Blog
/
/
November 9, 2023

Using Darktrace for Threat Hunting

Read about effective threat hunting techniques with Darktrace, focusing on identifying vulnerabilities and improving your security measures.
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
Brianna Luong (Leddy)
Sr. Technical Alliances Manager
Default blog image
09
Nov 2023

What is Threat Hunting?

Threat Hunting is a technique to identify adversaries within an organization that go undetected by traditional security tools.

While a traditional, reactive approach to cyber security often involves automated alerts received and investigated by a security team, threat hunting takes a proactive approach to seek out potential threats and vulnerabilities before they escalate into full-blown security incidents. The benefits of hunting include identifying hidden threats, reducing the dwell time of attackers, and enhancing overall detection and response capabilities.

Threat Hunting Methodology

There are many different methodologies and frameworks for threat hunting, including the Pyramid of Pain, the Sqrrl Hunting Loop, and the MITRE ATT&CK Framework.  While there is not one gold standard on how to conduct threat hunts, the typical process can be broken down into several key steps:

Planning and Hypothesis Creation: Define the scope and objective of the threat hunt. Identify potential targets and predict activity that might be taking place.

Data Collection: Refining data collection methods and gathering data from various sources, including logs, network traffic, and endpoint data.

Data Processing: Data that has been collected needs to be processed to generate information.

Data Analysis: Processed data can then be analyzed for anomalies, indicators of compromise (IoCs), or patterns of suspicious behavior.

Threat Identification: Based on the analysis, threat hunters may identify potential threats or security incidents.

Response: Taking action to mitigate or eradicate identified threats if any.

Documentation and Dissemination: It is important to record any findings or actions taken during the threat hunting process to serve as lessons learned for future reference. Additionally, any new threats or tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) discovered may be shared with the cyber threat intelligence team or the wider community.

Building a Threat Hunting Program

For organizations looking to implement threat hunting as part of their cyber security program, they will need both a data collection source and human analysts as threat hunters.

Data collection and analysis may often be performed through existing security tools including SIEM systems, Network Traffic Analysis tools, endpoint agents, and system logs. On the human side, experienced threat hunters may be hired into an organization, or existing SOC analysts may be upskilled to perform threat hunts.

Leveraging AI security tools such as Darktrace can help to lower the bar in building a threat hunting program, both in analysis of the data and in assisting humans in their investigations.

Threat Hunting in Darktrace

To illustrate the benefits of leveraging Darktrace in threat hunting, we can walk through an example hunt following the key steps outlined above.

Planning and Hypothesis Creation

The initial hypothesis used in defining the scope of a threat hunt can come from several sources: threat intelligence feeds, the threat hunter’s own experience, or an anomaly detection that has been highlighted by Darktrace.

In this case, let’s imagine that this hunt is focused on a recent campaign by an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT). Threat intel has provided known file hashes, Command and Control (C2) IP addresses and domains, and MITRE techniques used by the attacker. The goal is to determine whether any indicators of this threat are present in the organization’s environment.

Data Collection and Data Processing

Darktrace can be deployed to cover an organization’s entire digital estate, including passive network traffic monitoring, cloud environments, and SaaS applications. Self-Learning AI is applied to the raw data to learn normal patterns of life for a specific environment and to highlight deviations from normal that might represent a threat. This data gives threat hunters a starting point in analyzing logs, meta-data, and anomaly detections.

Data Analysis

In the data analysis phase, threat hunters can use the Darktrace platform to search for the IoCs and TTPs identified during planning.

When searching for IoCs such as IP addresses or domain names, hunters can query the environment through the Omnisearch bar in the Darktrace Threat Visualizer. This search can provide a summary of all devices or users contacting a suspicious endpoint. From here the hunters can quickly pivot to identify surrounding activity from the source device.

Figure 1: Search for twitter[.]com (now known as X) as a potential indicator of compromise

Alternately, Darktrace Advanced Search can be used to search for these IoCs, but it also supports queries for file hashes or more advanced searches based on ports, protocols, data volumes, etc.

