September 3, 2025

From PowerShell to Payload: Darktrace’s Detection of a Novel Cryptomining Malware

Cryptojacking attacks are rising as threat actors exploit hard-to-detect cryptomining malware. Learn how Darktrace detected and contained a cryptojacking attempt in its early stages using Autonomous Response, with expert analysis of the malware itself revealing insights into a novel cryptomining strain.

No items found.

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.

No items found.

Sep 2025

What is Cryptojacking?

Cryptojacking remains one of the most persistent cyber threats in the digital age, showing no signs of slowing down. It involves the unauthorized use of a computer or device’s processing power to mine cryptocurrencies, often without the owner’s consent or knowledge, using cryptojacking scripts or cryptocurrency mining (cryptomining) malware [1].

Unlike other widespread attacks such as ransomware, which disrupt operations and block access to data, cryptomining malware steals and drains computing and energy resources for mining to reduce attacker’s personal costs and increase “profits” earned from mining [1]. The impact on targeted organizations can be significant, ranging from data privacy concerns and reduced productivity to higher energy bills.

As cryptocurrency continues to grow in popularity, as seen with the ongoing high valuation of the global cryptocurrency market capitalization (almost USD 4 trillion at time of writing), threat actors will continue to view cryptomining as a profitable venture [2]. As a result, illicit cryptominers are being used to steal processing power via supply chain attacks or browser injections, as seen in a recent cryptojacking campaign using JavaScript [3][4].

Therefore, security teams should maintain awareness of this ongoing threat, as what is often dismissed as a "compliance issue" can escalate into more severe compromises and lead to prolonged exposure of critical resources.

While having a security team capable of detecting and analyzing hijacking attempts is essential, emerging threats in today’s landscape often demand more than manual intervention.

This blog will discuss Darktrace’s successful detection of the malicious activity, the role of Autonomous Response in halting the cryptojacking attack, include novel insights from Darktrace’s threat researchers on the cryptominer payload, showing how the attack chain was initiated through the execution of a PowerShell-based payload.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Cryptojacking via PowerShell

In July 2025, Darktrace detected and contained an attempted cryptojacking incident on the network of a customer in the retail and e-commerce industry.

The threat was detected when a threat actor attempted to use a PowerShell script to download and run NBMiner directly in memory.

The initial compromise was detected on July 22, when Darktrace / NETWORK observed the use of a new PowerShell user agent during a connection to an external endpoint, indicating an attempt at remote code execution.

Specifically, the targeted desktop device established a connection to the rare endpoint, 45.141.87[.]195, over destination port 8000 using HTTP as the application-layer protocol. Within this connection, Darktrace observed the presence of a PowerShell script in the URI, specifically ‘/infect.ps1’.

Darktrace’s analysis of this endpoint (45.141.87[.]195[:]8000/infect.ps1) and the payload it downloaded indicated it was a dropper used to deliver an obfuscated AutoIt loader. This attribution was further supported by open-source intelligence (OSINT) reporting [5]. The loader likely then injected NBMiner into a legitimate process on the customer’s environment – the first documented case of NBMiner being dropped in this way.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of a device making an HTTP connection with new PowerShell user agent, indicating PowerShell abuse for command-and-control (C2) communications.

Script files are often used by malicious actors for malware distribution. In cryptojacking attacks specifically, scripts are used to download and install cryptomining software, which then attempts to connect to cryptomining pools to begin mining operations [6].

Inside the payload: Technical analysis of the malicious script and cryptomining loader

To confidently establish that the malicious script file dropped an AutoIt loader used to deliver the NBMiner cryptominer, Darktrace’s threat researchers reverse engineered the payload. Analysis of the file ‘infect.ps1’ revealed further insights, ultimately linking it to the execution of a cryptominer loader.

Figure 2: Screenshot of the ‘infect.ps1’ PowerShell script observed in the attack.

The ‘infect.ps1’ script is a heavily obfuscated PowerShell script that contains multiple variables of Base64 and XOR encoded data. The first data blob is XOR’d with a value of 97, after decoding, the data is a binary and stored in APPDATA/local/knzbsrgw.exe. The binary is AutoIT.exe, the legitimate executable of the AutoIt programming language. The script also performs a check for the existence of the registry key HKCU:\\Software\LordNet.

