ブログ
/
Network
/
September 11, 2025

SEO Poisoning and Fake PuTTY sites: Darktrace’s Investigation into the Oyster backdoor

SEO poisoning is a malicious tactic where threat actors manipulate search engine rankings to promote deceptive websites. These sites often mimic legitimate software downloads, delivering malware like the Oyster backdoor. Learn about Darktrace’s investigation into the tactics used to deliver Oyster via fake PuTTY sites and manipulate search visibility.
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
Christina Kreza
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
11
Sep 2025

What is SEO poisoning?

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is the legitimate marketing technique of improving the visibility of websites in organic search engine results. Businesses, publishers, and organizations use SEO to ensure their content is easily discoverable by users. Techniques may include optimizing keywords, creating backlinks, or even ensuring mobile compatibility.

SEO poisoning occurs when attackers use these same techniques for malicious purposes. Instead of improving the visibility of legitimate content, threat actors use SEO to push harmful or deceptive websites to the top of search results. This method exploits the common assumption that top-ranking results are trustworthy, leading users to click on URLs without carefully inspecting them.

As part of SEO poisoning, the attacker will first register a typo-squatted domain, slightly misspelled or otherwise deceptive versions of real software sites, such as putty[.]run or puttyy[.]org. These sites are optimized for SEO and often even backed by malicious Google ads, increasing the visibility when users search for download links. To achieve that, threat actors may embed pages with strategically chosen, high-value keywords or replicate content from reputable sources to elevate the domain’s perceived authority in search engine algorithms [4]. In more advanced operations, these tactics are reinforced with paid promotion, such as Google ads, enabling malicious domains to appear above organic search results as sponsored links. This placement not only accelerates visibility but also impacts an unwarranted sense of legitimacy to unsuspected users.

Once a user lands on one of these fake pages, they are presented with what looks like a legitimate software download option. Upon clicking the download indicator, the user will be redirected to another separate domain that actually hosts the payload. This hosting domain is usually unrelated to the nominally referenced software. These third-party sites can involve recently registered domains but may also include legitimate websites that have been recently compromised. By hosting malware on a variety of infrastructure, attackers can prolong the availability of distribution methods for these malicious files before they are taken down.

What is the Oyster backdoor?

Oyster, also known as Broomstick or CleanUpLoader, is a C++ based backdoor malware first identified in July 2023. It enables remote access to infected systems, offering features such as command-line interaction and file transfers.

Oyster has been widely adopted by various threat actors, often as an entry point for ransomware attacks. Notable examples include Vanilla Tempest and Rhysida ransomware groups, both of which have been observed leveraging the Oyster backdoor to enhance their attack capabilities. Vanilla Tempest is known for using Oyster’s stealth persistence to maintain long-term access within targeted networks, often aligning their operations with ransomware deployment [5]. Rhysida has taken this further by deploying Oyster as an initial access tool in ransomware campaigns, using it to conduct reconnaissance and move laterally before executing encryption activities [6].

Once installed, the backdoor gathers basic system information before communicating with a command-and-control (C2) server. The malware largely relies on a ‘cmd.exe’ instance to execute commands and launch other files [1].

In previous SEO poisoning cases, the file downloaded from the fake pages is not just PuTTY, but a trojanized version that includes the stealthy Oyster backdoor. PuTTY is a free and open-source terminal emulator for Windows that allows users to connect to remote servers and devices using protocols like SSH and Telnet. In the recent campaign, once a user visits the fake software download site, ranked highly through SEO poisoning, the malicious payload is downloaded through direct user interaction and subsequently installed on the local device, initiating the compromise. The malware then performs two actions simultaneously: it installs a fully functional version of PuTTY to avoid user suspicion, while silently deploying the Oyster backdoor. Given PuTTY’s nature, it is prominently used by IT administrators with highly privileged account as opposed to standard users in a business, possibly narrowing the scope of the targets.

Oyster’s persistence mechanism involves creating a Windows Scheduled Task that runs every few minutes. Notably, the infection uses Dynamic Link Library (DLL) side loading, where a malicious DLL, often named ‘twain_96.dll’, is executed via the legitimate Windows utility ‘rundll32.exe’, which is commonly used to run DLLs [2]. This technique is frequently used by malicious actors to blend their activity with normal system operations.

