atomic Stealer campaigns are believed to have reached an around 120 countries. The addition of a backdoor elevates Atomic Stealer to the rare category of backdoor deployments potentially at a global scale, something only previously attributed to nation-state threat actors [4].

This level of sophistication is also evident in the wide range of distribution methods observed since its first appearance; including fake application installers, malvertising and terminal command execution via the ClickFix technique. The ClickFix technique is particularly noteworthy: once the malware is downloaded onto the device, users are presented with what appears to be a legitimate macOS installation prompt. In reality, however, the user unknowingly initiates the execution of the Atomic Stealer malware.

This blog will focus on activity observed across multiple Darktrace customer environments where Atomic Stealer was detected, along with several indicators of compromise (IoCs). These included devices that successfully connected to endpoints associated with Atomic Stealer, those that attempted but failed to establish connections, and instances suggesting potential data exfiltration activity.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Atomic Stealer

As this evolving threat began to spread across the internet in June 2025, Darktrace observed a surge in Atomic Stealer activity, impacting numerous customers in 24 different countries worldwide. Initially, most of the cases detected in 2025 affected Darktrace customers within the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. However, later in the year, Darktrace began to observe a more even distribution of cases across EMEA, the Americas (AMS), and Asia Pacific (APAC). While multiple sectors were impacted by Atomic Stealer, Darktrace customers in the education sector were the most affected, particularly during September and October, coinciding with the return to school and universities after summer closures. This spike likely reflects increased device usage as students returned and reconnected potentially compromised devices to school and campus environments.

Starting from June, Darktrace detected multiple events of suspicious HTTP activity to external connections to IPs in the range 45.94.47.0/24. Investigation by Darktrace’s Threat Research team revealed several distinct patterns ; HTTP POST requests to the URI “/contact”, identical cURL User Agents and HTTP requests to “/api/tasks/[base64 string]” URIs.

Within one observed customer’s environment in July, Darktrace detected two devices making repeated initiated HTTP connections over port 80 to IPs within the same range. The first, Device A, was observed making GET requests to the IP 45.94.47[.]158 (AS60781 LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.), targeting the URI “/api/tasks/[base64string]” using the “curl/8.7.2” user agent. This pattern suggested beaconing activity and triggered the ‘Beaconing Activity to External Rare' model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK, with Device A’s Model Event Log showing repeated connections. The IP associated with this endpoint has since been flagged by multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors as being associated with Atomic Stealer [5].

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of Device A showing repeated connections to the suspicious IP address over port 80, indicative of beaconing behavior.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst subsequently launched an investigation into the activity, uncovering that the GET requests resulted in a ‘503 Service Unavailable’ response, likely indicating that the server was temporarily unable to process the requests.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst Incident showing the 503 Status Code, indicating that the server was temporarily unavailable.

This unusual activity prompted Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability to recommend several blocking actions for the device in an attempt to stop the malicious activity. However, as the customer’s Autonomous Response configuration was set to Human Confirmation Mode, Darktrace was unable to automatically apply these actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled, these connections would have been blocked, likely rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its malicious command-and-control (C2) infrastructure.

Figure 3: Autonomous Response’s suggested actions to block suspicious connectivity on Device A in the first customer environment.

In another customer environment in August, Darktrace detected similar IoCs, noting a device establishing a connection to the external endpoint 45.94.47[.]149 (ASN: AS57043 Hostkey B.V.). Shortly after the initial connections, the device was observed making repeated requests to the same destination IP, targeting the URI /api/tasks/[base64string] with the user agent curl/8.7.1, again suggesting beaconing activity. Further analysis of this endpoint after the fact revealed links to Atomic Stealer in OSINT reporting [6].

Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst investigation finding a suspicious URI and user agent for the offending device within the second customer environment.

As with the customer in the first case, had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response been properly configured on the customer’s network, it would have been able to block connectivity with 45.94.47[.]149. Instead, Darktrace suggested recommended actions that the customer’s security team could manually apply to help contain the attack.

Figure 5: Autonomous Response’s suggested actions to block suspicious connectivity to IP 45.94.47[.]149 for the device within the second customer environment.

In the most recent case observed by Darktrace in October, multiple instances of Atomic Stealer activity were seen across one customer’s environment, with two devices communicating with Atomic Stealer C2 infrastructure. During this incident, one device was observed making an HTTP GET request to the IP 45.94.47[.]149 (ASN: AS60781 LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.). These connections targeted the URI /api/tasks/[base64string, using the user agent curl/8.7.1.