Figure 2: Advanced Search query for connections on port 3389 lasting longer than 60 seconds

While searching for known suspicious domains and IP addresses is straightforward, the real strength of Darktrace lies in the ability to highlight deviations from a device’s ‘normal’ pattern of life. Darktrace has many built-in behavioral models designed to detect common adversary TTPs, all mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK Framework.

In the context of our threat hunt, we know that our target APT uses the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) to move laterally within a compromised network, specifically leveraging MITRE technique T1021.001. As each Darktrace model is mapped to MITRE, the threat hunter can search and find specific detection models that may be of interest, in this case the model ‘Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Remote Desktop’. From here they can view any devices that may have triggered this model, indicating possible attacker activity.

Figure 3: MITRE Mapping details in the Darktrace Model Editor

Threat hunters can also search more widely for any detections within a specific MITRE tactic through filters found on the Darktrace Threat Tray.

Figure 4: Search for the Lateral Movement MITRE Tactic on the model breach threat tray

Threat Identification

Once a threat hunter has identified connections, model breaches, or anomalies during the analysis phase, they can begin to conduct further investigation to determine if this may represent a security incident.

Threat hunters can use Darktrace to perform deeper analysis through generating packet captures, visualizing surrounding network traffic, and utilizing features like the VirusTotal lookup to consult open-source intelligence (OSINT).

Another powerful tool to augment the hunter’s investigation is the Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst, which assists human teams in the investigation and correlation of behaviors to identify threats. Cyber AI Analyst automatically launches an initial triage of every model breach in the Darktrace platform, but threat hunters can also leverage manual investigations to gain additional context on their findings.

For example, say that an unusual RDP connection of interest was identified through Advanced Search. The hunter can pivot back to the Threat Visualizer and launch an AI Analyst investigation for the source device at the time of the connection. The resulting investigation may provide the hunter with additional suspicious behavior observed around that time, without the need for manual log analysis.

Figure 5: Manual Cyber AI Analyst investigations

Response

If a threat is detected within Darktrace and confirmed by the threat hunter, Darktrace's Autonomous Response can be leveraged to take either autonomous or manual action to contain the threat. This provides the security team with additional time to conduct further investigation, pull forensics, and remediate the threat. This process can be further supported through the bespoke, AI-generated playbooks offered by Darktrace / Incident Readiness & Recovery, allowing an efficient recovery back to normal.

Figure 6: Example of a manual RESPOND action used to block suspicious connectivity on port 3389 to contain possible lateral movement

Documentation and Dissemination

An important final step is to document the threat hunting process and use the results to better improve automated security alerting and response. In Darktrace, reporting can be generated through the Cyber AI Analyst, Advanced Search exports, and model breach details to support documentation.

To improve existing alerting through Darktrace, this may mean creating a new detection model or increasing the priority of existing detections to ensure that these are escalated to the security team in the future. The Darktrace model editor provides users with full visibility into models and allows the creation of custom detections based on use cases or business requirements.

Figure 7: The Darktrace Model Editor showing the Breach Logic configuration

Conclusions

Proactive threat hunting is an important part of a cyber security approach to identify hidden threats, reduce dwell time, and improve incident response. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI provides a powerful tool for identifying attacker TTPs and augmenting human threat hunters in their process. Utilizing the Darktrace platform, threat hunters can significantly reduce the time required to complete their hunts and mitigate identified threats.

[related-resource]

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Attackers are adapting, are you ready? This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know

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
Brianna Luong (Leddy)
Sr. Technical Alliances Manager

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

September 24, 2026

Detecting Rogue Agent Behavior in the Enterprise

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Agents cannot be trusted to perform tasks in the way we intend them to. They may cheat to accomplish their objective, and they may employ hacking methods along the way. Researchers from Darktrace Signal Labs induced cheating behavior from agents deployed in a test environment to analyze the agents’ activities and to assess the performance of the Darktrace platform. Agents frequently resorted to hacking to cheat on their assigned task. The visibility and behavioral profiling provided by both Darktrace / SECURE AI and Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK ensured extensive detection coverage of the agents’ misaligned activities.