Darktrace’s Coverage of the Oyster Backdoor

In June 2025, security analysts at Darktrace identified a campaign leveraging search engine manipulation to deliver malware masquerading as the popular SSH client, PuTTY. Darktrace / NETWORK’s anomaly-based detection identified signs of malicious activity, and when properly configured, its Autonomous Response capability swiftly shut down the threat before it could escalate into a more disruptive attack. Subsequent analysis by Darktrace’s Threat Research team revealed that the payload was a variant of the Oyster backdoor.

The first indicators of an emerging Oyster SEO campaign typically appeared when user devices navigated to a typosquatted domain, such as putty[.]run or putty app[.]naymin[.]com, via a TLS/SSL connection.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of a device connecting to the typosquatted domain putty[.]run.

The device would then initiate a connection to a secondary domain that hosts the malicious installer, likely triggered by user interaction with redirect elements on the landing page. This secondary site may not have any immediate connection to PuTTY itself but is instead a hijacked blog, a file-sharing service, or a legitimate-looking content delivery subdomain.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the device making subsequent connections to the payload domain.

Following installation, multiple affected devices were observed attempting outbound connectivity to rare external IP addresses, specifically requesting the ‘/secure’ endpoint as noted within the declared URIs. After the initial callback, the malware continued communicating with additional infrastructure, maintaining its foothold and likely waiting for tasking instructions. Communication patterns included:

·       Endpoints with URIs /api/kcehc and /api/jgfnsfnuefcnegfnehjbfncejfh

·       Endpoints with URI /reg and user agent “WordPressAgent”, “FingerPrint” or “FingerPrintpersistent”

This tactic has been consistently linked to the Oyster backdoor, which has shown similar URI patterns across multiple campaigns [3].

Darktrace analysts also noted the sophisticated use of spoofed user agent strings across multiple investigated customer networks. These headers, which are typically used to identify the application making an HTTP request, are carefully crafted to appear benign or mimic legitimate software. One common example seen in the campaign is the user agent string “WordPressAgent”. While this string references a legitimate web application or plugin, it does not appear to correspond to any known WordPress services or APIs. Its inclusion is most likely designed to mimic background web traffic commonly associated with WordPress-based content management systems.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst investigation linking the HTTP C2 activity.

Case-Specific Observations

While the previous section focused on tactics and techniques common across observed Oyster infections, a closer examination reveals notable variations and unique elements in specific cases. These distinct features offer valuable insights into the diverse operational approaches employed by threat actors. These distinct features, from unusual user agent strings to atypical network behavior, offer valuable insights into the diverse operational approaches employed by the threat actors. Crucially, the divergence in post-exploitation activity reflects a broader trend in the use of widely available malware families like Oyster as flexible entry points, rather than fixed tools with a single purpose. This modular use of the backdoor reflects the growing Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) ecosystem, where a single initial infection can be repurposed depending on the operator’s goals.

From Infection to Data Egress

In one observed incident, Darktrace observed an infected device downloading a ZIP file named ‘host[.]zip’ via curl from the URI path /333/host[.]zip, following the standard payload delivery chain. This file likely contained additional tools or payloads intended to expand the attacker’s capabilities within the compromised environment. Shortly afterwards, the device exhibited indicators of probable data exfiltration, with outbound HTTP POST requests featuring the URI pattern: /upload?dir=NAME_FOLDER/KEY_KEY_KEY/redacted/c/users/public.

This format suggests the malware was actively engaged in local host data staging and attempting to transmit files from the target machine. The affected device, identified as a laptop, aligns with the expected target profile in SEO poisoning scenarios, where unsuspecting end users download and execute trojanized software.

Irregular RDP Activity and Scanning Behavior

Several instances within the campaign revealed anomalous or unexpected Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) sessions occurring shortly after DNS requests to fake PuTTY domains. Unusual RDP connections frequently followed communication with Oyster backdoor C2 servers. Additionally, Darktrace detected patterns of RDP scanning, suggesting the attackers were actively probing for accessible systems within the network. This behavior indicates a move beyond initial compromise toward lateral movement and privilege escalation, common objectives once persistence is established.

The presence of unauthorized and administrative RDP sessions following Oyster infections aligns with the malware’s historical role as a gateway for broader impact. In previous campaigns, Oyster has often been leveraged to enable credential theft, lateral movement, and ultimately ransomware deployment. The observed RDP activity in this case suggests a similar progression, where the backdoor is not the final objective but rather a means to expand access and establish control over the target environment.

