June 19, 2023

Darktrace Detection of 3CX Supply Chain Attack

Explore how the 3CX supply chain compromise was uncovered, revealing key insights into the detection of sophisticated cyber threats.

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

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

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Jun 2023

Ever since the discovery of the SolarWinds hack that affected tens of thousands of organizations around the world in 2020, supply chain compromises have remained at the forefront of the minds of security teams and continue to pose a significant threat to their business operations.

Supply chain compromises can have far-reaching implications, from disrupting an organization’s daily operations, incurring huge financial and reputational damage, to affecting the critical infrastructure of entire countries. As such, it is essential for organizations to have effective security measures in place able to identify and halt these attacks at the earliest possible stage.

In March 2023 the 3CX Desktop application became the latest victim of a supply chain compromise dubbed as the “SmoothOperator” by SentinelOne. This application is used by over 600,000 companies worldwide and the customer list contains high-profile customers across a variety of industries [2]. The 3CX Desktop application is a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communication software for enterprises that allows for chats, video calls, and voice calls. [3] The 3CX installers for both Windows and macOS systems were affected by information stealing malware. Researchers were able to discern that threat actors also known as UNC 4736 related to financially motivated North Korean operators also known as AppleJeus were responsible for the supply chain compromise. Researchers have also linked it to another supply chain compromise that occurred prior on the Trading Technologies X_TRADER platform, making this the first known cascading software supply chain compromise used to distribute malware on a wide scale and still be able to align operator interests. [3] Customer reports following the compromise began to surface about the 3CX software being picked up as malicious by several cybersecurity vendors such as CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, and Palo Alto Networks. [6]

By leveraging integrations with other security vendors like CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, Darktrace DETECT™ was able to identify activity from the “SmoothOperator” across the customer base at multiple stages of the kill chain in March 2023. Darktrace RESPOND™ was then able to autonomously intervene against these emerging threats, preventing significant disruption to customer networks.

Background on the first known cascading supply chain attack

Initial Access

In April 2023, security researchers identified the initial target in this story was not the 3CX desktop application, rather, it was another software application called X_TRADER by Trading Technologies. [3] Trading Technologies is a provider that offers high-performance financial trading packages, allowing financial professionals to analyze and trade assets within the stock market more efficiently. Unfortunately, a compromise already existed in the supply chain for this organization. The X_TRADER installer, which had been retired in 2020, still had its code signing certificate set to expire in October 2022. This code signing certificate was exploited by attackers to digitally sign the malicious software. [3] It also inopportunely led to 3CX when an employee unknowingly downloaded a trojanized installer for the X_TRADER software from Trading Technologies prior to the certificate’s expiration. [4]. This compromise of 3CX via X_TRADER was the first case of a cascading supply chain attack reported on within the wider threat landscape.

Persistence and Privilege Escalation

Following these findings, researchers were able to identify the likely kill chain that occurred on Windows systems, beginning with the download of the 3CX DesktopApp installer that executed an executable (.exe) file before dropping two trojanized Data Link Libraries (DLLs) alongside a benign executable that was used to sideload malicious DLLs. These DLLs contained and used SIGFLIP and DAVESHELL; both publicly available projects. [3] In this case, the DLLs were used to decrypt using an RC4 key and load a payload into the memory of a compromised system. [3] SIGFLIP and DAVESHELL also extract and decrypt the modular backdoor named VEILEDSIGNAL, which also contains a command and control (C2) configuration. This malware allowed the North Korean threat operators to gain administrative control to the 3CX employee’s device. [3] This was followed by access to the employee’s corporate credentials, ultimately leading to access to 3CX systems. [4]

Lateral Movement and C2 activity

Security researchers were also able to identify other malware families that were mainly utilized in the supply chain attack to move laterally within the 3CX environment, and allow for C2 communication [3], these malware families are detailed below:

TaxHaul: when executed it decrypts shellcode payload, observed by Mandiant to persist via DLL search-order hijacking.
Coldcat: complex downloader, which also beacons to a C2 infrastructure.
PoolRat: collects system information and executes commands. This is the malware that was found to affect macOS systems.
IconicStealer: served as a third stage payload on 3CX systems to steal data or information.