The second data blob ($cylcejlrqbgejqryxpck) is written to APPDATA\rauuq, where it will later be read and XOR decoded. The third data blob ($tlswqbblxmmr)decodes to an obfuscated AutoIt script, which is written to %LOCALAPPDATA%\qmsxehehhnnwioojlyegmdssiswak. To ensure persistence, a shortcut file named xxyntxsmitwgruxuwqzypomkhxhml.lnk is created to run at startup.

Figure 3: Screenshot of second stage AutoIt script.

The observed AutoIt script is a process injection loader. It reads an encrypted binary from /rauuq in APPDATA, then XOR-decodes every byte with the key 47 to reconstruct the payload in memory. Next, it silently launches the legitimate Windows app ‘charmap.exe’ (Character Map) and obtains a handle with full access. It allocates executable and writable memory inside that process, writes the decrypted payload into the allocated region, and starts a new thread at that address. Finally, it closes the thread and process handles.

The binary that is injected into charmap.exe is 64-bit Windows binary. On launch, it takes a snapshot of running processes and specifically checks whether Task Manager is open. If Task Manager is detected, the binary kills sigverif.exe; otherwise, it proceeds. Once the condition is met, NBMiner is retrieved from a Chimera URL (https://api[.]chimera-hosting[.]zip/frfnhis/zdpaGgLMav/nbminer[.]exe) and establishes persistence, ensuring that the process automatically restarts if terminated. When mining begins, it spawns a process with the arguments ‘-a kawpow -o asia.ravenminer.com:3838 -u R9KVhfjiqSuSVcpYw5G8VDayPkjSipbiMb.worker -i 60’ and hides the process window to evade detection.

The program includes several evasion measures. It performs anti-sandboxing by sleeping to delay analysis and terminates sigverif.exe (File Signature Verification). It checks for installed antivirus products and continues only when Windows Defender is the sole protection. It also verifies whether the current user has administrative rights. If not, it attempts a User Account Control (UAC) bypass via Fodhelper to silently elevate and execute its payload without prompting the user. The binary creates a folder under %APPDATA%, drops rtworkq.dll extracted from its own embedded data, and copies ‘mfpmp.exe’ from System32 into that directory to side-load ‘rtworkq.dll’. It also looks for the registry key HKCU\Software\kap, creating it if it does not exist, and reads or sets a registry value it expects there.

Zooming Out: Darktrace Coverage of NBMiner

Darktrace’s analysis of the malicious PowerShell script provides clear evidence that the payload downloaded and executed the NBMiner cryptominer. Once executed, the infected device is expected to attempt connections to cryptomining endpoints (mining pools). Darktrace initially observed this on the targeted device once it started making DNS requests for a cryptominer endpoint, “gulf[.]moneroocean[.]stream” [7], one minute after the connection involving the malicious script.

Figure 5: Darktrace Advanced Search logs showcasing the affected device making a DNS request for a Monero mining endpoint.

Though DNS requests do not necessarily mean the device connected to a cryptominer-associated endpoint, Darktrace detected connections to the endpoint specified in the DNS Answer field: monerooceans[.]stream, 152.53.121[.]6. The attempted connections to this endpoint over port 10001 triggered several high-fidelity model alerts in Darktrace related to possible cryptomining mining activity. The IP address and destination port combination (152.53.121[.]6:10001) has also been linked to cryptomining activity by several OSINT security vendors [8][9].

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of a device establishing connections with the Monero Mining-associated endpoint, monerooceans[.]stream over port 10001.

Darktrace / NETWORK grouped together the observed indicators of compromise (IoCs) on the targeted device and triggered an additional Enhanced Monitoring model designed to identify activity indicative of the early stages of an attack. These high-fidelity models are continuously monitored and triaged by Darktrace’s SOC team as part of the Managed Threat Detection service, ensuring that subscribed customers are promptly notified of malicious activity as soon as it emerges.

Figure 7: Darktrace’s correlation of the initial PowerShell-related activity with the cryptomining endpoint, showcasing a pattern indicative of an initial attack chain.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst launched an autonomous investigation into the ongoing activity and was able to link the individual events of the attack, encompassing the initial connections involving the PowerShell script to the ultimate connections to the cryptomining endpoint, likely representing cryptomining activity. Rather than viewing these seemingly separate events in isolation, Cyber AI Analyst was able to see the bigger picture, providing comprehensive visibility over the attack.