Cryptic User Agent Strings?

In multiple investigated cases, the user agent string identified in these connections featured formatting that appeared nonsensical or cryptic. One such string containing seemingly random Chinese-language characters translated into an unusual phrase: “Weihe river is where the water and river flow.” Legitimate software would not typically use such wording, suggesting that the string was intended as a symbolic marker rather than a technical necessity. Whether meant as a calling card or deliberately crafted to frame attribution, its presence highlights how subtle linguistic cues can complicate analysis.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of malicious connections using a user agent with randomized Chinese-language formatting.

Strategic Implications

What makes this campaign particularly noteworthy is not simply the use of Oyster, but its delivery mechanism. SEO poisoning has traditionally been associated with cybercriminal operations focused on opportunistic gains, such as credential theft and fraud. Its strength lies in casting a wide net, luring unsuspecting users searching for popular software and tricking them into downloading malicious binaries. Unlike other campaigns, SEO poisoning is inherently indiscriminate, given that the attacker cannot control exactly who lands on their poisoned search results. However, in this case, the use of PuTTY as the luring mechanism possibly indicates a narrowed scope - targeting IT administrators and accounts with high privileges due to the nature of PuTTY’s functionalities.

This raises important implications when considered alongside Oyster. As a backdoor often linked to ransomware operations and persistent access frameworks, Oyster is far more valuable as an entry point into corporate or government networks than small-scale cybercrime. The presence of this malware in an SEO-driven delivery chain suggests a potential convergence between traditional cybercriminal delivery tactics and objectives often associated with more sophisticated attackers. If actors with state-sponsored or strategic objectives are indeed experimenting with SEO poisoning, it could signal a broadening of their targeting approaches. This trend aligns with the growing prominence of MaaS and the role of initial access brokers in today’s cybercrime ecosystem.

Whether the operators seek financial extortion through ransomware or longer-term espionage campaigns, the use of such techniques blurs the traditional distinctions. What looks like a mass-market infection vector might, in practice, be seeding footholds for high-value strategic intrusions.

Credit to Christina Kreza (Cyber Analyst) and Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

·       T1071.001 – Command and Control – Web Protocols

·       T1008 – Command and Control – Fallback Channels

·       T0885 – Command and Control – Commonly Used Port

·       T1571 – Command and Control – Non-Standard Port

·       T1176 – Persistence – Browser Extensions

·       T1189 – Initial Access – Drive-by Compromise

·       T1566.002 – Initial Access – Spearphishing Link

·       T1574.001 – Persistence – DLL

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

·       85.239.52[.]99 – IP address

·       194.213.18[.]89/reg – IP address / URI

·       185.28.119[.]113/secure – IP address / URI

·       185.196.8[.]217 – IP address

·       185.208.158[.]119 – IP address

·       putty[.]run – Endpoint

·       putty-app[.]naymin[.]com – Endpoint

·       /api/jgfnsfnuefcnegfnehjbfncejfh

·       /api/kcehc

Darktrace Model Detections

·       Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·       Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

·       Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·       Compromise / Beaconing Activity to External Rare

·       Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

·       Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

·       Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

·       Device / Suspicious Domain

·       Device / New User Agent

·       Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

·       Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

·       Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

References

[1] https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/details/win.broomstick

[2] https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/malvertising-campaign-delivers-oyster-broomstick-backdoor-via-seo-poisoning-trojanized-tools/

[3] https://hunt.io/blog/oysters-trail-resurgence-infrastructure-ransomware-cybercrime

[4] https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/social-engineering/seo-poisoning/

[5] https://blackpointcyber.com/blog/vanilla-tempest-oyster-backdoor-netsupport-unknown-infostealers-soc-incidents-blackpoint-apg/

[6] https://areteir.com/article/rhysida-using-oyster-backdoor-in-attacks/

The content provided in this blog is published by Darktrace for general informational purposes only and reflects our understanding of cybersecurity topics, trends, incidents, and developments at the time of publication. While we strive to ensure accuracy and relevance, the information is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Darktrace makes no guarantees regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information presented and expressly disclaims all warranties.

Nothing in this blog constitutes legal, technical, or professional advice, and readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein. Any references to third-party organizations, technologies, threat actors, or incidents are for informational purposes only and do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or recommendation.