Shortly afterward, the device began making repeated connections over port 80 to the same external IP, 45.94.47[.]149. This activity continued for several days until Darktrace detected the device making an HTTP POST request to a new IP, 45.94.47[.]211 (ASN: AS57043 Hostkey B.V.), this time targeting the URI /contact, again using the curl/8.7.1 user agent. Similar to the other IPs observed in beaconing activity, OSINT reporting later linked this one to information stealer C2 infrastructure [7].

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious beaconing connectivity with the suspicious IP 45.94.47.211.

Further investigation into this customer’s network revealed that similar activity had been occurring as far back as August, when Darktrace detected data exfiltration on a second device. Cyber AI Analyst identified this device making a single HTTP POST connection to the external IP 45.94.47[.]144, another IP with malicious links [8], using the user agent curl/8.7.1 and targeting the URI /contact.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst investigation finding a successful POST request to 45.94.47[.]144 for the device within the third customer environment.

A deeper investigation into the technical details within the POST request revealed the presence of a file named “out.zip”, suggesting potential data exfiltration.

Figure 8: Advanced Search log in Darktrace / NETWORK showing “out.zip”, indicating potential data exfiltration for a device within the third customer environment.

Similarly, in another environment, Darktrace was able to collect a packet capture (PCAP) of suspected Atomic Stealer activity, which revealed potential indicators of data exfiltration. This included the presence of the “out.zip” file being exfiltrated via an HTTP POST request, along with data that appeared to contain details of an Electrum cryptocurrency wallet and possible passwords.

Read more about Darktrace’s full deep dive into a similar case where this tactic was leveraged by malware as part of an elaborate cryptocurrency scam.

Figure 9: PCAP of an HTTP POST request showing the file “out.zip” and details of Electrum Cryptocurrency wallet.

Although recent research attributes the “out.zip” file to a new variant named SHAMOS [9], it has also been linked more broadly to Atomic Stealer [10]. Indeed, this is not the first instance where Darktrace has seen the “out.zip” file in cases involving Atomic Stealer either. In a previous blog detailing a social engineering campaign that targeted cryptocurrency users with the Realst Stealer, the macOS version of Realst contained a binary that was found to be Atomic Stealer, and similar IoCs were identified, including artifacts of data exfiltration such as the “out.zip” file.

Conclusion‍

The rapid rise of Atomic Stealer and its ability to target macOS marks a significant shift in the threat landscape and should serve as a clear warning to Apple users who were traditionally perceived as more secure in a malware ecosystem historically dominated by Windows-based threats.

Atomic Stealer’s growing popularity is now challenging that perception, expanding its reach and accessibility to a broader range of victims. Even more concerning is the emergence of a variant embedded with a backdoor, which is likely to increase its appeal among a diverse range of threat actors. Darktrace’s ability to adapt and detect new tactics and IoCs in real time delivers the proactive defense organizations need to protect themselves against emerging threats before they can gain momentum.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Dylan Hinz (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

References

1. https://www.scworld.com/news/infostealers-targeting-macos-jumped-by-101-in-second-half-of-2024

2. https://www.kandji.io/blog/amos-macos-stealer-analysis

3. https://www.broadcom.com/support/security-center/protection-bulletin/amos-stealer-adds-backdoor

4. https://moonlock.com/amos-backdoor-persistent-access

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.94.47.158/detection

6. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/25/i/an-mdr-analysis-of-the-amos-stealer-campaign.html

7. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.94.47.211/detection

8. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.94.47.144/detection

9. https://securityaffairs.com/181441/malware/over-300-entities-hit-by-a-variant-of-atomic-macos-stealer-in-recent-campaign.html

10. https://binhex.ninja/malware-analysis-blogs/amos-stealer-atomic-stealer-malware.html

Darktrace Model Detections

Darktrace / NETWORK

Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New IP
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Device / New User Agent
Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

Autonomous Response

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block
Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block
Antigena / Network / External Threat::Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

List of IoCs

45.94.47[.]149 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
45.94.47[.]144 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
45.94.47[.]158 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
45.94.47[.]211 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
out.zip - File Output – Possible ZIP file for Data Exfiltration

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping:

Tactic –Technique – Sub-Technique

Execution - T1204.002 - User Execution: Malicious File

Credential Access - T1555.001 - Credentials from Password Stores: Keychain

Credential Access - T1555.003 - Credentials from Web Browsers

Command & Control - T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

Exfiltration - T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

Written by

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

•

August 3, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

•

August 4, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

August 4, 2026

Extending AI Security Visibility with Darktrace and Microsoft Agent 365

AI agents are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday business operations, helping employees automate workflows, access information, and accelerate decision-making. As organizations embrace agentic AI, security teams face a growing challenge: understanding how AI is being used, what agents can access, and where risk may emerge.