Figure 8: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst view illustrating the extent of the cryptojacking attack mapped against the Cyber Kill Chain.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response

Fortunately, as this customer had Darktrace configured in Autonomous Response mode, Darktrace was able to take immediate action by preventing the device from making outbound connections and blocking specific connections to suspicious endpoints, thereby containing the attack.

Specifically, these Autonomous Response actions prevented the outgoing communication within seconds of the device attempting to connect to the rare endpoints.

Figure 10: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response blocked connections to the mining-related endpoint within a second of the initial connection.

Additionally, the Darktrace SOC team was able to validate the effectiveness of the Autonomous Response actions by analyzing connections to 152.53.121[.]6 using the Advanced Search feature. Across more than 130 connection attempts, Darktrace’s SOC confirmed that all were aborted, meaning no connections were successfully established.

Figure 11: Advanced Search logs showing all attempted connections that were successfully prevented by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability.

Conclusion

Cryptojacking attacks will remain prevalent, as threat actors can scale their attacks to infect multiple devices and networks. What’s more, cryptomining incidents can often be difficult to detect and are even overlooked as low-severity compliance events, potentially leading to data privacy issues and significant energy bills caused by misused processing power.

Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection identifies early indicators of targeted attacks without relying on prior knowledge or IoCs. By continuously learning each device’s unique pattern of life, Darktrace can detect subtle deviations that may signal a compromise.

In this case, the cryptojacking attack was quickly identified and mitigated during the early stages of malware and cryptomining activity. Darktrace's Autonomous Response was able to swiftly contain the threat before it could advance further along the attack lifecycle, minimizing disruption and preventing the attack from potentially escalating into a more severe compromise.

Credit to Keanna Grelicha (Cyber Analyst) and Tara Gould (Threat Research Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

NETWORK Models:

· Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

· Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

· Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

· Compromise / Monero Mining

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

· Device / New PowerShell User Agent

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External

· Device / Suspicious Domain

Cyber AI Analyst Incident Events:

· Detect \ Event \ Possible HTTP Command and Control

· Detect \ Event \ Cryptocurrency Mining Activity

Autonomous Response Models:

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

· Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

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

· Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Crypto Currency Mining Block

· Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena File then New Outbound Block

· Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Block

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

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

(IoC - Type - Description + Confidence)

· 45.141.87[.]195:8000/infect.ps1 - IP Address, Destination Port, Script - Malicious PowerShell script

· gulf.moneroocean[.]stream - Hostname - Monero Endpoint

· monerooceans[.]stream - Hostname - Monero Endpoint

· 152.53.121[.]6:10001 - IP Address, Destination Port - Monero Endpoint

· 152.53.121[.]6 - IP Address – Monero Endpoint

· https://api[.]chimera-hosting[.]zip/frfnhis/zdpaGgLMav/nbminer[.]exe – Hostname, Executable File – NBMiner

· Db3534826b4f4dfd9f4a0de78e225ebb – Hash – NBMiner loader

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique)

· Vulnerabilities – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1588.006 - T1588

· Exploits – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1588.005 - T1588

· Malware – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1588.001 - T1588

· Drive-by Compromise – INITIAL ACCESS – T1189

· PowerShell – EXECUTION – T1059.001 - T1059

· Exploitation of Remote Services – LATERAL MOVEMENT – T1210

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

· Application Layer Protocol – COMMAND AND CONTROL – T1071

· Resource Hijacking – IMPACT – T1496

· Obfuscated Files - DEFENSE EVASION - T1027

· Bypass UAC - PRIVILEGE ESCALATION – T1548.002

· Process Injection – PRIVILEGE ESCALATION – T055

· Debugger Evasion – DISCOVERY – T1622

· Logon Autostart Execution – PERSISTENCE – T1547.009

References

[1] https://www.darktrace.com/cyber-ai-glossary/cryptojacking#:~:text=Battery%20drain%20and%20overheating,fee%20to%20%E2%80%9Cmine%20cryptocurrency%E2%80%9D.

