ブログ
/
Compliance
/
April 12, 2022

Efficient Incident Reporting: Darktrace AI Analyst

Discover how Darktrace's Cyber AI Analyst accelerates incident reporting to the US federal government, enhancing cybersecurity response times.
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
Justin Fier
SVP, Offensive Security
Written by
Sally Kenyon Grant
VP, Darktrace Federal
Default blog image
12
Apr 2022

On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act into law, included as part of the Congressional Omnibus Appropriations bill. The law requires critical infrastructure owners and operators to quickly notify the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of ransomware payments and significant cyber-attacks.

The Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act creates two new reporting requirements:

  1. an obligation to report certain cyber incidents to DHS CISA within 72 hours
  2. an obligation to report ransomware payments within 24 hours

Supporting the new law, Darktrace AI accelerates the cyber incident reporting process. Specifically, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst understands the connections among disparate security incidents with supervised machine learning and autonomously writes incident reports in human-readable language using natural language processing (NLP). These Darktrace incident reports allow human analysts to send reports to CISA quickly and efficiently.

In the below real-world attack case study, we demonstrate how Cyber AI Analyst facilitates seamless reporting for critical infrastructure organizations that fall victim to ransomware and malicious data exfiltration. The AI technology, trained on human analyst behavior, replicates investigations at machine speed and scale, surfacing relevant details in minutes and allowing security teams to understand what happened precisely and share this information with the relevant authorities.

The below threat investigation details a significant threat find on a step by step level in technical detail to demonstrate the power and speed of Cyber AI Analyst.

Cyber AI Analyst’s incident report

When ransomware struck this organization, Cyber AI Analyst was invaluable, autonomously investigating the full scope of the incident and generating a natural language summary that clearly showed the progression of the attack.

Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst reveals the full scope of the attack

In the aftermath of this attack, Darktrace’s technology also offered analyst assistance in mapping out the timeline of the attack and identifying what files were compromised, helping the security team identify anomalous activity related to the ransomware attack.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst showing the stages of the attack chain undergone by the compromised device

‍

With Darktrace AI’s insights, the team easily identified the timeline of the attack, affected devices, credentials used, file shares accessed, files exfiltrated, and malicious endpoints contacted, enabling the customer to disclose the scale of the attack and notify necessary parties.

This example demonstrates how Cyber AI Analyst empowers critical infrastructure owners and operators to swiftly report major cyber-attacks to the federal government. Considering that 72 hours is the reporting period is for significant incidents — and 24 hours for ransomware payments — Cyber AI Analyst is no longer a nice-to-have but a must-have for critical infrastructure.

Attack breakdown: Ransomware and data exfiltration

Cyber AI Analyst delivered the most critical information in an easy-to-read report — with no human touch involved — as shown in the incident report above. We will now break down the attack further to demonstrate how Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI understood the unusual activity throughout the attack lifecycle.

In this double extortion ransomware, attackers exfiltrated data over 22 days. The detections made by Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI, and the parallel investigation by Cyber AI Analyst, were used to map the attack chain and identify how and what data had been exfiltrated and encrypted.

The attack consisted of three general groups of events:

  • Unencrypted FTP (File Transfer Protocol) data exfiltration to rare malicious external endpoint in Bulgaria (May 9 07:23:46 UTC – May 21 03:06:46 UTC)
  • Ransomware encryption of files in network file shares (May 25 01:00:27 UTC – May 30 07:09:53 UTC)
  • Encrypted SSH (Secure Shell) data exfiltration to rare malicious external endpoint (May 29 16:43:37 UTC – May 30 13:23:59 UTC)
Figure 3: Timeline of the attack alongside Darktrace model breaches

First, uploads of internal data to a rare external endpoint in Bulgaria were observed within the networks. The exfiltration was preceded by SMB reads of internal file shares before approximately 450GB of data was exfiltrated via FTP.

Darktrace’s AI identified this threatening activity on its own, and the organization was quickly able to pinpoint what data had been exfiltrated, including files camouflaged by markings such as ‘Talent Acquisition’ and ‘Engineering and Construction,’ and legal and financial documents — suggesting that these were documents of an extremely sensitive nature.