Darktrace, its affiliates, employees, or agents shall not be held liable for any loss, damage, or harm arising from the use of or reliance on the information in this blog.

The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content without notice.

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
Christina Kreza
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 20, 2026

スタジアム運営を任されるAI。セキュリティチームはこれをどう保護すべきか?

Default blog imageDefault blog image

スタジアム運営に使われるAIをどう保護するべきか

主なポイント

  • AIはアクセス管理、群衆管理、チケット発行、設備管理、監視カメラ等、スタジアムの運営に重要な機能に導入されつつある。  
  • シャドーAIやサードパーティAIの利用はスタジアムのセキュリティチームの目の届かないところでリスクを生み出している。
  • セキュリティチームはどのようなAIシステムが存在しているかだけでなく、それらが何にアクセスし、どのようなアクションを実行できるかを理解できなければならない。
  • イベントのレジリエンスにはAI、IT、OT、アイデンティティ、サードパーティ全体に渡る継続的監視と対応が必要。

現代のスタジアムは、他に類を見ないインフラです。以前にも書いたことがありますが、イベント開催日には、スタジアムに生命が吹き込まれ、グッズや食べ物の販売、交通のハブ、広大な通信インフラ、そしてフィールド上のさまざまな技術など、これらが連携した1つの巨大なエコシステムとして機能します。その規模と複雑性により、スタジアムはサイバーセキュリティにとって最も過酷な環境の1つとなっています。その運営に今、AIを導入することで私たちは新たな次元のリスクを負おうとしています。

スタジアム運営にAIを導入することの利点は明らかです。スタジアム運営者はAIを使うことにより、混雑したゲートからファンを安全に誘導し、売店の需要を予測し、生体認証システムを管理し、不審な動きを監視カメラで見つけ、また空調や換気を制御することができます。上手く使えば、イベントをより安全に、迅速に、より効率的にすることができます。

ただし、AIはセキュリティモデルも変化させます。

ダークトレースが最近発表したスポーツを取り巻く脅威状況についての調査では、プロスポーツ組織のサイバーセキュリティプロフェッショナルを対象に、自組織の運用範囲の中でサイバー侵害が最も重大な影響を及ぼすのはどこかという質問をしました。調査対象のプロフェッショナルの最も多い34%が指摘した分野は、スタジアムの運営でした。それと同時に、35%は自組織がすでにスタジアムの運営にAIを使用している、あるいは今後12か月間に導入の予定があると回答しています。

セキュリティチームはもはや、スタジアムを中心とした従来型のITシステムだけを保護しているのではありません。スタジアムの基盤となる重要機能を動かしている、AIシステムの保護も求められるようになっているのです。

承認済みAIとシャドーAIの違い

スタジアムのセキュリティチームが知っているAIと、そうでないAIの間には明確な違いがあります。

承認済みAIとは、審査およびテストされ、施設の運用環境に統合されたAIです。こうしたAIは、監視カメラのアナリティクス、アクセス管理、設備管理、チケット発行、ロジスティクス、放送オペレーション、海賊版対策などに使われているかもしれません。それらのAIには、明確なオーナーシップ、アクセス制御、ログ記録、ベンダーレビュー、データ保護規則などがあるはずです。それによってリスクがなくなるわけではありませんが、セキュリティチームは適切なガバナンスを整備できます。

シャドーAIはそれとは違います。シャドーAIとは、従業員、請負業者、サプライヤーによる承認されていないAIの利用です。多くの場合それは善良な意図で始まります。たとえば、作業をもっと早く進めたいと思う人がいるかもしれません。あるいは、ブリーフィングの原稿を作るためにスタッフが内部情報をパブリックAIにペーストする、開発者がチケット発行プログラムのデバッグのためにAIアシスタントを使用する、サプライヤーがAIスケジューリングツールを配送ルートに接続する、デザイナーがモックアップ作成のために未公開の会場設計図やスポンサーの資料をAIにアップロードするなどの事です。

これらの行動はいずれも、それを行っている人からすればセキュリティ上の判断のようには感じられません。しかし、これらの行為は機密性の高い運営データを、スタジアムが管理していない環境に送出し、隠れたリスクを生みます。