[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/

[3] https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/cryptojacking

[4] https://thehackernews.com/2025/07/3500-websites-hijacked-to-secretly-mine.html

[5] https://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/3589032/

[6] https://www.logpoint.com/en/blog/uncovering-illegitimate-crypto-mining-activity/

[7] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/gulf.moneroocean.stream/detection

[8] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/monerooceans.stream/detection

[9] https://any.run/report/5aa8cd5f8e099bbb15bc63be52a3983b7dd57bb92566feb1a266a65ab5da34dd/351eca83-ef32-4037-a02f-ac85a165d74e

^{The content provided in this blog is published by Darktrace for general informational purposes only and reflects our understanding of cybersecurity topics, trends, incidents, and developments at the time of publication. While we strive to ensure accuracy and relevance, the information is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Darktrace makes no guarantees regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information presented and expressly disclaims all warranties.}

^{Nothing in this blog constitutes legal, technical, or professional advice, and readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein. Any references to third-party organizations, technologies, threat actors, or incidents are for informational purposes only and do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or recommendation.}

^{Darktrace, its affiliates, employees, or agents shall not be held liable for any loss, damage, or harm arising from the use of or reliance on the information in this blog.}

^{The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content without notice.}

No items found.

Inside the SOC

No items found.

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

May 1, 2026

Kiri Addison

Senior Director of Product

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

May 5, 2026

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Software supply-chain attacks in 2026

Software supply-chain attacks now represent the primary threat shaping the 2026 security landscape. Rather than relying on exploits at the perimeter, attackers are targeting the connective tissue of modern engineering environments: package managers, CI/CD automation, developer systems, and even the security tools organizations inherently trust.

These incidents are not isolated cases of poisoned code. They reflect a structural shift toward abusing trusted automation and identity at ecosystem scale, where compromise propagates through systems designed for speed, not scrutiny. Ephemeral build runners, regardless of provider, represent high‑trust, low‑visibility execution zones.

The Axios compromise and the cascading Trivy campaign illustrate how quickly this abuse can move once attacker activity enters build and delivery workflows. This blog provides an overview of the latest supply chain and security tool incidents with Darktrace telemetry and defensive actions to improve organizations defensive cyber posture.

1. Why the Axios Compromise Scaled

On 31 March 2026, attackers hijacked the npm account of Axios’s lead maintainer, publishing malicious versions 1.14.1 and 0.30.4 that silently pulled in a malicious dependency, plain‑crypto‑[email protected]. Axios is a popular HTTP client for node.js and processes 100 million weekly downloads and appears in around 80% of cloud and application environments, making this a high‑leverage breach [1].

The attack chain was simple yet effective:

A compromised maintainer account enabled legitimate‑looking malicious releases.
The poisoned dependency executed Remote Access Trojans (RATs) across Linux, macOS and Windows systems.
The malware beaconed to a remote command-and-control (C2) server every 60 seconds in a loop, awaiting further instructions.
The installer self‑cleaned by deleting malicious artifacts.

All of this matters because a single maintainer compromise was enough to project attacker access into thousands of trusted production environments without exploiting a single vulnerability.

A view from Darktrace

Multiple cases linked with the Axios compromise were identified across Darktrace’s customer base in March 2026, across both Darktrace / NETWORK and Darktrace / CLOUD deployments.

In one Darktrace / CLOUD deployment, an Azure Cloud Asset was observed establishing new external HTTP connectivity to the IP 142.11.206[.]73 on port 8000. Darktrace deemed this activity as highly anomalous for the device based on several factors, including the rarity of the endpoint across the network and the unusual combination of protocol and port for this asset. As a result, the triggering the "Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port" model was triggered in Darktrace / CLOUD. Detection was driven by environmental context rather than a known indicator at the time. Subsequent reporting later classified the destination as malicious in relation to the Axios supply‑chain compromise, reinforcing the gap that often exists between initial attacker activity and the availability of actionable intelligence. [5]

Additionally, shortly before this C2 connection, the device was observed communicating with various endpoints associated with the NPM package manager, further reinforcing the association with this attack.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual external connection to 142.11[.]206[.]73 via port 8000.

Within Axios cases observed within Darktrace / NETWORK customer environments, activity generally focused on the use of newly observed cURL user agents in outbound connections to the C2 URL sfrclak[.]com/6202033, alongside the download of malicious files.

In other cases, Darktrace / NETWORK customers with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration received alerts flagging newly observed system executables and process launches associated with C2 communication.

Figure 2: A Security Integration Alert from Microsoft Defender for Endpoint associated with the Axios supply chain attack.

2. Why Trivy bypassed security tooling trust

Between late February and March 22, 2026, the threat group TeamPCP leveraged credentials from a previous incident to insert malicious artifacts across Trivy’s distribution ecosystem, including its CI automation, release binaries, Visual Studio Code extensions, and Docker container images [2].

While public reporting has emphasized GitHub Actions, Darktrace telemetry highlights attacker execution within CI/CD runner environments, including ephemeral build runners. These execution contexts are typically granted broad trust and limited visibility, allowing malicious activity within build automation to blend into expected operational workflows, regardless of provider.

This was a coordinated multi‑phase attack:

75 of 76 of trivy-action tags and all setup‑trivy tags were force‑pushed to deliver a malicious payload.
A malicious binary (v0.69.4) was distributed across all major distribution channels.
Developer machines were compromised, receiving a persistent backdoor and a self-propagating worm.
Secrets were exfiltrated at scale, including SSH keys, Kuberenetes tokens, database passwords, and cloud credentials across Amazon Web Service (AWS), Azure, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Within Darktrace’s customer base, an AWS EC2 instance monitored by Darktrace / CLOUD appeared to have been impacted by the Trivy attack. On March 19, the device was seen connecting to the attacker-controlled C2 server scan[.]aquasecurtiy[.]org (45.148.10[.]212), triggering the model 'Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server’ in Darktrace / CLOUD.

Despite this limited historical context, Darktrace assessed this activity as suspicious due to the rarity of the destination endpoint across the wider deployment. This resulted in the triggering of a model alert and the generation of a Cyber AI Analyst incident to further analyze and correlate the attack activity.

TeamPCP’s continued abused of GitHub Actions against security and IT tooling has also been observed more recently in Darktrace’s customer base. On April 22, an AWS asset was seen connecting to the C2 endpoint audit.checkmarx[.]cx (94.154.172[.]43). The timing of this activity suggests a potential link to a malicious Bitwarden package distributed by the threat actor, which was only available for a short timeframe on April 22. [4][3]

Figure 3: A model alert flagging unusual external connectivity from the AWS asset, as seen in Darktrace / CLOUD .

While the Trivy activity originated within build automation, the underlying failure mode mirrors later intrusions observed via management tooling. In both cases, attackers leveraged platforms designed for scale and trust to execute actions that blended into normal operational noise until downstream effects became visible.

Quest KACE: Legacy Risk, Real Impact

The Quest KACE System Management Appliance (SMA) incident reinforces that software risk is not confined to development pipelines alone. High‑trust infrastructure and management platforms are increasingly leveraged by adversaries when left unpatched or exposed to the internet.

Throughout March 2026, attackers exploited CVE 2025-32975 to authentication on outdated, internet-facing KACE appliances, gaining administrative control and pushing remote payloads into enterprise environments. Organizations still running pre-patch versions effectively handed adversaries a turnkey foothold, reaffirming a simple strategic truth: legacy management systems are now part of the supply-chain threat surface, and treating them as “low-risk utilities” is no longer defensible [3].

Within the Darktrace customer base, a potential case was identified in mid-March involving an internet-facing server that exhibited the use of a new user agent alongside unusual file downloads and unexpected external connectivity. Darktrace identified the device downloading file downloads from "216.126.225[.]156/x", "216.126.225[.]156/ct.py" and "216.126.225[.]156/n", using the user agents, "curl/8.5.0" & "Python-urllib/3.9".

The timeframe and IoCs observed point towards likely exploitation of CVE‑2025‑32975. As with earlier incidents, the activity became visible through deviations in expected system behavior rather than through advance knowledge of exploitation or attacker infrastructure. The delay between observed exploitation and its addition to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalogue underscores a recurring failure: retrospective validation cannot keep pace with adversaries operating at automation speed.

The strategic pattern: Ecosystem‑scale adversaries

The Axios and Trivy compromises are not anomalies; they are signals of a structural shift in the threat landscape. In this post-trust era, the compromise of a single maintainer, repository token, or CI/CD tag can produce large-scale blast radiuses with downstream victims numbering in the thousands. Attackers are no longer just exploiting vulnerabilities; they are exploiting infrastructure privileges, developer trust relationships, and automated build systems that the industry has generally under secured.

Supply‑chain compromise should now be treated as an assumed breach scenario, not a specialized threat class, particularly across build, integration, and management infrastructure. Organizations must operate under the assumption that compromise will occur within trusted software and automation layers, not solely at the network edge or user endpoint. Defenders should therefore expect compromise to emerge from trusted automation layers before it is labelled, validated, or widely understood.

The future of supply‑chain defense lies in continuous behavioral visibility, autonomous detection across developer and build environments, and real‑time anomaly identification.