As agents take on more business-critical work, security teams often need to move across multiple portals to understand risks spanning identity, data, and threat activity. This fragmented view can make it difficult to assess an agent's overall risk posture and determine where attention is needed. Organizations need a way to bring these signals together without disrupting existing security investments or workflows.

Today, Darktrace is announcing an integration between Darktrace / SECURE AI and Microsoft Agent 365 that brings Darktrace's Adaptive AI-driven risk signals directly into the Microsoft 365 Admin Center. By extending the visibility and risk understanding provided by Darktrace / SECURE AI into the Microsoft ecosystem, organizations can gain a more unified understanding of AI agent risk across their environments.

As one of the first security companies to partner with Microsoft to contribute third-party risk signals to the Agent Registry, Darktrace is helping shape how organizations understand and manage AI agent risk.

Extending visibility into the Microsoft Agent 365 experience

Microsoft Agent 365 provides administrators with a centralized registry of AI agents operating within their environment. As organizations expand their use of AI agents, this centralized visibility becomes increasingly important for governance and oversight.

This new integration extends that visibility by allowing Darktrace-generated risk signals to be surfaced directly within the Microsoft Agent 365 experience. By combining Microsoft's agent management and security capabilities with Darktrace's AI-powered risk analysis, organizations gain greater awareness of potential security concerns associated with AI agents operating across their environments.

By integrating Darktrace telemetry into Agent 365, customers can:

Surface Darktrace-detected risks and signals alongside Microsoft-native signals in a single interface

Identify potentially compromised or anomalous AI agents more quickly

Gain unified understanding of context and agent behavior

This approach reinforces a single control plane for AI security while allowing organizations to continue leveraging existing investments across both platforms.

Why unified visibility of AI agent risk signals matters

As AI adoption accelerates across Microsoft environments, organizations must manage new forms of behavior, access patterns, and risk. Security teams need more than inventories and permissions. They need visibility into how AI systems operate and how risk evolves over time.

This integration addresses a critical gap: how to bring behavioral AI security insights into the same control plane as identity, access, and agent management.

With Darktrace and Microsoft Agent 365 together, organizations benefit from:

Unified visibility: A single pane of glass for understanding AI agent risk signals across Microsoft and Darktrace signals

Faster detection of abnormal agent behavior: Darktrace's Adaptive AI highlights deviations that may not be captured by static controls

Operational efficiency: Security teams can triage and prioritize risk signals without switching between systems

Stronger trust in AI deployments: Clear attribution, context, and investigation pathways improve confidence in AI agent usage

Extending Microsoft's AI security model, not replacing it

Securing AI requires a layered approach that combines governance, visibility, threat detection, and risk management. This integration is designed to complement Microsoft's security capabilities, not duplicate them.

Through Darktrace / SECURE AI, Darktrace contributes:

Identification of risk via advanced prompt analysis

Behavioral anomaly detection across AI agents

Cross-environment threat correlation

Autonomous insight into emerging or unknown risks

Microsoft provides:

Centralized agent management

Identity and access governance

Native detection of risk signals and enforcement capabilities

Together, these capabilities create a more complete, layered approach to securing AI-driven enterprises. Organizations gain the governance and policy controls needed to manage AI adoption while benefiting from continuous visibility into how AI is used across the business.

Building the future of secure AI

As AI agents become more deeply embedded in business processes, organizations need more than inventories and static controls. They need to understand how AI is being used, how agents behave, and where risk is emerging across the enterprise.

Darktrace / SECURE AI delivers that understanding through continuous visibility into AI activity, helping security teams assess intent, identify behavioral drift, and uncover emerging risk across both human and agent-driven workflows. Powered by Adaptive AI, it provides the context needed to secure AI as it evolves.

The integration with Microsoft Agent 365 extends those insights into the workflows organizations already use. Agent 365 provides a unified control plane for governing and securing AI agents, while Darktrace contributes complementary behavioral risk signals that can be surfaced within the Agent 365 experience. Together, they give customers broader context on agent activity and risk while preserving the value of their existing Microsoft and Darktrace investments.