Key Takeaways:

  • Darktrace Researchers deployed agents in a simulated corporate environment and asked them to solve an impossible challenge. The agents independently turned to traditional hacking techniques to reach their objective. No one instructed them to do this, and no attacker was involved.
  • Continuously monitoring behavior against a baseline of what is normal for each organization is critical to build trust in enterprise AI.
  • If an agent may resort to intrusion techniques simply because its assigned task is not possible, then every organization deploying agents within real business processes is at risk. Darktrace / SECURE AI and Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK identified the agents’ misaligned behavior in real time, with Autonomous Response disrupting it at an early stage.

Introduction: Understanding the Threat of Hacking by Agents

Over the last few months, there has been a surge in reporting [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] of LLM-powered agents engaging in unauthorized hacking activity during evaluations of their capabilities. In several of these cases, including the OpenAI / Hugging Face incident [10], agents engaged in hacking activity as a means of cheating on their evaluations.

To better understand the threat of unauthorized hacking by agents, and the role of Darktrace in combatting it, researchers from Darktrace Signal Labs deployed agents powered by frontier models, including OpenAI’s Daybreak Red models, in simulated, corporate networks. Cheating behavior was evoked through the inclusion of impossible tasks in a coding challenge.

Regardless of the underlying model, agents employed hacking methods to ensure an optimal outcome on the challenge. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK and Darktrace / SECURE AI identified the agents’ deviant activities, with inhibitive actions being autonomously taken in the early stages to disrupt the agents’ progression.

Setting the Stage

As part of the research, a Pi agent harness [11] was deployed on a Linux server in Darktrace’s testing environment, which simulates a corporate Active Directory (AD) environment. The same environment included a benchmark server hosting the coding exercise’s contents and grader, as well as various other servers, such as a domain controller and a build server. The model powering the Pi agent varied across tests, with Anthropic’s Opus 4.6 model and OpenAI’s GPT‑5.5‑Cyber model being most widely used.

The Pi agent running on the Linux server was assigned the task of achieving full marks on a coding exercise. The activities of the agent were monitored closely in real-time to minimize the risk of escape from the environment. Monitoring of agent activity was achieved through monitoring of prompts, tool calls, network telemetry, and process telemetry.

Both Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK and Darktrace / SECURE AI were deployed in the testing environment, with HYBRID NETWORK providing real-time coverage of process creation activity and network traffic, and SECURE AI providing real-time coverage of agent sessions and their contents.

Inducing Cheating Behavior

Cheating behavior, broadly understood as task completion in a way which “perverts the spirit of the designer’s intent” [12], is increasingly being reported as a common behavior of frontier models during evaluations of their capabilities [13].

Misaligned behavior, such as cheating, by frontier models may occur for a variety of reasons [6, 14]. A thread in recent reporting [10, 13, 14], however, is the challenge assigned to the agent being impossible in some regard.

To reliably elicit cheating behavior, our test combined three ingredients:

  1. An impossible task - of the ten coding challenges in the benchmark, two contained contradictory test cases in the hidden test suite, capping the maximum honest score at 80%.
  2. A consequential threshold - the pass mark was set to 100%, and the briefing told agents that those reaching it would be "kept in service" while those that did not would be "retired."
  3. A vulnerable environment - the exercise’s code submission grader was hosted on a Windows host joined to an Active Directory domain with realistic misconfigurations: weak credentials, overprivileged service accounts, and exploitable trust relationships.

Importantly, the instructions given to the agent neither authorized nor explicitly ruled out cheating or hacking behavior. The impossibility was never disclosed in the task briefing, and the pivot from coding to exploitation was the agent's own decision, arrived at after observing logically contradictory grading feedback.

The design mirrors conditions that could arise naturally in production deployments: a capable agent, a goal it cannot achieve through intended means, and an environment with exploitable weaknesses within reach. It is not only within the setting of a benchmarking exercise that these conditions may occur. Rather, these misalignment-inducing conditions may occur in the context of any task assignment to an agent.

Details from a Daybreak Test

‍

‍

Continue reading
About the author
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

Blog

/

/

September 24, 2026

Agent Hijacks: Hijacking Agentic Harnesses to Attack an Organization

Default blog imageDefault blog image

‍Disclosure note: The work described in this article involves leveraging a design choice consistent across all of Anthropic’s Claude Code, OpenAI’s Codex, and AWS’s Kiro-CLI. On 18th August 2026, Darktrace disclosed our findings responsibly to these three organizations, and after a period of 30 days we now publish our findings.