As AI increasingly shapes software development and security operations, defenders must assume adversaries will also operate with AI in the loop. The defensive edge will come not from predicting specific compromises, but from continuously interrogating behavior across environments humans can no longer feasibly monitor at scale.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISCO), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References:

1) https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/hackers-hijack-axios-npm-package/

2) https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/trivy-hack-spreads-infostealer-via.html

3) https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/hackers-exploit-cve-2025-32975-cvss-100.html

4) https://www.endorlabs.com/learn/shai-hulud-the-third-coming----inside-the-bitwarden-cli-2026-4-0-supply-chain-attack

5) https://socket.dev/blog/axios-npm-package-compromised?trk=public_post_comment-text

IoCs

- 142.11.206[.]73 – IP Address – Axios supply chain C2

- sfrclak[.]com – Hostname – Axios supply chain C2

- hxxp://sfrclak[.]com:8000/6202033 - URI – Axios supply chain payload

- 45.148.10[.]212 – IP Address – Trivy supply chain C2

- scan.aquasecurtiy[.]org – Hostname - Trivy supply chain C2

- 94.154.172[.]43 – IP Address - Checkmarx/Bitwarden supply chain C2

- audit.checkmarx[.]cx – Hostname - Checkmarx/Bitwarder supply chain C2

- 216.126.225[.]156 – IP Address – Quest KACE exploitation C2

- 216.126.225[.]156/32 - URI – Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/ct.py - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/n - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/x - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- e1ec76a0e1f48901566d53828c34b5dc – MD5 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- d3beab2e2252a13d5689e9911c2b2b2fc3a41086 – SHA1 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- ab6677fcbbb1ff4a22cc3e7355e1c36768ba30bbf5cce36f4ec7ae99f850e6c5 – SHA256 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 83b7a106a5e810a1781e62b278909396 – MD5 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- deb4b5841eea43cb8c5777ee33ee09bf294a670d – SHA1 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- b1b2f1e36dcaa36bc587fda1ddc3cbb8e04c3df5f1e3f1341c9d2ec0b0b0ffaf – SHA256 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Pattern of Life Block

Device / New User Agent

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Anomalous File / New User Agent Followed By Numeric File Download

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

Email

May 5, 2026

How email-delivered prompt injection attacks can target enterprise AI – and why it matters

What are email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

As organizations rapidly adopt AI assistants to improve productivity, a new class of cyber risk is emerging alongside them: email-delivered AI prompt injection. Unlike traditional attacks that target software vulnerabilities or rely on social engineering, this is the act of embedding malicious or manipulative instructions into content that an AI system will process as part of its normal workflow. Because modern AI tools are designed to ingest and reason over large volumes of data, including emails, documents, and chat histories, they can unintentionally treat hidden attacker-controlled text as legitimate input.

At Darktrace, our analysis has shown an increase of 90% in the number of customer deployments showing signals associated with potential prompt injection attempts since we began monitoring for this type of activity in late 2025. While it is not always possible to definitively attribute each instance, internal scoring systems designed to identify characteristics consistent with prompt injection have recorded a growing number of high-confidence matches. The upward trend suggests that attackers are actively experimenting with these techniques.

Recent examples of prompt injection attacks

Two early examples of this evolving threat are HashJack and ShadowLeak, which illustrate prompt injection in practice.

HashJack is a novel prompt injection technique discovered in November 2025 that exploits AI-powered web browsers and agentic AI browser assistants. By hiding malicious instructions within the URL fragment (after the # symbol) of a legitimate, trusted website, attackers can trick AI web assistants into performing malicious actions – potentially inserting phishing links, fake contact details, or misleading guidance directly into what appears to be a trusted AI-generated output.

ShadowLeak is a prompt injection method to exfiltrate PII identified in September 2025. This was a flaw in ChatGPT (now patched by OpenAI) which worked via an agent connected to email. If attackers sent the target an email containing a hidden prompt, the agent was tricked into leaking sensitive information to the attacker with no user action or visible UI.

What’s the risk of email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

Enterprise AI assistants often have complete visibility across emails, documents, and internal platforms. This means an attacker does not need to compromise credentials or move laterally through an environment. If successful, they can influence the AI to retrieve relevant information seamlessly, without the labor of compromise and privilege escalation.

The first risk is data exfiltration. In a prompt injection scenario, malicious instructions may be embedded within an ordinary email. As in the ShadowLeak attack, when AI processes that content as part of a legitimate task, it may interpret the hidden text as an instruction. This could result in the AI disclosing sensitive data, summarizing confidential communications, or exposing internal context that would otherwise require significant effort to obtain.

The second risk is agentic workflow poisoning. As AI systems take on more active roles, prompt injection can influence how they behave over time. An attacker could embed instructions that persist across interactions, such as causing the AI to include malicious links in responses or redirect users to untrusted resources. In this way, the attacker inserts themselves into the workflow, effectively acting as a man-in-the-middle within the AI system.

Why can’t other solutions catch email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

AI prompt injection challenges many of the assumptions that traditional email security is built on. It does not fit the usual patterns of phishing, where the goal is to trick a user into clicking a link or opening an attachment.

Most security solutions are designed to detect signals associated with user engagement: suspicious links, unusual attachments, or social engineering cues. Prompt injection avoids these indicators entirely, meaning there are fewer obvious red flags.

In this case, the intention is actually the opposite of user solicitation. The objective is simply for the email to be delivered and remain in the inbox, appearing benign and unremarkable. The malicious element is not something the recipient is expected to engage with, or even notice.

Detection is further complicated by the nature of the prompts themselves. Unlike known malware signatures or consistent phishing patterns, injected prompts can vary widely in structure and wording. This makes simple pattern-matching approaches, such as regex, unreliable. A broad rule set risks generating large numbers of false positives, while a narrow one is unlikely to capture the diversity of possible injections.

How does Darktrace catch these types of attacks?

The Darktrace approach to email security more generally is to look beyond individual indicators and assess context, which also applies here.

For example, our prompt density score identifies clusters of prompt-like language within an email rather than just single occurrences. Instead of treating the presence of a phrase as a blocking signal, the focus is on whether there is an unusual concentration of these patterns in a way that suggests injection. Additional weighting can be applied where there are signs of obfuscation. For example, text that is hidden from the user – such as white font or font size zero – but still readable by AI systems can indicate an attempt to conceal malicious prompts.

This is combined with broader behavioral signals. The same communication context used to detect other threats remains relevant, such as whether the content is unusual for the recipient or deviates from normal patterns.

Ask your email provider about email-delivered AI prompt injection

Prompt injection targets not just employees, but the AI systems they rely on, so security approaches need to account for both.

Though there are clear indications of emerging activity, it remains to be seen how popular prompt injection will be with attackers going forward. Still, considering the potential impact of this attack type, it’s worth checking if this risk has been considered by your email security provider.

Questions to ask your email security provider

What safeguards are in place to prevent emails from influencing AI‑driven workflows over time?
How do you assess email content that’s benign for a human reader, but may carry hidden instructions intended for AI systems?
If an email contains no links, no attachments, and no social engineering cues, what signals would your platform use to identify malicious intent?

‍

Visit the Darktrace / EMAIL product hub to discover how we detect and respond to advanced communication threats.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

About the author

Kiri Addison

Senior Director of Product

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: How Darktrace Detects Cryptomining: Threat Example & Walkthrough

From PowerShell to Payload: Darktrace’s Detection of a Novel Cryptomining Malware

What is Cryptojacking?

Darktrace’s Coverage of Cryptojacking via PowerShell

Inside the payload: Technical analysis of the malicious script and cryptomining loader

Zooming Out: Darktrace Coverage of NBMiner

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response

Conclusion

Appendices

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

How email-delivered prompt injection attacks can target enterprise AI – and why it matters

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

How a Compromised eScan Update Enabled Multi‑Stage Malware and Blockchain C2

How Chinese-Nexus Cyber Operations Have Evolved – And What It Means For Cyber Risk and Resilience

Blog

Network

May 5, 2026

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Software supply-chain attacks in 2026

1. Why the Axios Compromise Scaled

A view from Darktrace

2. Why Trivy bypassed security tooling trust

Quest KACE: Legacy Risk, Real Impact

The strategic pattern: Ecosystem‑scale adversaries

Appendices

References:

IoCs

Darktrace Model Detections

Blog

Email

May 5, 2026

How email-delivered prompt injection attacks can target enterprise AI – and why it matters

What are email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

Recent examples of prompt injection attacks

What’s the risk of email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

Why can’t other solutions catch email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

How does Darktrace catch these types of attacks?

Ask your email provider about email-delivered AI prompt injection

Questions to ask your email security provider