ブログ
/
Identity
/
May 25, 2022

Multi-Account Compromise in Office 365

Learn how internal phishing can compromise accounts swiftly & how Darktrace/Apps can prevent future attacks effectively.
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
Laura Leyland
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
25
May 2022

In February 2022, Darktrace detected the compromise of three SaaS accounts within a customer’s Office 365 environment. This incident provides an effective use case for highlighting how Darktrace/Apps and Darktrace/Email can work together to alert to unusual logins, app permission changes, new email rules and outbound spam. It also emphasizes an instance where Darktrace RESPOND/Apps could have been set to autonomous mode and stopped additional compromise.

Account Compromise Timeline

February 9 2022

Account A was logged into from a rare IP from Nigeria with the BAV2ROPC user agent which is commonly associated with SaaS account attacks. BAV2ROPC stands for ‘Basic Authentication Version 2 Resource Owner Password Credential’ and is commonly used by old email apps such as iOS Mail. It is often seen in SaaS/email account compromises where accounts have ‘legacy authentication’ enabled. This is because, even if multi-factor authentication (MFA) is activated, legacy protocols like IMAP/POP3 are not configured for MFA and so do not result in an MFA notification being sent.[1][2]

Account A then created a new email rule which was named as a single full stop. Attackers commonly create new email rules to give themselves persistent access by using the ability to forward certain emails to external email accounts they own. This means that even if the account’s password is changed or MFA is turned on, the attacker keeps getting the forwarded emails as long as the rule remains in place. In this case, the attacker configured the new email rule using the following fields and features:

  • AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob – hides any warning messages when using Outlook on the web or Powershell to edit inbox rules. It is likely that the attacker had a set list of commands to run and didn’t want to be slowed down in the exploitation of the account by having to click confirmation messages.
  • Force – hides warning or confirmation messages.
  • MoveToFolder – moves emails to a folder. This is often used to move bounced emails away from the inbox in order to hide the fact the account is being used to send emails by the attacker.
  • Name – specifies the name of the rule, in this case a single full stop.
  • SubjectOrBodyContainsWords – emails with key words are actioned.
  • StopProcessingRules – determines whether subsequent rules are processed if the conditions of this rule are met. It is likely in this case the attacker set this to false so that any subsequent rules would still be processed to avoid raising suspicion.

Account A was then observed giving permission to the email management app Spike. This was likely to allow the rapid automated exploitation of the compromised account. Attackers want to speed up this process to reduce the time between account compromise and malicious use of the account, thus reducing the time security teams have to respond.

Figure 1: Screenshot from SaaS console showing the timeline of giving consent to the email management application Spike and the creation of the new inbox rule

The account was then observed sending 794 emails over a 15 minute period to both internal and external recipients. These emails shared similar qualities including the same subject line and related phishing links. This mass spam was likely due to the attacker wanting to compromise as many accounts and credentials as possible within the shortest timeframe. The domain of the link sent in the emails was spikenow[.]com and was hidden by the text ‘View Shared Link’. This suggests that the attacker used Spike to send the emails and host the phishing link.

Figure 2: Screenshot of AGE UI showing the spike in outbound messages from the compromised account – the messages all appear to be the same format
Figure 3: Screenshot from Darktrace/Email of the link and text that masked the link: ‘View Shared File’

Within 15 minutes of this large volume of outbound email from Account A, Account B was accessed from the same rare IP located in Nigeria. Account B also created a new email rule which was named a single full stop. In addition to the previous rules, the following rules were observed:

  • From – specifies that emails from certain addresses will be processed by the rule.
  • MarkAsRead – specifies that emails are to be marked as read.

Due to the short timeframe between the phishing emails and the anomalous behavior from Account B, it is possible that Account B was an initial phishing victim.

Figure 4: Screenshot of the SaaS console showing Account B login failures, then successful login and inbox rule creation from the rare Nigerian IP

February 10 2022

The next day, a third account (Account C) was also accessed from the same rare IP. This occurred on two occasions, once with the user agent Mozilla/5.0 and once with BAV2ROPC. After the login at 13:08 with BAV2ROPC, the account gave the same permission as Account A to the email management app Spike. It then created what appears to be the same email rule, named a single full stop. As with Account B, it is possible that this account was compromised by one of the phishing emails sent by Account A.

Figure 5: Timeline of key incidents with Darktrace/Apps actions

Whilst the motive of the threat actor was unclear, this may have been the result of:

  • Credential harvesting for future use against the organization or to sell to a third party.
  • Possible impersonation of compromised users on professional websites (LinkedIn, Indeed) to phish further company accounts:
  • Fake accounts of one user were discovered on LinkedIn.
  • Emails registering for Indeed for this same user were seen during compromise.

How did the attack bypass the rest of the security stack?

  • Compromised Office 365 credentials, combined with the use of the user agent BAV2ROPC meant MFA could not stop the suspicious login.
  • RESPOND was in Human Confirmation Mode and was therefore not confirmed to take autonomous action, showing only the detections. Disabling Account A would likely have prevented the phishing emails and the subsequent compromise of Accounts B and C.
  • The organization was not signed up to Darktrace Proactive Threat Notifications or Ask The Expert services which could have allowed further triage from Darktrace SOC analysts.

Cyber AI Analyst Investigates

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst automates investigations at speed and scale, prioritizing relevant incidents and creating actionable insights, allowing security teams to rapidly understand and act against a threat.

In this case, AI Analyst automatically investigated all three account compromises, saving time for the customer’s security team and allowing them to quickly investigate the incident themselves in more detail. The technology also highlighted some of the viewed files by the compromised accounts which was not immediately obvious from the model breaches alone.

Figure 6: Screenshot of AI Analyst for Account A
Figure 7: Screenshot of AI Analyst for Account B
Figure 8: Screenshot of AI Analyst for Account C

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions

The organization in question did not have RESPOND/Apps configured in Active Mode, and so it did not take any action in this case. The table below shows the critical defensive actions RESPOND would have taken.[3]

Nonetheless, we can see what actions RESPOND would have taken, and when, had the technology been enabled.

The above tables illustrate that all three users would have been disabled during the incident had RESPOND been active. The highlighted row shows that Account A would have been disabled when the internal phishing emails were sent and possibly then prevented the cascade of compromised email accounts (B and C).

Conclusion

SaaS accounts greatly increase a company’s attack surface. Not only is exploitation of compromised accounts quick, but a single compromised account can easily lead to further compromises via an internal phishing campaign. Together this reinforces the ongoing need for autonomous and proactive security to complement existing IT teams and reduce threats at the point of compromise. Whilst disabling ‘legacy authentication’ for all accounts and providing MFA would give some extra protection, Darktrace/Apps has the ability to block all further infection.

Credit to: Adam Stevens and Anthony Wong for their contributions.

Appendix

List of Darktrace Model Detections

User A – February 9 2022

  • 04:55:51 UTC | SaaS / Access / Suspicious Login User-Agent
  • 04:55:51 UTC | SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use
  • 04:55:52 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS and Email Activity Block
  • 04:55:52 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block
  • 14:16:48 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule
  • 14:16:48 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • 14:16:49 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Significant Compliance Activity Block
  • 14:16:49 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block
  • 14:45:06 UTC | IaaS / Admin / Azure Application Administration Activities
  • 14:45:07 UTC | SaaS / Admin / OAuth Permission Grant
  • 14:45:07 UTC | Device / Multiple Model Breaches
  • 14:45:08 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities
  • 15:03:25 UTC | SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam
  • 15:03:25 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Outbound Email Spam

User B – February 9 2022

  • 15:18:21 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule
  • 15:18:21 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • 15:18:22 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Significant Compliance Activity Block
  • 15:18:22 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

User C – February 10 2022

  • 14:25:20 UTC | SaaS / Admin / OAuth Permission Grant
  • 14:38:09 UTC | SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule
  • 14:38:09 UTC | SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • 14:38:10 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Significant Compliance Activity Block
  • 14:38:10 UTC | Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

Refrences

1. https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/phishing#section_3

2. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-scammers-bypass-office-365-mfa-in-bec-attacks/

3. https://customerportal.darktrace.com/product-guides/main/antigena-saas-inhibitors

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
Laura Leyland
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Proactive Security

/

June 2, 2026

Stopping Stealth Attacks with Precision: How Núclea Prevented a Breach Without Disruption

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Núclea is a Brazilian data and technology company that supports the country’s financial system by delivering digital services exclusively to banks and financial institutions. Operating in an environment where trust, availability, and data integrity are critical, the company faces a threat landscape that has evolved rapidly—particularly with the rise of AI-driven cyberattacks.

Brazil has experienced a wave of successful cyber incidents targeting financial institutions, many of them enabled by insiders or compromised credentials. The result was a noticeable shift in attacker strategy: instead of focusing on end customers, threat actors began targeting the institutions and platforms that underpin the financial ecosystem itself.

“Attacks became far more directed and contextual,” explains Guilherme, who leads incident response within Núclea’s security platform engineering team. “They weren’t noisy or obviously malicious—they were precise, patient, and designed to blend into normal operations.”

That precision was on full display in January 2026, when Núclea faced one of the most convincing phishing attacks the team had seen.

A real attack, built on trust and context

The attack began with a seemingly routine email.

It was sent from a real Brazilian government institution, using legitimate infrastructure and valid credentials that were later confirmed to have been compromised. Núclea had an established, ongoing relationship with this organization, and the email’s language, tone, and subject matter aligned perfectly with the type of communication the recipient team handled every day.

Attached to the email was a PDF document containing content that looked entirely legitimate.

The problem? A single URL embedded inside that PDF.

“The message itself was correct. The sender was real. The context was familiar. Even the document content made sense,” Guilherme explains. “There was just one small element that didn’t belong.”

That small detail was enough to initiate a full attack chain.

What the attackers were trying to do

If clicked, the URL would have downloaded a malicious payload designed to:

  • Collect information about the user and device
  • Identify where the system was located within the financial ecosystem
  • Install remote access tools to maintain control
  • Deploy an infostealer to extract sensitive data
  • Execute anti-forensic scripts to erase traces of the intrusion

In other words, it was a carefully engineered operation designed for persistence and stealth, not immediate disruption.

The attack also employed urgency—a classic social engineering technique. When the link didn’t open as expected, employees requested assistance from the security team, insisting the document was important and needed to be accessed quickly.

This is precisely the kind of scenario where traditional security tools struggle: almost everything about the interaction is legitimate.

Where Darktrace made the difference

Instead of blocking the entire message or relying on known indicators of compromise, Darktrace focused on behavioral context.

Darktrace recognized:

  • That the sending organization was normally trusted
  • That the communication pattern matched historical behavior
  • That the PDF content itself was not suspicious

But it also identified that the URL embedded within the document deviated from established behavioral patterns.

Rather than disrupting business operations, Darktrace took precise action: it rewrote the URL, preventing the malicious download while leaving the rest of the email untouched.

“When we analyzed it afterward, it became clear how dangerous the attack would have been,” says Guilherme. “But it never progressed—because Darktrace acted at exactly the right point.”

Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the payload’s malicious intent. The attack never succeeded.

Precision over disruption

For Núclea, this incident reinforced a critical lesson: modern attacks don’t always look malicious—they hide within normal activity.

“What stands out to me is the precision,” Guilherme says. “Darktrace doesn’t rely on big, obvious signals. It’s effective in situations that fall outside the standard patterns we all know.”

Building resilience in a high trust ecosystem

For Núclea, cybersecurity is not just a defensive measure—it’s a business enabler.

Availability failures or successful breaches in the financial ecosystem can have immediate, large-scale consequences, from financial loss to reputational damage. Preventing those outcomes protects not just Núclea, but its partners and customers as well.

“Cyber resilience means keeping the business running—even under attack,” Guilherme explains. “And that requires people, processes, and technology working together.”

As AI continues to accelerate both attacks and defenses, the role of security is evolving. Precision, behavioral understanding, and intelligent automation are no longer optional—they’re essential.

“The easy days were yesterday,” Guilherme says. “The challenges ahead are bigger. We need to be prepared—internally and with partners that help us build resilience.”

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

AI

/

June 1, 2026

効率化の裏にあるリスク:AI導入が製造現場にもたらす見えない脆弱性

Default blog imageDefault blog image

AIエージェントが製造業に与える影響

製造業界のセキュリティチームやIT担当者は、生産を守り、稼働時間を維持し、重要資産を保護するという絶え間ないプレッシャー下にあります。そしてAIは非常に大きなチャンスとともに、新たなサイバーリスクももたらしています。製造業全体で、AIはワークフローや意思決定に組み込まれつつあり、自律型AIエージェントが従業員やシステムに代わって行動する場面が増えています。

エージェント型システムは独立して行動できるため強力ですが、その同じ自律性がサイバーリスク、運用上のリスクも生み出します。エージェントは広範な権限を持ち、複雑なタスクの実行、意思決定、ツールや外部システムとのやり取りを、ほとんどまたは全く人間の介入なしに行うことができます。

あらかじめ定義されたタスクを実行する従来のAIモデルとは異なり、AIエージェントは高度なテクニックを使用して人間の意思決定プロセスを模倣することにより、新たな課題に動的に適応し、また自らの判断に基づいて意思決定し、アクションを実行します。彼らは業務の上では従業員のように見えますが、人間が持つ判断力、倫理観、または行動の結果に対する恐れが欠けています。これは、サイバー犯罪者によって簡単に操られる可能性があることを意味しており、OTネットワーク全体に埋め込まれたAIエージェントは、データ漏洩をはるかに超える脅威を生み出します。たとえば、BMWでは、AI は溶接プロセスのエラーの発生を識別するのに使われています。同社のスパータンバーグ(米サウスカロライナ州)の工場では、すべてのSUVフレーム上の300-400個のスタッドの溶接をAIが監視し、スタッドの配置間違いや欠陥を検知し直ちに修正します。このAIシステムが破損すれば壊滅的な品質管理問題につながる恐れがあります。

製造全体にエージェント型AIシステムを導入することについて多くのセキュリティチームはさまざまな懸念を示しています。ダークトレースの行ったAIサイバーセキュリティの現状調査では、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの78%が従業員によるAIエージェントの利用に懸念を抱いており、これは彼らの最も大きな危惧でした。それに続く問題点が従業員によるCopilotやChatGPT等の生成AIツールの使用であり、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの76%が懸念を抱いていました。これらのツールがますます多くのビジネスデータやプロセスにアクセスし、組織内でより多くの自律性を持つようになるにつれ、エージェントのアクティビティがほとんど可視化されていない現在、セキュリティチームにおいては機密データの露出(60%)や偶発的なポリシーおよび規制違反(59%)への懸念が高まっています。

外部からのAIによる脅威も急激に進化

製造業を変革しているのと同じAIの能力が、サイバー攻撃の形も変貌させています。

AIにより攻撃者は偵察を自動化し、標的をより高度に絞り込み、リアルタイムで適応できるようになっています。かつては人手による作業と時間を要していたことが、今では継続的かつ大規模に実行できるようになりました。そして、製造業はすでにその影響を実感しています。当社が調査した製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの76%は、すでにAIを活用した脅威の影響を受けており、90%がAIによってソーシャルエンジニアリング攻撃の成功率が高まっていると回答しています。

また、攻撃のテクニック自体も進化しています。製造業界全体で、AIを利用した攻撃の経路の多様化に対する懸念が高まっています。特にリアルタイムで進化する適応型マルウェアについて、調査対象の製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの半数近く(49%)が懸念しており、これは全産業の平均よりも9%高い数値です。AIを使った適応型マルウェアに続くその他の懸念には次が含まれます:

  • 自動化された脆弱性スキャンとエクスプロイトチェイニング(48%):Anthropicの新しいMythos AIモデルにより脆弱性探索が深刻化する中で、この問題は一層差し迫ったものとなっています。
  • 超パーソナライズされたフィッシングキャンペーン(46%):フィッシングは依然としてハッカーの主力兵器の1つであり、AIによってフィッシングメールはより説得力が高く検知困難なものとなり、その効果は増幅されました。

これは単に攻撃の量の増加だけでなく、攻撃の展開につれて静的な防御が対応できるよりも速く進化する脅威への変化なのです。

こうした認識が高まっているにもかかわらず、製造業の多くはまだこの変化に対応する準備ができていません。半数以上(51%)がAI駆動の脅威への準備が十分にできていないと回答し、AIの導入を管理する正式なポリシーを持っている組織はわずか37%でした。  

可視性、コンテキスト、およびガードレールを通じてAIのセキュリティを確保

これらの問題に対処するためにAIイノベーションを遅らせる必要はありません。それには、AIと同じスピードと規模で動作できる、これまでとは異なるアプローチのセキュリティが必要です。具体的には、製造業がAIの力を活用する上で、次の3つの優先課題が浮上しています。

可視性はすべての土台  

AIがどこで使用されているか、何にアクセスできるか、そしてITおよびOT環境にわたってどのように動作するかを理解する必要があります。それがなければ、リスクを測定したり管理したりすることはできません。ダークトレースの調査において、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの91%が、AIを信頼する前に、それがどのように意思決定を行うかを理解する必要があると回答したのは当然のことです。OT環境においてこのことはさらに重要です。稼働の中断は安全や環境、財務、および評判に大きな影響を及ぼすからです。

可視性をアクションにつなげるにはコンテキストが必要  

AIによって形作られる環境において、正常とされる挙動は絶えず変化します。つまり、脅威を検知するにはビヘイビアベースのアプローチが必要なのです。組織全体で生活パターンを理解し、わずかな逸脱をリアルタイムに検知すること- これは従来のセキュリティとリスク管理に対するアプローチからの根本的な変化です。

エージェントからの露出を防ぐガードレール  

AIシステムがより大きな責任を担うようになるなかで、組織はAIが何をできるか、そしていつ独立して行動できるかについて、明確な境界を設ける必要があります。これらのコントロールは何かがあってから適用されるのではなく、システム自体に組み込んでおかなければなりません。  

製造業のITおよびOT環境におけるAIエージェントのセキュリティ

エージェント型AIの出現は製造業を変革し、次世代のオペレーションを支える一方で、脅威ランドスケープも一変させています。これは単なる脅威の増加ではなく、自律型システムへの移行、挙動の絶え間ない変化、そしてマシンスピードで進行するリスクです。AIを活用しつつリスクを管理するという課題に取り組む組織にとって、可視性、コンテキスト、ガードレールはセキュリティの基盤となります。

Darktraceはこの基盤を実現することにより、製造業の安全なAIアプローチ構築を支援します。ITおよびOT環境全体を可視化し、異常なアクティビティに対するリアルタイムの検知および対応を提供することにより、従業員が使用するプロンプトや構築するエージェントから、それらのエージェントの環境全体での動作に至るまで、AIアクティビティの理解を可能にします。これにより、AIの導入を拡大する製造業はコントロールを犠牲にすることなくイノベーションの基盤を構築することができます。

Continue reading
About the author
Dr. Oakley Cox-Robinson
Senior Director of Product
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