承認済みAIスタックは、セキュリティチームから見えています。シャドーAIスタックは多くの場合そうではありません。

試合開催日に増幅するリスクと影響

通常のエンタープライズ環境であれば、不審なログイン、普段とは異なるデータ転送、予期しないサードパーティサービスへの接続をセキュリティチームが調査するための時間は数時間あるでしょう。スタジアムでは、インシデントが起こる可能性の高い瞬間は、チームに最も余力がなくインシデントが最も大きな影響を及ぼし得るタイミング、つまり試合開催日です。

群衆管理に使われているAIシステムが予期せぬ振る舞いをしたとき、その問題は単に技術上の問題ではありません。それは会場内の物理的な動きに影響を及ぼすかもしれません。

サプライヤーツールが運営データを承認されていないAIプラットフォームに送信すれば、それはデータガバナンスだけの問題ではありません。配送ルートやアクセス制限のスケジュール、スタッフ配備計画などが漏洩するかもしれません。

最も危険なシナリオは必ずしも派手な、劇的な攻撃とは限らず、外部ベンダーがソフトウェア更新でAI機能を追加した、あるいはスタッフのワークフローで未承認のツールが使用されているなど、誰も想定していなかった隠れた依存関係から発生することがあります。

イベントが始まると、これらの隠れたつながりが運営上のリスクになる可能性があります。

サプライチェーンはスタジアムのアタックサーフェス(攻撃対象領域)の一部

すべての大規模スポーツイベントは、さまざまなサプライチェーンとパートナーシップで構築されています。ケータリングサービスや輸送、放送システム、施設管理チームなど、あらゆるピースが必須であり、それぞれがセキュリティチャネルを作り出しています。サプライチェーン侵害のリスクはすでによく知られており私たちが目にしてきたいくつかの有名な侵害事例の原因となっています。マジソン・スクエア・ガーデンを所有するMSG Entertainment社のデータ侵害事例は3月に大きく報道されましたが、これはMSG Entertainment社のバックオフィスシステムで使用されていたOracleのE-Business Suiteから発生していました。また、2018年の平昌冬季オリンピックを標的としたOlympic Destroyer攻撃はこの大会のメインITサービスプロバイダーに対する侵害から始まったと言われています。そして、AIの導入によりこのリスクは増大しつつあります。

スタジアム自体は自社のAIシステムに厳しいルールを設けているかもしれませんが、ベンダーは別のツールを使っている場合があります。スタッフの配備や、配送のタイミング、在庫、顧客とのやり取りの管理にAIを使っている業者もあるでしょう。また、既に使用しているソフトウェアにAI機能が追加されていることに気が付いていないケースもあります。

スタジアムの運営でAIを保護する際の最も難しい問題の1つはこの点です。リスクはスタジアムが選択したツールから来るとは限らないのです。サプライヤーが選択したツールや、有効に設定されていることをサプライヤーが知らなかった機能からリスクが発生する可能性があります。

セキュリティチームは、ベンダーのアクセスを管理するのと同じようにベンダーのAIを扱う必要があります。サプライヤーが何に接続できるか、どのようなデータを見ることができるか、どのようなツールを使っているか、そしてこれらのツールがデータ露出や水平移動(ラテラルムーブメント)の新たな経路を作り出さないかを知る必要があるのです。

サードパーティAIツールがリスクを作り出すのに深いアクセス権は必要ありません。特定の情報が不適切なタイミングで露出するだけでリスクを招きます。

スタジアム運営におけるAIについてセキュリティチームが確認すべき4つの質問

AIがスタジアム運営の一部となるなかで、セキュリティチームは基本的な承認リストの先へ進む必要があります。次の4つの点を問う必要があります:

1.  AIはどこで使われているか?

すぐに思いつくのは、コンピュータービジョン、アクセス管理、チケット発行、ロジスティクス、設備管理等のツールです。しかし、SaaSプラットフォーム、ベンダーツール、ブラウザ拡張、開発者ワークフロー、スマートビルディングシステム、コラボレーションツールにも見えにくい形でAIが含まれています。

2. AIは何にアクセスできるか?

そのAIはインシデントログ、スタジアム設計図、チケット発行データ、ビデオ映像、建物管理、ファン情報、認証情報、サプライヤーシステムを見ることができるでしょうか?それは情報を分析するだけでしょうか、それともアクションを実行することもできるでしょうか?