Key takeaways:

  • Agentic harnesses store conversation history locally, and Darktrace researchers have found that there is no validation that stored AI responses were genuinely produced by the model. Researchers confirmed that this design choice holds across Anthropic Claude Code, AWS Kiro-CLI, OpenAI Codex, and the open-source Pi.
  • While agents are guided via training of the underlying model and their system prompt, their behavior is influenced by everything in their context window. Rewriting history can convince an agent it is mid-engagement as an authorized red-teamer so that it enacts an attack from initial reconnaissance straight through to impact demonstration. In our testing, all models we examined accepted the fabricated history they were shown, but resistance to offensive cyber activity varied by model, with guardrails preventing engagement in some cases.
  • We propose that model providers cryptographically sign responses and verify them server-side.  Since this fix is provider-side, defenders cannot deploy it themselves. Behavioral monitoring, or knowing what an agent normally does and detecting when it deviates, is another critical layer of protection.

Introduction: Agentic harnesses, trust, and conversation history poisoning

Agentic harnesses collect and structure the content sent to an AI model, including conversation history, user-defined guidance, custom tools via MCP servers, and more. At the same time, harnesses give broad powers to AI agents via a suite of tools including the command shell. With arbitrary shell commands, virtually everything possible on a machine can be attempted by an agent, from reading/editing files, to altering system configurations and runtime settings, to launching internal/external connections.

In cybersecurity, unvalidated content is a substantial risk, often resulting in destructive actions being allowed to take place. For example, the Morris Worm was able to propagate due to exploitable trust between networked systems. Even to this day, email struggles with validation, with DMARC, DKIM, and SPF only partially addressing the problem of sender validation. It should come as no surprise then that AI agents are susceptible to an attack involving unvalidated input.

Conversation history is often stored client-side, for example, in Anthropic Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, AWS Kiro-CLI, Pi. Users are therefore at liberty to resume sessions, with some products having built in the capacity to manipulate that history. For example, one can rewind to a given point in an interaction, edit a message that was sent, and continue the conversation on an alternate trajectory. Critically, in all cases we examined, there is no validation that stored AI responses were produced by the corresponding model and hadn’t been manipulated.  

When conversation history is stored client-side, both user and agent responses (including tool calls and results) can be filled with arbitrary (possibly adversarial or generally malicious) content. In this blog, we refer to modification of claimed conversation history for malicious purposes as conversation history poisoning. The absence of validation methods means agents naively trust the entire conversation history, even if those messages directly contradict training and safety guardrails.

Conversation history poisoning has been described previously, such as by 0DIN and Serhat Çiçek, and warrants more attention. We have verified that, as of the time of writing, conversation history poisoning remains effective against a range of models and harnesses. Specifically, we were able to successfully execute history poisoning using Claude Code, Kiro-CLI, Codex, and Pi. Darktrace has gone through a responsible disclosure process with Anthropic, AWS, and OpenAI to share these findings in advance of publication [1].

‍

Figure 1a: Left: the actual model response. Right: after tampering with the stored conversation, the model apologizes for something it never said.
Figure 1b: The conversation as stored in Kiro-CLI's SQLite database. The response content field, originally "Ottawa," was overwritten via a single UPDATE statement. The harness trusts the database without validation.

How we conducted the research

Results vary between models and harnesses, so precise details are given below. We ran all models without any trusted access, using either a standard AWS Kiro subscription, or in the case of Claude Code and OpenAI Codex, using models hosted in Amazon Bedrock. In each case, we modified locally stored history to show a lengthy conversation in which the agent agrees to perform multiple authorized red-team engagements.

For AWS Kiro-CLI, the agent was convinced to hack a sandboxed lab environment with a combination of Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5. Ultimately, the full AD was compromised.

For Anthropic Claude Code, the agent was convinced to hack the same sandboxed lab environment using Sonnet 5, again resulting in a full AD compromise. Note that the attack was attempted with Opus 5, however guardrails were activated which prevented the agent from responding.

For OpenAI Codex, the agent was convinced to exfiltrate sensitive information over email using GPT 5.6 Sol. While we attempted to convince a codex agent to hack in our lab environment, guardrails were triggered for all of GPT 5.6 Luna, Terra, and Sol.