Figure 4: Screenshots showing two model breaches relating to external uploads over FTP
Figure 5: Screenshot showing SMB reads from a file share before FTP upload

Model breaches:

  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual Incoming Data Volume
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
  • Compromise / Ransomware / SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions
  • Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
  • Unusual Activity / High Volume Server Data Transfer
  • Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity
  • Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Four days following this observed activity, Darktrace’s AI detected the deployment of ransomware when multiple compromised devices began making anomalous SMB connections to file shares that they do not typically access, reading and writing similar volumes to the SMB file shares, as well as writing additional extensions to files over SMB. The file extension comprised a random string of letters and was likely to be unique to this target.

Using Darktrace, the customer obtained a full list of files that had been encrypted. The list included apparent financial records in an ‘Accounts’ file share.

Figure 6: Model breach showing additional extension written to file during ransomware encryption

Model breaches:

  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual Incoming Data Volume
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
  • Compromise / Ransomware / SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions
  • Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
  • Unusual Activity / High Volume Server Data Transfer
  • Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity
  • Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Simultaneously, uploads of internal data to a rare external endpoint were observed within the network. The uploads were all performed using encrypted SSH/SFTP. In total, approximately 3.5GB of data was exfiltrated this way.

Despite the attacker using an encrypted channel to exfiltrate this data, Darktrace detected anomalous SMB file transfers prior to the external upload, indicating which files were exfiltrated. Here, Darktrace’s ability to go ‘back in time’ proved invaluable in helping analysts determine which files had been exfiltrated, although they were exfiltrated via an encrypted means.

Figure 7: Model breaches showing anomalous SMB activity before upload over SSH

Model breaches:

  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination
  • Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches
  • Device / Large Number of Model Breaches
  • Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent To New External Device

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

Existing administrative credentials were used to escalate privileges within the network and perform malicious activity.

Had Darktrace Antigena been active, it would have actioned a targeted, autonomous response to contain the activity in its early stages. Antigena would have enforced the ‘pattern of life’ on the devices involved in anomalous SMB activity — containing activity such as reading from file shares that are not normally connected, appending extensions to files and blocking outgoing connections to rare external endpoints.

However, in this case, Antigena was not set up to take action – it was configured in Human Confirmation mode. The incident was clearly alerted on by Darktrace, and appeared as a top priority item in the security team’s workflow. However, the security team was not monitoring Darktrace’s user interface, and in the absence of any action taken by other tools, the attack was allowed to progress, and the organization was obligated to disclose the details of the incident.

Streamlining the reporting process

In the modern threat landscape, leaning on AI to stop fast-moving and sophisticated attacks at machine speed and scale is critical. As this attack shows, the technology also helps organizations fulfill reporting requirements in the aftermath of an attack.

New legislation requires timely disclosure; with many traditional approaches to security, organizations do not have the capacity to surface the full details after an attack. On top of this, collating these details can take days or weeks. This is why Darktrace is no longer a nice-to-have but a must-have for critical infrastructure organizations, which are now required to report significant incidents swiftly.

Darktrace’s AI detects malicious activity as it happens and empowers customers to quickly understand the timeline of a compromise, as well as files accessed and exfiltrated by an attacker. This not only prepares organizations to resist the most sophisticated attacks, but also accelerates and radically simplifies the process of reporting the data breach.

Security teams should not have to confront disclosure processes on their own. Attacks happen fast, and their aftermaths are messy – retrospective investigation of lost data can be a futile effort with traditional approaches. With Darktrace, security teams can meet disruptive and sudden attacks with precise and nimble means of uncovering data, as well as detection and mitigation of risk. And, should the need arise, rapid and accurate reporting of events is laid out on a silver platter by the AI.

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
Justin Fier
SVP, Offensive Security
Written by
Sally Kenyon Grant
VP, Darktrace Federal

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

September 24, 2026

Detecting Rogue Agent Behavior in the Enterprise

Default blog imageDefault blog image

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

Key Takeaways:

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

Introduction: Understanding the Threat of Hacking by Agents

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

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

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

Setting the Stage

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

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

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

Inducing Cheating Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details from a Daybreak Test

‍

‍

Continue reading
About the author
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

Blog

/

AI

/

September 24, 2026

Agent Hijacks: Hijacking Agentic Harnesses to Attack an Organization

Default blog imageDefault blog image

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

Key takeaways:

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

Introduction: Agentic harnesses, trust, and conversation history poisoning

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

How we conducted the research

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

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

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

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

Agent Guardrails and Discretion

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

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

‍

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

Agent hijack

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

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

‍

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

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

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

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

Secure AI: Conversation history poisoning and beyond

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

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

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

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

‍

Footnotes

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

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Eric Rozon
Senior Security Researcher
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