3. AIは何を実行できるか?

AIエージェントは単なる受動的ツールではありません。APIを呼び出す、記録を更新する、命令を生成する、ワークフローをトリガーする、あるいはユーザーやサービスアカウントの権限を持って行動できるものもあります。スタジアムにおいて、その違いはきわめて重要な意味を持ちます。アクションを提案するAIシステムと、アクションを実行できるAIの間には大きな違いがあります。

4. 何が正常な状態か?

セキュリティアーキテクチャとしては、静的なルールだけでは不十分となるでしょう。AIの使用状況は急激に変化します:既存のプラットフォーム内にAIツールが出現し、ベンダーがAIを使った新しいサービスを追加し、多忙をきわめたスタッフはAIを使った回避策を見つけるかもしれません。セキュリティチームは、何かが変化したときにそれを発見できるよう、人、アイデンティティ、デバイス、ネットワーク、クラウドサービス、サプライヤー、AIツールのすべてにわたって正常な振る舞いを理解している必要があります。

このことは、わずかな異常が重大な意味をもつかもしれない、イベント開催中の環境において特に重要です。未承認のAIサービスへの接続は、ある状況では無害かもしれませんが別の文脈では深刻なものとなる可能性があります。そしてAIエージェントによるアクションの実行は、午前3時にセットアップを行っている状況では予期されたものかもしれませんが、試合開催中にそのアクションが発生した場合、疑わしいものかもしれません。あるアクティビティを意味のあるセキュリティ情報にするのはコンテキストです。また、迅速な対応を可能にするのもコンテキストであると言えます。組織内のAIベースセキュリティシステムが、アクションを実行する必要があることを知るためのリアルタイムのコンテキストを構築できれば、マシンスピードで脅威に対応できます。

AIはスタジアムの安全に貢献できる、ただしAIが安全であることが条件

AIにはスタジアム運営に貢献できる役割があります。観客の混雑をより早期に検知し、ボトルネックを解消し、施設をより効率的に管理し、ファン体験を向上させ、プレッシャーのかかる状況下でイベント運営チームをサポートすることができます。

問題への答えはすべてのAIの導入のペースを落とすことではありません。それが解決策ではありません。答えは、AIを可視化し、管理し、試合日の運営の一部となる前に安全にすることです。

スタジアムの運営チームやイベント主催者にとって、これはAIの使用を会場とサプライヤーエコシステム全体にわたってマッピングすることを意味します。また、各AIシステムが何にアクセスでき、どのようなアクションを実行できるかを理解することです。スタッフの判断で回避策を探すのに任せるのではなく、彼らのニーズを満たす承認済みのツールを提供することも重要です。ベンダーとの契約や監査にAIの利用について明記することも必要です。さらに、わかりやすい主なシステムだけではなく、環境全体で動作を監視することも大事です。スタジアムから見えないものを安全にすることはできません。

AIが、スタジアム内の人の移動、アクセスの制御、設備の管理、サプライヤーのサポート、メディアの権利保護の一部となるとき、それはもはや追加機能ではなく、イベントインフラの一部となるのです。

イベントインフラは、スタジアムのゲートが開く前に入念に準備され、安全でシームレスかつ信頼性の高いイベント体験を実現するのに必要な、オペレーショナルレジリエンスによって維持されなければなりません。

Darktraceはスタジアム運営のためのAIをどう保護できるか

ダークトレースは、10年以上にわたり構築してきたビヘイビアAIの専門技術を、複雑で曖昧な環境で機能するように設計された、組織全体をカバーするプラットフォームで提供しています。2022 FIFAワールドカップカタール大会からF1グランプリまで、Darktraceは世界のさまざまな会場や米国中のスタジアムにおいて運営を支える統合された大規模なITおよびOT環境を保護しています。

他のサイバーセキュリティ技術は、過去の攻撃に基づいて新しい攻撃を予測しようとします。しかし問題は、AIが人間のように動作することです。あらゆるアクションが新たな情報をもたらし、それによってAIの動作は変化するため、予測不可能です。過去に見られた攻撃の戦術はもはや方程式の小さな部分に過ぎません。その結果多くのベンダーは実証されていない技術を買収し、改修することによりAIの保護を行おうとしています。  

ダークトレースのアプローチは他とは根本的に異なります。ダークトレースの適応型AIは、人とAIの振る舞いを学習し続けることにより組織についての理解を構築するため、動作の逸脱が起こった時にそれを検知し自律的に対応することが可能です。ダークトレースの提供するビヘイビアベースの防御プラットフォームは、新たなワークフロー、エージェント、アプリケーションの導入に対応して組織内のAI、人、インフラを保護することにより、大規模なAI変革を可能にします。

AIによって変化する組織の潜在力。Darktraceは組織が自信を持って前へ進むのに役立ちます。ダークトレースはスタジアムインフラ内の人とテクノロジーを保護するセキュリティチームに対し、新たなテクノロジーの導入を保護するのに必要な理解、可視性、自律的アクションを提供し、AI時代を構築するための変革を後押しします。

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Karim Benslimane
VP, Field CISO

Blog

/

AI

/

July 15, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Three shifts have reshaped what it means to defend an enterprise securely.  

First, exploitation often begins before defenders have a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifier, a security advisory, or an entry in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Secondly, the trust boundary has moved beyond the network edge into identities, tokens, APIs, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) workflows.  

Third, an increasing share of business activity is executed through automation, integrations, and AI agent-like systems that can act faster than teams can verify intent.  

If your security model still relies on detecting known bad artefacts, triaging isolated alerts, and waiting for confirmation before acting, you are already behind the threat.  

This is not a failure of security teams; it’s a failure of the operating model to keep pace with how the environment has changed.

A SOC built around alerts and signatures assumes that malicious activity will eventually surface as an event. In real incidents, however, the decisive evidence is rarely a single event. Instead, it is a chain of individually explainable actions that only appears malicious once you connect the dots across identity, non-human identity, cloud, email, SaaS, operational technology (OT), and network telemetry.

The defenders succeeding today observe behaviors, link them into sequences, understand what those sequences mean, and contain impact before the full story unfolds. That is the operating model the current threat environment demands.  

Exploitation before disclosure

The first shift is the straightforward: the time to exploit has dropped to nearly zero.  

In one example, Darktrace observed a sequence of subtle but strategically significant anomalies within a customer environment that later aligned with exploitation of CVE‑2025‑0994 in Trimble Cityworks by likely Chinese-nexus threat actors. Behavioral indicators were visible at least 18 days before public disclosure, with related anomalies emerging 40 to 50 days earlier during the intrusion window.  

This case illustrates a familiar pattern: clusters of weak‑signal anomalies combing to form an actionable picture of intrusion long before a CVE is published. Such activity reflects long‑horizon, option‑preserving operator models often associated with mature state‑linked activity.  

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of malicious exploitation of CVE 2025-0994, later tied to Chinese-nexus threat actors targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the US, weeks before public disclosure.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, Darktrace has continued to observe the value of anomaly-based detections across a range of incidents.

CVE CVE Public Disclosure Date Darktrace Detection Date Days Between Detection of Exploitation and CVE Public Disclosure
CVE 2025 0994
(Trimble City Works)
2025-02-06 2025-01-19 18 Days
CVE 2025-24183
(Apache)
2025-03-10 2025-02-18 20 days
CVE 2025-10035
(Fortra GoAnywhere)
2025-09-18 2025-09-11 7 days

Identity is the real control plane

The second shift is that identity has replaced perimeter as the primary control plane. As Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026 illustrated, identity remains the main challenge in defending against modern intrusions. A clear example is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) case published by Darktrace in December 2025. A phishing email led to the compromise of an Office 365 account. Session hijacking bypassed multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the compromised account was used for follow-on phishing and persistence activities including the creation of malicious email rules.  

Every step in that sequence mattered. A successful login alone does not prove legitimacy. An inbox rule, on its own, may not appear catastrophic. Mail activity, viewed in isolation, may seem operationally normal. But the behavioral chain tells a different story: credential theft, token abuse, persistence, and onward compromise through a trusted identity.  

This is why the question is no longer “Did the user authenticate successfully”. The more important question is, “Does this identity action make sense right now, in this context, given what came before it?” The AiTM case shows how identity can be compromised. In practice, however, attacks rarely remained confined to identity alone.  

In another Darktrace case, a compromised SaaS account triggered activity across the email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. Viewed in isolation, none of these events were decisive. Together, however,  they formed a behavioral sequence that revealed the intrusion, with the full attack story automatically correlated and surfaced to defenders by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst.  

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the incident, including other users who connected to the suspicious redirect link after outbound phishing emails were sent.

AI accelerates the threat  

The third shift is the one many teams still underestimate: trusted tooling, integrations, and AI agent-like systems can create actions that appear legitimate but are strategically dangerous.  

The shift becomes clearer when examining how governments are now framing AI risk. In 2026, guidance published by CISA, UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Five Eyes partners warned that agentic systems expand attack surfaces, accumulate privilege, and can behave in ways that are difficult to predict or explain [1]. The advice is simple: assume unexpected behavior and design controls around it.  

The real risk is not AI usage. It is unknown autonomy: systems with credentials, data access, and action paths that can execute workflow steps without sufficient behavioral validation, traceability, or human oversight. Darktrace’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) risk analysis provides a useful framework for understanding this challenge. Over-privileged agents, content injection, and tool abuse become high-consequence risks when connected systems can dynamically retrieve data, execute actions, and communicate externally.  

Whether security teams like it or not, AI is already in the enterprise. It will help drive innovation, but it will also be abused, whether accidentally or maliciously. In each of the cases below, AI either scaled the attacker, built the tooling, or existed within the environment as something to exploit or misuse.

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

In one campaign targeting Mexican government entities, a single operator used commercial AI platforms to generate exploits, automate reconnaissance, and process large volumes of data, compressing work that would traditionally have required an entire team into a single workflow [2].  

Darktrace is also observing this trend further down the stack. In one case, Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, where an attacker used a Large Language Model (LLM) to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale.  

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com]

2. AI as an Attack Surface

Attempted AI exploitation is now appearing within customer environments. In one case involving an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was seemingly used as a stepping stone to access additional AI services. When that attempt failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining.

What is clear is that the AI layer has already become an asset worth probing, exploiting, and pivoting through. It is also clear that defenders benefit from rapidly understanding how these activities connect. In this case, Cyber AI Analyst automatically pieced together the intrusion, while Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted to the customer, enabling the activity to be contained before it could progress further.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst's investigation into a compromised LLM proxy that was abused for cryptomining activity.

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

This does not require a cinematic vision of “rogue AI.” The Salesloft incident provides a more grounded example, where AI and automation operate with legitimate access but served malicious intent. In that case, attackers abused compromised OAuth tokens associated with the Drift AI chat agent to export significant volumes of data from Salesforce environments.  

The activity resembled legitimate API usage and relied on trusted SaaS integrations rather than malware or other obvious signs of intrusion. That is precisely the challenge. Traditional security controls are good at detecting forced entry, but far less effective when a trusted application integration behaves in a way that is technically permitted yet operationally harmful.  

In these scenarios, the security challenge shifts from validating access to validating behavior.

This is what that looks like in practice: AI-linked identities executing legitimate actions that require behavioral validation rather than access validation.

Figure 4: Darktrace / SECURE AI highlights anomalous activity across AI identities, surfacing critical behavior that requires validation and containment.

Early observations from Darktrace / SECURE AI deployments reinforce this reality. Across Darktrace's observed fleet, AI service connections per deployment increased 13% during the first half of 2026, reaching over 16 million connections overall. The typical organisation now interacts with seven different AI providers, evidence that AI is no longer operating at the edges of the enterprise. It is increasingly woven into day-to-day business activity.

The most common risks are not compromised models or advanced AI attacks. Instead, they stem from employees and business functions exposing sensitive information through entirely legitimate-looking interactions. Darktrace has observed repeated submission of personally identifiable information (PII), tax information, identification documents, and medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread use of unsanctioned (shadow) AI services and growing AI activity from mobile devices.  

For defenders, the challenge is increasingly one of context: understanding when legitimate business use crosses into material risk, while preserving privacy and user trust.

Conclusion

Across all three shifts, the pattern is the same: behavior precedes understanding. Security teams are not losing because adversaries have become invisible. An increasingly outdated security model assumes that malicious activity will reveal itself cleanly and early. It no longer does.  

In 2026 and beyond, defenders win by understanding behavioral sequences, continuously validating trust, and acting before certainty becomes hindsight. That is security after signatures. That is security in the AI era.

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

[1] https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services  

[2]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-26/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-ai-to-steal-mexican-government-data

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Jones
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