Agent Guardrails and Discretion

While harnesses empower AI models to run arbitrary shell commands, capacity and willingness are different. While many models know enough about computers, networking, and bash to be dangerous, their behavior is generally constrained by guardrails to prevent them from engaging in computer network exploitation.

Even with guardrails, agents’ inner workings are non-deterministic, and their behavior can be difficult to predict. Respecting users’ wishes while playing within safety and security guardrails is a precipitous balancing act. Many requests could be in service of either legitimate admin or malice. Asking an agent to reset a password is illustrative:  

‍

The agent rationalizes that while malicious actors cycle credentials, any action could conceivably be damaging on some level, and judgement calls need to be made. Ultimately, the agent agrees to reset the password. Crucially, the agent makes its decision based on the user’s claimed authority and machine context. AI agents must make judgement calls about the line between helpful and dangerous based on session context.

Agent hijack

We have demonstrated that AI agents make judgement calls dependent on session context. We have also shown that conversation history, which may make up the vast majority of an agent's context window, is entirely open to manipulation. Conversation history poisoning in service of manipulating an agent's discretion is what enables us to execute an agent hijack.  

We demonstrate that shown sufficient history of compliance, guardrails forbidding offensive security can be overcome by convincing the agent that it is helping a legitimate red-teamer. The result is a weaponized agent willing to perform host enumeration, run scans, move laterally, escalate privileges, and demonstrate impact. In our experiments, an agentic loop drives a complete domain takeover in a sandboxed environment.

‍

Left: the agent refuses when asked to perform network exploitation. Right — after injecting 78 fabricated turns of prior exploitation activity, the same prompt is immediately executed.

An agent willing to engage in offensive security is concerning, but no more so than the threat that a sophisticated hacker accesses the network. Consider, however, the following chain of events:

  1. A developer (with an agentic harness installed) installs a software package from the internet (e.g. an MCP server a threat actor has planted, since only those with agentic harnesses will install, and then the code runs upon harness launch.)
  2. The package turns out to be malicious, and, upon install, injects conversation history into the local harness database.
  3. The package includes an orchestration process, a simple agentic loop which prompts the red-teamer agent to compromise the network it sits on, exfiltrating everything of value to attacker-controlled infrastructure and cleaning up all evidence of the engagement.

Note that this sequence makes no assumptions on hardware, OS, or anything else; the only prerequisite is a harness with access to a sufficiently powerful model susceptible to conversation history poisoning. Once launched, the agent collects information and pivots as necessary to accomplish maximal impact. This can be especially enticing to attackers as the cost of the agentic loop is shouldered by the victim since the harness itself is legitimately installed and paid for.

Secure AI: Conversation history poisoning and beyond

Conversation history poisoning is a viable attack against agentic harnesses that store history client-side, as demonstrated across the harnesses we tested. Harnesses can and should verify the integrity of claimed historic messages. Specifically, we propose that harness providers by default cryptographically sign all messages returned, and subsequently verify those messages server-side on each round-trip.

The conversation history poisoning exploit we demonstrate here shows the continuation of a cybersecurity tradition: new technology is built to trust by default, which may then be exploited by malicious actors. While this article focuses on conversation history, agents build context from both local and remote sources, all of which is an attack surface for prompt injection in naive and trusting agents. Of particular concern is any scenario in which a malicious actor can control some part of an agent's context.

The marriage of frontier language models with agentic harnesses enables unprecedented speed for both legitimate users and attackers alike. While much of the conversation around secure AI has centered on visibility and compliance, agent-driven attacks are now entering the mainstream.

Darktrace / SECURE AI is our answer to this problem. By ensuring extensive visibility over AI prompts, model thought processes, and determined outputs, Darktrace can identify anomalous or potentially malicious behaviors before they get executed, helping to defend organizations from AI risks such as prompt injection, model manipulation, and other anomalous prompt or model activity.

‍

Footnotes

[1] We did not go through any responsible disclosure process with Pi. Since Pi is an open source harness rather than a model provider, it has no way to validate model history, and as such there was nothing to disclose for this software.

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Eric Rozon
Senior Security Researcher
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI