ブログ
/
Identity
/
May 19, 2023

Darktrace Stops Large-Scale Account Hijack

Learn how Darktrace detected and stopped a large-scale account hijack that led to a phishing attack. Protect your business with these insights.
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
Zoe Tilsiter
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
19
May 2023

Introduction 

As malicious actors across the threat landscape continue to take advantage of the widespread adoption of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms and multi-factor authentication (MFA) services to gain unauthorized access to organizations’ networks, it is crucial to have appropriate security tools in place to defend against account compromise at the earliest stage.

One method frequently employed by attackers is account takeover. Account takeovers occur when a threat actor exploits credentials to login to a SaaS account, often from an unusual location where the genuine actor does not usually login from. 

Access to these accounts can be caused by harvesting credentials through phishing emails and password spray attacks, or by exploiting insecure cloud safety practices such as not having MFA enabled on user accounts, requiring only user credentials for authentication. Once the integrity of the account is compromised, the threat actor can conduct further activity, such as delivering malware, reading and exfiltrating sensitive data, and sending out phishing emails to harvest further internal and external user credentials, repeating the attack cycle [1,2]. 

In early 2023, Darktrace detected a large-scale account takeover and phishing attack on the network of a customer in the education sector that affected hundreds of accounts and resulted in thousands of emails being forwarded outside of the network. The exceptional degree of visibility provided by Darktrace DETECT™ allowed for the detection of adversarial activity at every stage of the kill chain, and direct support from the Darktrace Analyst team via the Ask the Expert (ATE) service ensured the customer was fully informed and equipped to implement remedial action. 

Details of Attack Chain

Darktrace observed the same pattern of activity on all hijacked accounts on the customer’s network; login from unfamiliar locations, enablement of a mail forwarding rule that forwards all incoming emails to malicious email addresses, and the sending of phishing emails followed by their deletion. 

Figure 1: Timeline of attack on hijacked SaaS accounts.

Initial Access

Darktrace DETECT first detected anomalous SaaS activity on the customer environment on January 14, 2023, and then again on February 3, when multiple SaaS accounts were observed logging in from atypical locations with rare IP addresses and geographically impossible travel timings, or logging in whilst the account owner was active elsewhere. Subsequent investigation using open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources revealed one of the IP addressed had recently been associated with brute-force or password spray attempt.

This pattern of unusual login behavior persisted throughout the timeframe of the attack, with more unique accounts generating model breaches each day for similarly anomalous logins. As MFA authentication was not enforced for these user logins, the initial intrusion process was enabled by requiring only credentials for authentication.

Sending Emails 

The compromised accounts were also seen sending out emails with the subject ‘Email HELP DESK’ to external and internal recipients. This was likely represented a threat actor employing social engineering tactics to gain the trust of the recipient by posing as an internal help desk.

Mail Forwarding

Following the successful logins, compromised accounts began creating email rules to forward mail to external email addresses, some of which were associated with domains that had hits for malicious activity according to OSINT sources [3].

  • chotunai[.]com
  • bymercy[.]com
  • breazeim[.]com
  • brandoza[.]com

Forwarding mail is a commonly observed tactic during SaaS compromises to control lines of communication. Malicious actors often attempt to insert themselves into ongoing correspondence for illicit purposes, such as exfiltrating sensitive information, gaining persistent access to the compromised email or redirecting invoice payments. 

Email Deletions

Shortly after the mail forwarding activity, compromised accounts were detected performing anomalous email deletions en masse. Further investigation revealed that these accounts had previously sent a large volume of phishing emails and this mass deletion likely represented an attempt to conceal these activities by deleting them from their outboxes.

On February 10, the customer applied a mass password reset on all accounts that Darktrace had identified as compromised and provisioned, privileged accounts with MFA. They have indicated that those measures successfully halted the compromise, addressing the initial point of entry.  

Darktrace Coverage

Using its Self-Learning AI, Darktrace effectively demonstrated its ability to detect unusual SaaS activity that could indicate that an account has been hijacked by malicious actors. Rather than relying on a traditional rules and signature-based approach, Darktrace models develop an understanding of the network itself and can instantly recognize when a compromised deviates from its expected pattern of life.

Figure 2: Detection of unusual SaaS activity on hijacked SaaS account.

Initial Access

Initial access was detected by the following models:

  • Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection  
  • SaaS / Unusual Activity / Activity from Multiple Unusual IPs 
  • SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use 
  • SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active 

Initial access was also detected by the following Cyber AI Analyst Incidents:

  • Possible Hijack of Office365 Account 

The model breaches and AI Analyst incidents detected logins from 100% rare external IP addresses in conjunction with a lack of MFA usage, as depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Breach log showing initial detection of a SaaS login from a 100% rare IP where MFA was not used.
Figure 4: Initial detection of unusual SaaS activity visualized in Darktrace's SaaS console.

Mail Forwarding

Mail forwarding was detected by the following models:

  • SaaS / Admin / Mail Forwarding Enabled 

Compromised accounts were largely detected configuring mail forwarding rules to external email addresses, ostensibly to establish persistence on the network and exfiltrate sensitive correspondence.

Figure 5: The enablement of mail forwarding was detected as 100% new or uncommon for the account in question.

Mass Email Deletion

Mass email deletion was detected by the following models:

  • SaaS / Compromise / Suspicious Login and Mass Email Deletes 
  • SaaS / Resource / Mass Email Deletes from Rare Location 
Figure 6: Compromised account deleting phishing emails it had previously sent from the outbox.

Darktrace detected accounts performing highly anomalous mass email deletions from rare locations. The actors deleted the email “Email HELP DESK” which was later confirmed as being the primary phishing email used in the attack. Deletions were observed on compromised accounts’ outboxes, presumably to conceal the malicious activity.

Darktrace also detected this linked pattern of activity in sequential models such as: 

  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login, Sent Mail, Deleted Sent
  • SaaS / Compromise / Suspicious Login and Mass Email Deletes 

Ask the Expert

The customer used the ATE service to request more technical information and support concerning the attack. Darktrace’s 24/7 team of analysts were able to offer expert assistance and further details to assist in the subsequent investigations and remediation steps. 

Further Detection and Response  

Unfortunately, the customer did not have Darktrace/Email™ enabled at the time of the attack. Darktrace/Email has visibility over inbound and outbound mail-flow which provides an oversight on potential data loss incidents. In this case, Darktrace DETECT/Email would have been able to provide full visibility over the phishing emails sent by the compromised accounts, as well as the attackers attempts to spoof an internal helpdesk. Further to this, the new Analysis Outlook integration helps employees understand why an email is suspicious and enables them report emails directly to the security team, which helps to continuously build user awareness of phishing attacks. 

Darktrace/Email also enhances Darktrace/Network™ detections by triggering ‘Email Nexus’ models within Darktrace/Network, where malicious activity is detected across the digital estate, correlating moving from SaaS compromised logins to mass email spam being sent out by compromised users

Figure 7: Email Nexus models within the Darktrace/Network enhanced by Darktrace/Email

Darktrace RESPOND™ was not enabled on the customer environment at the time of the attack; if it were, Darktrace would have been able to autonomously take action against the SaaS model breaches detecting across multiple of the kill chain. RESPOND would have disabled the hijacked accounts or force them to log out for a period of time, whilst also disabling the inbox rules that had been established by malicious actors. This would have given the customer’s security team valuable time to analyze the incident and mitigate the situation, preventing the attack from escalating any further. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, Darktrace demonstrated its unparalleled visibility over customer networks which allowed for the detection of this large-scale targeted SaaS account takeover, and the subsequent phishing attack. It underscores the importance of defense in depth; critically, MFA was not enforced for this environment which likely made the targeted organization far more susceptible to compromise via credential theft. The phishing activity detected by Darktrace following this account compromise also highlights the need for email protection in any security stack. 

Darktrace’s visibility meant allowed it to detect the attack at a high degree of granularity, including the account logins, email forwarding rule creations, outbound mail, and the mass deletions of phishing emails. Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection means it does not have to rely on signatures, rules or known indicators of compromise (IoCs) when identifying an emerging threat, instead placing the emphasis on recognizing a user’s deviation from its normal behavior.

However, without the presence of an autonomous response technology able to instantly intervene and stop ongoing attacks, organizations will always be reacting to attacks once the damage is done. Darktrace RESPOND is uniquely placed to take action against suspicious activity as soon as it is detected, preventing attacks from escalating and saving customers from significant disruption to their business.

Credit to: Zoe Tilsiter, Cyber Analyst, Gernice Lee, Cyber Analyst.

Appendices

Models Breached

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

SaaS / Admin / Mail Forwarding Enabled

SaaS / Compliance / Microsoft Cloud App Security Alert Detected

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login 

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login, Sent Mail, Deleted Sent

SaaS / Compromise / Suspicious Login and Mass Email Deletes 

SaaS / Resource / Mass Email Deletes from Rare Location

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual External Sources For SaaS Credential

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Activity from Multiple Unusual IPs

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities 

Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection

Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection

List of IoCs

brandoza[.]com - domain - probable domain of forwarded email address

breazeim[.]com - domain - probable domain of forwarded email address

bymercy[.]com - domain - probable domain of forwarded email address

chotunai[.]com - domain - probable domain of forwarded email address

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic: INITIAL ACCESS, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCILATION, DEFENSE EVASION

Technique: T1078.004 – Cloud Accounts

Tactic: COLLECTION

Technique: T1114- Email Collection

Tactic:COLLECTION

Technique: T1114.003- Email Forwarding Rule

Tactic: IMPACT

Technique: T1485- Data Destruction

Tactic: DEFENSE EVASION

Technique: T1578.003 – Delete Cloud Instance

References

[1] Darktrace, 2022, Cloud Application Security_ Protect your SaaS with Self-Learning AI.pdf

[2] https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/learning/access-management/account-takeover/ 

[3] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/chotunai.com 

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
Zoe Tilsiter
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

OT

/

September 2, 2026

Botnet Behind the Camera: Mirai Katana Activity on a Video Recording Device

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

  • Darktrace identified a camera device infected with the Mirai/Katana botnet in a sports-sector customer environment, showing how exposed IoT devices can become active participants in wider attack chains.
  • The compromise involved suspicious Wget behavior, file downloads from rare external IPs, unusual incoming HTTP connections to video recorder management interfaces, and large outbound data transfers to infrastructure associated with botnet activity.
  • The incident highlights the importance of extending visibility and response beyond traditional endpoints, as unmanaged or overlooked connected devices can be exploited for command-and-control, malware delivery, and data exfiltration.

Mirai and the Katana variant

Mirai is a botnet that first emerged in August 2016 and is well known for launching large-scale distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, typically targeting exposed Internet of Things (IoT) devices. It identifies vulnerable IoT devices ,often by abusing default credentials or exposed services, and recruiting them into a remotely controlled botnet that can be used in DDoS campaigns [1].

Katana, one of the many variants that arose after Mirai’s source code was released publicly, was first observed in late 2020 and has been seen using more advanced capabilities, including custom command-and-control (C2), persistence mechanisms, and DDoS functionality [2].

In March 2026, research from the Nokia Deepfield Emergency Response Team (ERT) identified Katana as a Mirai-derived DDoS botnet targeting Android-based TV set-top boxes through exposed Android Debug Bridge (ADB) access.  Observed capabilities included custom C2, runtime domain rotation, multiple DDoS methods, and an on-device compiled kernel rootkit used for persistence and stealth [3].

Darktrace’s detection of Mirai Botnet activity on a camera device

In early 2026, Darktrace identified a Network/Digital Video Recorder (NVR/DVR) on the network of a sports-sector customer that had been infected with the Mirai Katana botnet and subsequently used to exfiltrate data from the customer’s environment. Seemingly related follow-up activity was observed on the same device several months later.

In both instances, the Darktrace Security Operations Centre (SOC) alerted the customer as part of the Managed Threat Detection (MTD) service. However, as Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was not fully enabled on the affected device, Darktrace was unable to proactively block the suspicious activity or prevent the compromise from continuing and recurring.

The initial compromise appears to have occurred when the affected device was seen using Wget to download Linux-based Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) files from a rare external IP, 195.177.94[.]105, which had not previously been observed in the customer’s network. Further analysis downloaded file hashes identified files related to the Mirai botnet.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s Real-Time AI Analyst investigation into the unusual outbound connection where the ELF files were downloaded.

Within a few hours, Darktrace detected the device uploading close to 3GB of data to another external IP, 50.7.49[.]4:3017 (ASN AS30058 FDCSERVERS), suggesting that the activity was likely routed via a virtual private server (VPS) hosted by FDC Servers [2]. Attackers often abuse VPS infrastructure from legitimate cloud providers to blend in with legitimate traffic and evade IP reputation and geolocation-based detections.

Figure 2:  Darktrace’s detection of the unusual data upload activity by the affected camera device.

Darktrace continued to observe similar data transfers to multiple rare endpoints  including 171.225.223[.]53, 95.161.128[.]62, 61.7.209[.]88, 95.161.128[.]62, which have been linked to Mirai by open-source intelligence (OSINT).

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of spikes in unusual external data transfer activity from the camera device.

Exploitation continued

Several months later, Darktrace identified the same exfiltration pattern on the device again, this time with stronger indications of associations with Mirai Katana botnet infection.

The device received incoming HTTP connections from 129.121.114[.]124, an external IP known to be associated with the Katana botnet IP [3]. The connections targeted the ‘/dvr/cmd’ path using the root username and user agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.246.

The ‘/dvr/cmd’ path appears to be associated with the affected device’s web management functionality. This API endpoint has historically been targeted by Mirai and other IoT botnets through the exploitation of critical command injection vulnerabilities and automated botnet exploitation [4].

Figure 4: Darktrace’s  detection of HTTP connectivity from the external IP associated with Mirai Katana Botnet.

A few days later, Darktrace observed the Wget utility being used to download ELF files, including “/lil”,  from the IP 129.121.114[.]124. OSINT reporting has since associated this IP address with the Mirai Katana botnet. Notably, the IP observed earlier in the year, 195.177.94[.]105, had also hosted a file named “lil”, indicating a link between the observed activity.

Over the following days, the device received a sudden spike in connections from multiple rare external endpoints, suggesting a possible successful brute force attack. Darktrace also observed the device exfiltrating just under 4GB of data to another Mirai-associated IP address,  66.92.198[.]194, over ports 3344, 954922, and 80. Finally, the device was seen uploading data to the Mirai botnet IP 5.175.249[.]53 over port138 and exhibited an increase in UDP connections to 34.18.28[.]10 over port 9068.

Following both file download events, Darktrace identified spikes in external data transfers and connection attempts to rare destinations. While Darktrace’s Threat Research team could not confirm with high confidence that this to activity was directly associated with Mirai, it may indicate that Mirai Katana includes data exfiltration functionality.

Darktrace’s threat researchers also identified an internet-facing NTP server belonging to a separate customer receiving incoming connection attempts from the same initially observed IP, 195.177.94[.]105,over the port 123. This suggests that Mirai Katana may not exclusively target IoT devices.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how threat actors can exploit overlooked IoT and OT devices to support broader malicious objectives. Here, a camera device infected with a botnet was used to exfiltrate data from the customer's environment, showing how peripheral assets can become active participants in an attack chain.

This case also reinforces a challenge many organizations face today: extending security visibility beyond traditional endpoints and servers. Cameras, sensors, and other connected devices often operate with limited monitoring and may fall outside established security processes, despite maintaining network connectivity and access to potentially sensitive environments. This is particularly relevant in the sports sector, where growing reliance on connected cameras, smart stadium technologies, and other IoT devices continues to expand the attack surface, as highlighted in Darktrace's Sports Sector Threat Report.

As botnets like Kata and Mirai continue to evolve, defenders need visibility across unmanaged IoT and edge devices, as well as security solutions that can recognize subtle deviations in device behavior that may indicate an emerging compromise.

Credit to Parvatha Ananthakannan (Cyber Analyst), Signe Zaharka (Principal Analyst)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

·      Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

·      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

·      Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

·      Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

·      Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

·      Device / Significant UDP Increase

·      Anomalous Connection / Low and Slow Exfiltration to IP

·      Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·      Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

·      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Activity

·      Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

·      Unusual Activity / Unusual DNS

·      Device / External Network Scan

·      Device / Suspicious DNS Activity

·      Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Indicator of Compromise Type Description
195.177.94[.]105 IP C2 endpoint
50.7.49[.]4:30171 IP Possible C2 endpoint
129.121.114[.]124 IP C2 endpoint
hxxp://195.177.94[.]105/n3 URL Likely C2 endpoint
hxxp://195.177.94[.]105/n2 URL Likely C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/lil URL Likely C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/HHn URL Possible C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/JFc URL Possible C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/jum URL Likely C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/OaSf URL Likely C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/OPWg URL Possible C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/vHwK URL Possible C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/VLv URL Possible C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/WbJ URL Possible C2 endpoint
hxxp://129.121.114[.]124/zkR URL Possible C2 endpoint
Ab17883ae4c3bc6afa18c439166eeeb4b03186e3093d984e3a95f573e0fcb7d8 SHA-256 Mirai payload
3d587e809dac49d34a3f717e072fd0aebe5e71db63333e45c81577d6b4266f87 SHA-256 Mirai payload
Bf6e81733a7e209d3dce80d15bf3c5d300752d961fae6b45d90c9bbe7f8c89a2 SHA-256 Possible payload
f25488303813ab1ec0eaa71562938601aac185e8aaf93adb84522557f7cf4dd6 SHA-256 Possible payload
0cb4ff6b71f4423184bfa35c34e9090297637208b0e30205d4b224e56abde2ef SHA-256 Possible payload
19c24cbeaf06b2e7697083f33a85521a9315105c784691bde7420fde4cc69410 SHA-256 Likely Mirai payload
1e74f734fff8df91f4f7172d0de10c421eca78aeb800e8a48e16bc5dbde5d20e SHA-256 Possible payload
6e71f7763d1f29d5712106ebb122e281c32787540aa2342b0fe5351d585d18d7 SHA-256 Possible payload
71f4ff7cdb6d6a7d2673c543c5d2535093afbd707b20a5b9ddf735466c1105c1 SHA-256 Possible payload
76db7ee73ebf15e48a3cb24a074d92248671ef2c6ed3bc3e708377341fb7674d SHA-256 Possible payload
da87a65f7beb438e61f0b61964fed8aa305a380f569042f84c55eca8fa7929b8 SHA-256 Possible payload
e15809eb6ba66477175270d62cfa53e4bf278595f69938708c81c4bc457930fe SHA-256 Mirai payload

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic Technique ID Technique / Sub-technique
Initial Access T1659 Content Injection
T1189 Drive-by Compromise
Exfiltration T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1048.003 Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol
Command and Control T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer
T1095 Non-Application Layer Protocol
T1571 Non-Standard Port
Reconnaissance T1595.001 Scanning IP Blocks
Continue reading
About the author
Parvatha Ananthakannan
Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

AI

/

August 26, 2026

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently published guidance on managing the cyber risk of agentic AI. While the document is framed as interim advice as more formal guidance is developed, the framing reflects the current state of the industry: organizations are already deploying agents into production environments while standards, controls, and operating models for autonomous systems remain unsettled. Governance is evolving alongside adoption rather than preceding it, a reality which underscores the importance of robust controls.  

The NCSC’s guidance recommends aligning controls to an agent's level of autonomy, assigning distinct identities, limiting permissions, constraining access to systems and data, monitoring activity, maintaining human oversight, and preserving the ability to intervene when necessary. Most of these recommendations will sound familiar to security teams. The challenge is not the novelty of the controls. It is the type of system those controls now need to govern.

The shift from model security to agent security

For several years, AI security discussions have focused heavily on models. Can a model be manipulated? Jailbroken? Trusted? Can it expose information it should not? Those questions remain important, but they capture only part of the problem. A model generating text is one thing. A system connected to identities, applications, tools, workflows, and business data is another.