As enterprises move from AI experimentation to AI-powered execution, Microsoft and Darktrace help bring together governance, compliance, behavioral understanding, and oversight in a unified approach to AI security. For organizations adopting Microsoft 365 E7, Darktrace / SECURE AI further strengthens that foundation by providing continuous visibility into AI activity, agent behavior, and emerging risk as AI adoption scales.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Blog

August 3, 2026

Why Trust is the New Attack Surface: Darktrace’s Mid-Year Threat Update 2026

In early 2026, a React2Shell honeypot purpose-built by Darktrace analysts was compromised in less than two hours after deployment. That single data point captures the pace of the threat landscape in the first half of 2026, but speed tells only part of the story.

The shift over the past six months has moved away from traditional malware and vulnerability-centric attacks and toward the abuse of trusted identities, platforms, and infrastructure. Identities, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms, cloud entitlements, automation frameworks, and non-human identities have become the preferred attack paths as organizations adopt AI at scale.

Attackers are increasingly operating inside the relationships, services, and authenticated channels that defenders and users are conditioned to rely on, rather than breaking in from the outside.

What has changed since 2025?

In 2025, identity became the new perimeter as attackers increasingly bypassed traditional exploitation in favor of trusted accounts, SaaS platforms, and emerging AI-enabled tradecraft. The first half of 2026 marks the next stage of that evolution. Identity remains central, but the trust challenge now extends far beyond accounts to email authentication, cloud entitlements, software supply chains, AI gateways, remote administration tooling, and non-human identities.

Theme	2025 (Mid-Year / Annual)	H1 2026
Identity	Credentials remained the weak link; identity emerged as the new perimeter.	Identity remains the entry point, but trust has become the new attack surface.
Cloud & SaaS	SaaS-targeted ransomware continued to rise.	Cloud and SaaS became the attacker's preferred operating environment.
AI	Large Language Models (LLMs) were suspected of influencing phishing shifts.	LLM-generated malware, compromised AI proxies, and the abuse of AI identities emerged.
Attack Surface Scale & Speed	Exponential growth of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), with public proof-of-concepts appearing faster.	Cloud and AI adoption expanded the attack surface, while AI accelerated exploitation. One honeypot was compromised in under two hours.
Supply Chain	Legitimate services were increasingly abused.	Trusted maintainers and CI/CD workflows were weaponized.

Identity and email: trust signals under pressure

Email remains the most reliable route to a trusted identity, and the data shows attackers investing in quality over noise. In the first half of 2026, 67% of phishing emails passed DMARC. Authentication alone is no longer sufficient to stop most phishing attempts. VIP users were targeted in 25.8% of phishing, consistent with 2025's “over 25%” figure, but drifting upward throughout the period. Crucially, phishing sophistication continued to increase: 37% of phishing contained a high volume of text, up from 32% in the first half of 2025, while 39% featured novel social engineering techniques, suggesting attackers are further customizing to specific targets.

The most prevalent threats affecting Darktrace customers were also among the most identity-centric: information stealers, with dedicated StealC and AMOS campaigns running through the half-year. Their prevalence is, fundamentally, an identity story. Credentials harvested by infostealers often become the initial access vector for far higher-impact intrusions later in the attack chain. Crucially, the delivery method rarely requires exploitation of a technical weakness. ClickFix social engineering, which tricks users into running malicious code themselves, remained a common distribution route. One recent campaign impacted Darktrace customers across 17 countries, with the United States the most affected. The compromise did not begin with a software flaw, but with a trusted user taking a trusted action.

Supply chain: Trust weaponized at scale

March and April reinforced the same lesson: trust has become a supply-chain vulnerability. The Axios compromise abused trust in a widely used maintainer, while the Trivy campaign leveraged trusted CI/CD infrastructure, release artifacts, and container images to push malicious code through legitimate development workflows.

The clearest example was a February–March campaign in which devices downloaded malicious payloads while using Hola VPN, later linked to an issue within Hola's own delivery pipeline. Darktrace's Threat Research team identified associated activity through recurring anomalous behavior across multiple customers before a public advisory was released.

More recently, attackers abused legitimate blockchain infrastructure to distribute infostealers, including AMOS and Phexia. Popular tools like VPNs, often used by users with limited security resources, combined with legitimate command-and-control (C2) infrastructure enables attackers to reach a far wider victim base while frustrating defenders who cannot simply block the associated endpoints.

For defenders, the challenge is no longer identifying malicious infrastructure, but recognizing when trusted infrastructure begins behaving maliciously.

Cloud and SaaS: from target to terrain

Through May and June, activity involving device registration, cloud data theft, SaaS abuse, RDP expansion, and remote management tooling suggested that attackers increasingly view cloud and SaaS not simply as targets, but as their preferred operating environment.

In one Darktrace case a single compromised SaaS account triggered activity across email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. None of these indicators were decisive in isolation, but together they revealed a clear intrusion. Increasingly, attackers do not need to bypass trust controls in these environments; they inherit them through compromised identities, delegated access, and legitimate administration tools. This is the natural progression of 2025's SaaS-targeted ransomware trend: the platforms on which businesses operate are increasingly the same platforms on which adversaries operate.

AI: accelerant, attack surface, and trusted but risky actor

If trust is the attack surface, AI is where that surface is expanding fastest. Across the Darktrace customer base, AI service connections per deployment rose 13% in the first half of 2026, surpassing 16 million connections, while the typical organization now interacts with seven different AI providers. AI is no longer at the edge of the enterprise; it is embedded in day-to-day business operations. That shift creates three distinct problems, all of which were observed by Darktrace in the first half of 2026.

1. AI as an attack multiplier

Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, in which an attacker used an LLM to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale. Similar activity is increasingly appearing across the wider threat landscape, suggesting that the barrier to effective offensive operations is collapsing. As demonstrated by the recent JadePuffer case, in which an agentic threat actor exploited a vulnerability in an internet-facing server before launching a fully automated ransomware attack, AI is accelerating the path from vulnerability disclosure to operational exploitation [1].

2. AI as an attack surface

The AI layer itself is now worth probing. At an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was used as a steppingstone toward additional AI services; when that failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining. Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst pieced the intrusion together and Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted the customer, containing it before it could progress further. The practitioner lesson is clear: treat AI gateways, proxies, and model endpoints as production cloud workloads because attackers already do.

3. AI as a trusted but potentially risky actor

Darktrace / SECURE AI observations suggest the most common real-world risk is quieter still: employees entering personal identifiable information (PII), tax records, identity documents, company financial data, HR records, and personal medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread shadow AI use and increased AI usage from mobile devices. Across nearly 280,000 prompts submitted by almost 28,000 users over 28 days, Darktrace identified that approximately 1% of these prompts (or 2,945 instances) contained sensitive data*.

_{*Prompt data was analyzed in aggregate and anonymized form to protect user privacy.}

‍

For defenders, the challenge is context: knowing when legitimate business use crosses into material risk without breaking privacy or user trust. As organizations increasingly trust AI systems to access, process, and share sensitive information at machine speed, AI must be secured and monitored alongside identities, applications, and cloud infrastructure.

Speed and geopolitics: faster operations, longer-term objectives

Several investigations in the first half of the year showed how quickly attackers operationalize newly disclosed vulnerabilities, validating exploitation through Out-of-Band Application Security Testing (OAST) infrastructure and trusted cloud services before patching cycles can be completed. React2Shell was compromised in two hours, while BeyondTrust exploitation followed in less than a day. Against this backdrop, state-aligned actors continue to prioritize long-term access, intelligence collection, and pre-positioning through legitimate services, cloud infrastructure, and trusted relationships. Operations linked to China, Russia, Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) shared a common characteristic: a focus on persistence and strategic positioning rather than immediate disruption.

China: Darktrace observed Chinese-nexus actors prioritizing long-term access through trusted services, dynamic-link library (DLL) sideloading, and modular intrusion chains consistent with activity documented in Crimson Echo reporting and associated with Twill Typhoon tradecraft.

Iran: Darktrace's ZionSiphon investigation highlighted Iranian-linked interest in operational technology (OT) environments, blending espionage objectives with infrastructure disruption capabilities.

Russia: Darktrace investigations, alongside wider industry reporting, highlighted Russian reliance on trusted relationships and supply-chain targeting for long-term intelligence on Ukraine related support [2].

DPRK: Darktrace observed DPRK-linked activity combining rapid vulnerability weaponization with persistent access techniques, including Axios supply-chain compromise, React2Shell exploitation and stealthy macOS intrusions

While objectives differed across actors, the tradecraft was remarkably consistent: trusted services, legitimate infrastructure, and persistent access remained more valuable than immediate disruption.

The defender shift

Across identity compromise, supply-chain attacks, SaaS abuse, AI infrastructure targeting, and state-aligned operations, attackers increasingly succeed by operating through trusted systems rather than breaking through defensive controls. Trusted users, trusted software, trusted infrastructure, and increasingly trusted AI systems all became viable attack paths.

For defenders, the challenge is no longer simply determining whether an action is allowed; it is determining whether that action makes sense in its wider context. Authentication, reputation, and provenance remain important, but they are no longer sufficient on their own. As attackers increasingly operate within trusted systems, the strongest signal is often a behavioral deviation: identifying when trusted activity no longer aligns with expected behavior.

‍

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (SVP, Global Threat Intelligence), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Daniel Levy (Threat Hunting Data Scientist)

‍
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

‍

Appendix 1: Threat Research Methodology

Darktrace’s Threat Research team conducts extensive research across customer deployments to identify active threats, pinpoint key Indicators of Compromise (IoCs), and provide relevant threat intelligence. This research leverages Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection and involves thorough analysis and contextualization by the Threat Research team. Detected threats are promptly reported to the relevant customer security teams. When a customer has Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology enabled, these threats are swiftly mitigated to prevent escalation.

Between January 1 and June 30, 2026, Darktrace investigated a wide range of cyber threats across its customer base. Many were identified as campaign-like activities targeting multiple customers, where clusters of similar tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and IoCs were seen affecting a significant number of customers within a short timeframe.

Statistics related to email are derived from aggregated Darktrace / EMAIL data across all cloud-hosted customer deployments between January 1 and June 30, 2026. Standard data-quality filtering was applied to exclude anomalous observations prior to aggregation. Regional statistics are based on relevant subsets of this dataset.

‍

Appendix 2: Campaigns - Regional and Sector Trends

While the above broad themes defined the threat landscape over the last six months, campaign clustering across the Darktrace customer base revealed how they manifested differently across sectors, regions, and industries.

Darktrace’s Threat Research team investigates a range of threats affecting its customer base. Through this research, campaign-like clusters of activity have been identified, in which common tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), as well as infrastructure, are observed impacting a significant number of customers within a short timeframe.

Sectors and industries are classified using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to ensure consistent categorization. While the sector and regional insights in this report reflect broader global trends, they are also influenced by the distribution of Darktrace's customer base. For example, Finance, Manufacturing, and Education are strongly represented among Darktrace customers, which may result in a higher number of observed cases in these sectors. This reflects customer distribution rather than necessarily indicating elevated sector-specific risk. Similarly, regional trends may be influenced by the geographic distribution of Darktrace customers.

‍

Analysis of campaign clusters identified by the Darktrace Threat Research team during the first half of 2026 revealed distinct regional trends.

Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) dominated with 60% of all campaign cluster cases targeting this region.
The Americas (AMS) was the next most affected region, with 30% of campaign cluster cases.
The Asia-Pacific and Japan (APJ) region was less affected by campaign clusters, potentially indicating that threat actors placed a lower priority on the region and instead focused their efforts elsewhere.

Sector targeting also varied considerably by region:

In EMEA, the Information and Communication was the most affected by a significant margin, representing 25% of all cases.
In contrast, AMS targeting was more evenly distributed, with the Education, Public administration and defence, and Financial Insurance activities sectors all forming over 20% of AMS regional cases.
Across APJ, campaign activity was spread more equally, with no single sector emerging as a dominant target.

‍

Several countries also stood out within their respective regions:

The United States accounted for 60% of all campaign clusters within AMS.
Japan represented 40% of campaign customer cases across APJ.
In EMEA, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe each accounted for 23% of identified cases, both being involved in a variety of campaign types.

‍

Inside the SOC & Threat Research 2026 Monthly Progression: From Access to Impact

Month	Dominant Themes
January	Voice phishing, VPS infrastructure, WebSocket C2, RMM abuse, ransomware, infostealers (StealC), and trojanized installers (7-Zip).
February	Voice phishing, VPN intrusion, edge infrastructure compromise (BeyondTrust), and RMM abuse.
March	Sustained supply chain compromise (Hola VPN, Axios, Trivy), malicious browser extensions, phishing, and discovery tools.
April	Account creation abuse, payload delivery, VPN credential abuse, Fortinet exploitation, and botnet activity.
May	PowerShell, EtherHiding, data exfiltration, VPN access, business email compromise (BEC), ClickFix, and infostealers (AMOS).
June	RDP abuse, device registration, RMM usage, voice phishing, cloud data theft, botnet activity, blockchain abuse, ClickFix, and infostealers (AMOS).