The difference becomes clearer when comparing a chatbot that answers questions with an agent that can retrieve customer records, update tickets, invoke tools, trigger workflows, and interact with external systems. The underlying model may be identical. Its access is not. The security question begins to shift from what the model knows to what the system can do.

The same theme appears in the Five Eyes statement released earlier this year, describing AI as a force multiplier that is accelerating both offensive and defensive cyber operations. The NCSC guidance explores what that reality looks like when autonomous systems begin operating inside enterprise environments.

Securing AI agents in operation

The NCSC spends relatively little time debating model behavior and considerably more time discussing identity, permissions, monitoring, oversight, containment, and response. Agents are treated as participants within an environment rather than isolated pieces of technology.  

That's broadly consistent with how we think about the problem at Darktrace.

An agent should not be treated as an extension of a user account. It develops its own behavioral patterns. It accesses systems, interacts with data, invokes tools, and moves across workflows in ways that can be observed independently. Understanding what an agent is permitted to do matters. Understanding how it actually behaves once deployed, and whether that behavior aligns with business intent, matters just as much.

Identity provides an obvious example. The NCSC recommends assigning distinct identities to agents rather than allowing them to disappear into surrounding human or service accounts. Most importantly, assigning agents distinct identities enables independent behavioral monitoring.

Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior

The same principle extends to monitoring. NCSC guidance places agent activity within normal security operations rather than treating it as a separate AI governance function. Many of the controls described are put in place before an agent begins operating. Sandboxing, credential design, approval workflows and human oversight all reflect judgments about how the system is expected to behave and what risks it is likely to create.

Actual use may challenge those assumptions. Access patterns change. Workflows expand. Systems begin interacting with resources they have never touched before. Processes that appeared reasonable during design behave differently in production. Human oversight requirements may turn out to be either excessive or inadequate once the system is operating at scale and operating within the context of unique business processes.

The Five Eyes statement points to a similar issue: organizations need confidence that controls continue to work as intended once systems are exposed to real users, data, tools and operational pressures. Often, the question is not whether an agent is technically allowed to perform an action, but whether its behavior remains consistent with the role it was intended to play.

Monitoring and governance of AI agents go hand-in-hand

This problem is exactly why monitoring and governance should be treated as part of the same process. Governance sets the initial parameters for deployment, while monitoring provides evidence about whether those parameters remain appropriate. That evidence should, in turn, inform changes to permissions, controls and oversight.

This matters increasingly as autonomous systems are integrated into business processes. The relevant risk is shaped not only by the model or agent itself, but by what it can access, what actions it can take, and how its behavior changes in practice.

Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior

The implication is clear: governance cannot end at deployment. Organizations need a way to understand how agents behave after deployment, test whether controls remain appropriate, and adjust them as conditions change. That requires visibility not just into technical activity, but into whether that activity makes sense in the context of the business process the agent is intended to support.

This is where business-centric behavioral security can become critical. Risk does not emerge from the model itself: it emerges from the actions an autonomous system takes within the enterprise and the downstream consequences of those actions.  

An agent can operate exactly as intended and still create risk if it accesses sensitive information in an unexpected context, exercises permissions in ways that create unintended exposure, or influences business processes in ways that were not anticipated during design and review.

Traditional governance vs. behavioral security

Traditional governance frameworks provide assurance at a point in time. Behavioral security can provide ongoing visibility into how autonomous systems interact with the organization they are meant to serve. Rather than focusing exclusively on model performance or policy compliance, organizations need to understand whether an agent's behavior aligns with business intent, operational expectations, and acceptable risk tolerances as conditions change.

As enterprises move from isolated AI deployments to interconnected ecosystems of agents, visibility into behavior becomes as important as visibility into code. Governance determines what an autonomous system is permitted to do. Behavioral analytics helps determine what it is doing, what business outcomes it is producing, and whether those outcomes remain aligned with the organization's objectives.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Margaret Cunningham, PhD
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
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