Furthermore, it was also reported early on by Kaspersky that a backdoor named Gopuram, routinely used by the North Korean threat actors Lazarus and typically used against cryptocurrency companies, was also used as a second stage payload on a limited number of 3CX’s customers compromised systems. [5]

3CX detections observed by Darktrace

CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, two of the major detection platforms with which Darktrace partners through security integrations, initially revealed that their platforms had identified the campaign appeared to be targeting 3CXDesktopApp customers in March 2023.

At this time, Darktrace was also observing this activity and alerting customers to unusual behavior on their networks. [1][7] Darktrace DETECT identified activity related to the supply chain compromise primarily through host-level alerts associated with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne integrations, as well as model breaches related to lateral movement and C2 activity.

Some of the activity related to the 3CX supply chain compromise that Darktrace detected was observed solely via integration models picking up executable and Microsoft Software Installer (msi) file downloads for the 3CXDesktopApp, suggesting the compromise likely was stopped at the endpoint device.

Figure 1: CrowdStrike integration model breach identifying 3CXDesktopApp[.]exe as possible malware on March 30, 2023.

Figure 2: The above figure, showcases the Model Breach Event Log for the CrowdStrike integration model breach shown in Figure 1.

In another case highlighted in Figure 3 and 4, security platforms were associating 3CX as malicious. The device in these figures was observed downloading a 3CXDesktopApp executable followed by an msi file about an hour later. This pattern of activity correlates with the compromise process that had been on reported, where the “SmoothOperator” malware that affected 3CX systems was able to persist through DLL side-loading of malicious DLL files delivered with benign executable files, making it difficult for traditional security tools to detect. [2][3][7]

The activity in this case was detected by the DETECT integration model, ‘High Severity Integration Malware Detection’ and was later blocked by the Darktrace RESPOND/Network model, ‘Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block’ which applied the “Enforce Pattern of Life” action to intercept the malicious download that was taking place. Darktrace RESPOND uses AI to learn every devices normal pattern of life and act autonomously to enforce its normal activity. In this event, RESPOND would not only intercept the malicious download that was taking place on the device, but also not allow the device to significantly deviate from its normal pattern of activity.

Figure 3: The Model Breach Event log for the device displays the moment in which the SentinelOne integration model breached for the 3CXDesktopApp.exe file followed subsequently by the RESPOND model, ‘Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block’, on March 29, 2023.

Figure 4: Another ‘High Severity Integration Malware Detection’ breached for the same device in Figure 3 approximately one hour later because of the msi file, 3CXDesktopApp-18.12.416.msi, which also led to the Darktrace RESPOND model, ‘Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block’, on March 29, 2023.

In a separate case, Darktrace also detected a device performing unusual SMB drive writes for the file ‘3CXDesktopApp-18.10.461.msi’. This breached the DETECT model ‘SMB Drive Write’. This model detects when a device starts writing files to another internal device it does not usually communicate with via the SMB protocol using the admin$ or drive shares.

Figure 5: This Model Breach Event log highlights the moment Darktrace captured the msi application file for the 3CXDesktopApp being transferred internally on this customer’s network, this was picked up as new activity for the device on March 28, 2023.

In a couple of other cases observed by Darktrace, connections detected were made from affected devices to 3CX compromise related endpoints. In Figure 6, the device in question was detected connecting to the endpoint, journalide[.]org. This breached the model, ‘Suspicious Self-Signed SSL’, which looks for connections being made to an endpoint with a self-signed SSL certificate which is designed to look legitimate, as self-signed certificates are often used in malware communication.

Figure 6: Model Breach Event log for connections to the 3CX C2 related endpoint, journalide[.]org, these connections breached the model Suspicious Self-Signed SSL on April 24, 2023.

On another Darktrace customer environment, a 3CX C2 endpoint, pbxphonenetwork[.]com, had already been added to the Watched Domains list around the time reports of the 3CX application software being malicious had been reported. The Watched Domains list allows Darktrace to detect if any device on the network makes connections to these domains with more scrutiny and breach a model for further visibility of threats on the network. Activity in this case was detected and subsequently blocked by a Darktrace RESPOND action, “Block connections to 89.45.67[.]160 port 443 and pbxphonenetwork[.]com on port 443”, blocking the device from connecting to this 3CX C2 endpoints on the spot (see Figure 7). This activity subsequently breached the RESPOND model, ‘Antigena Watched Domain Block’.

Figure 7: History log of the Darktrace RESPOND action applied to the device breaching the Darktrace RESPOND model, Antigena Watched Domain Block and applying the action, “Block connections to 89.45.67[.]160 port 443 and pbxphonenetwork[.]com on port 443” on March 31, 2023.

Darktrace Coverage

Utilizing integrations with Darktrace such as those with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, Darktrace was able to detect and respond to activity identified as malicious 3CX activity by CrowdStrike and SentinelOne as seen in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. This activity breached the following Darktrace DETECT models:

Integration / CrowdStrike Alert
Security Integration / High Severity Integration Malware Detection

Darktrace was also able to identify lateral movement activity such as in the case illustrated in Figure 5.

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Lastly, C2 beaconing activity from malicious endpoints associated with the 3CX compromise was also detected as seen in Figure 6, this activity breached the following Darktrace DETECT model:

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

For customers with Darktrace RESPOND configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace RESPOND models also breached to activity related to the 3CX supply chain compromise as seen in Figures 3, 4, and 7. Below are the models that breached and the following autonomous actions that were applied:

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block, “Enforce pattern of life”
Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Watched Domain Block, “Block connections to 89.45.67[.]160 port 443 and pbxphonenetwork[.]com on port 443”

Conclusion

The first known cascading supply chain compromise occurred inopportunely for 3CX but conveniently for UNC 4736 North Korean threat actors. This “SmoothOperator” compromise was detected by endpoint security platforms such as CrowdStrike who was at the cusp of this discovery when it became one of the first platforms to report on malicious activity related to the 3CX DesktopApp supply chain compromise.

Although still novel at the time and largely without reported indicators of compromise, Darktrace was able to capture and identify activity related to the 3CX compromise across its customer base, as well as respond autonomously to contain it. Darktrace was able to amplify security integrations with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, and via anomaly-based model breaches, contribute unique insights by highlighting activity in varied parts of the 3CX supply chain compromise kill chain. The “SmoothOperator” supply chain attack proves that the Darktrace suite of products, including DETECT and RESPOND, can not only act autonomously to identify and respond to novel threats, but also work with security integrations to further amplify intervention and prevent cyber disruption on customer networks.

Credit to Nahisha Nobregas, SOC Analyst and Trent Kessler, SOC Analyst.

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Framework

Resource Development

T1588 Obtain Capabilities
T1588.004 Digital Certificates
T1608 Stage Capabilities
T1608.003 Install Digital Certificate

Initial Access

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1195 Supply Chain Compromise
T1195.002 Compromise Software Supply Chain

Persistence

T1574 Hijack Execution Flow
T1574.002 DLL Side-Loading

Privilege Escalation

T1055 Process Injection
T1574 Hijack Execution Flow
T1574.002 DLL Side-Loading

Command and Control

T1071 Application Layer Protocol
T1071.001 Web Protocols
T1071.004 DNS
T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer
T1573 Encrypted Channel

List of IOCs

C2 Hostnames

journalide[.]org
pbxphonenetwork[.]com

Likely C2 IP address

89.45.67[.]160

References

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Malware Research Engineer

•

February 3, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

February 3, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

Introduction

The aim of this blog is to be an educational resource, documenting how an analyst can perform malware analysis techniques such as unpacking. This blog will demonstrate the malware analysis process against well-known malware, in this case SnappyBee.

SnappyBee (also known as Deed RAT) is a modular backdoor that has been previously attributed to China-linked cyber espionage group Salt Typhoon, also known as Earth Estries [1] [2]. The malware was first publicly documented by TrendMicro in November 2024 as part of their investigation into long running campaigns targeting various industries and governments by China-linked threat groups.

In these campaigns, SnappyBee is deployed post-compromise, after the attacker has already obtained access to a customer's system, and is used to establish long-term persistence as well as deploying further malware such as Cobalt Strike and the Demodex rootkit.

To decrease the chance of detection, SnappyBee uses a custom packing routine. Packing is a common technique used by malware to obscure its true payload by hiding it and then stealthily loading and executing it at runtime. This hinders analysis and helps the malware evade detection, especially during static analysis by both human analysts and anti-malware services.

This blog is a practical guide on how an analyst can unpack and analyze SnappyBee, while also learning the necessary skills to triage other malware samples from advanced threat groups.

First principles

Packing is not a new technique, and threat actors have generally converged on a standard approach. Packed binaries typically feature two main components: the packed data and an unpacking stub, also called a loader, to unpack and run the data.

Typically, malware developers insert a large blob of unreadable data inside an executable, such as in the .rodata section. This data blob is the true payload of the malware, but it has been put through a process such as encryption, compression, or another form of manipulation to render it unreadable. Sometimes, this data blob is instead shipped in a different file, such as a .dat file, or a fake image. When this happens, the main loader has to read this using a syscall, which can be useful for analysis as syscalls can be easily identified, even in heavily obfuscated binaries.

In the main executable, malware developers will typically include an unpacking stub that takes the data blob, performs one or more operations on it, and then triggers its execution. In most samples, the decoded payload data is loaded into a newly allocated memory region, which will then be marked as executable and executed. In other cases, the decoded data is instead dropped into a new executable on disk and run, but this is less common as it increases the likelihood of detection.

Finding the unpacking routine

The first stage of analysis is uncovering the unpacking routine so it can be reverse engineered. There are several ways to approach this, but it is traditionally first triaged via static analysis on the initial stages available to the analyst.

SnappyBee consists of two components that can be analyzed:

A Dynamic-link Library (DLL) that acts as a loader, responsible for unpacking the malicious code
A data file shipped alongside the DLL, which contains the encrypted malicious code

Additionally, SnappyBee includes a legitimate signed executable that is vulnerable to DLL side-loading. This means that when the executable is run, it will inadvertently load SnappyBee’s DLL instead of the legitimate one it expects. This allows SnappyBee to appear more legitimate to antivirus solutions.

The first stage of analysis is performing static analysis of the DLL. This can be done by opening the DLL within a disassembler such as IDA Pro. Upon opening the DLL, IDA will display the DllMain function, which is the malware’s initial entry point and the first code executed when the DLL is loaded.

First, the function checks if the variable fdwReason is set to 1, and exits if it is not. This variable is set by Windows to indicate why the DLL was loaded. According to Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN), a value of 1 corresponds to DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH, meaning “The DLL is being loaded into the virtual address space of the current process as a result of the process starting up or as a result of a call to LoadLibrary” [3]. Since SnappyBee is known to use DLL sideloading for execution, DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH is the expected value when the legitimate executable loads the malicious DLL.

SnappyBee then uses the GetModule and GetProcAddress to dynamically resolve the address of the VirtualProtect in kernel32 and StartServiceCtrlDispatcherW in advapi32. Resolving these dynamically at runtime prevents them from showing up as a static import for the module, which can help evade detection by anti-malware solutions. Different regions of memory have different permissions to control what they can be used for, with the main ones being read, write, and execute. VirtualProtect is a function that changes the permissions of a given memory region.

SnappyBee then uses VirtualProtect to set the memory region containing the code for the StartServiceCtrlDispatcherW function as writable. It then inserts a jump instruction at the start of this function, redirecting the control flow to one of the SnappyBee DLL’s other functions, and then restores the old permissions.

In practice, this means when the legitimate executable calls StartServiceCtrlDispatcherW, it will immediately hand execution back to SnappyBee. Meanwhile, the call stack now appears more legitimate to outside observers such as antimalware solutions.

The hooked-in function then reads the data file that is shipped with SnappyBee and loads it into a new memory allocation. This pattern of loading the file into memory likely means it is responsible for unpacking the next stage.

Figure 2: The start of the unpacking routine that reads in dbindex.dat.

SnappyBee then proceeds to decrypt the memory allocation and execute the code.

Figure 3: The memory decryption routine.

This section may look complex, however it is fairly straight forward. Firstly, it uses memset to zero out a stack variable, which will be used to store the decryption key. It then uses the first 16 bytes of the data file as a decryption key to initialize the context from.

SnappyBee then calls the mbed_tls_arc4_crypt function, which is a function from the mbedtls library. Documentation for this function can be found online and can be referenced to better understand what each of the arguments mean [4].

The documentation for mbedtls_arc4_crypt. — Figure 4: The documentation for mbedtls_arc4_ crypt.

Comparing the decompilation with the documentation, the arguments SnappyBee passes to the function can be decoded as:

The context derived from 16-byte key at the start of the data is passed in as the context in the first parameter
The file size minus 16 bytes (to account for the key at the start of the file) is the length of the data to be decrypted
A pointer to the file contents in memory, plus 16 bytes to skip the key, is used as the input
A pointer to a new memory allocation obtained from VirtualAlloc is used as the output

So, putting it all together, it can be concluded that SnappyBee uses the first 16 bytes as the key to decrypt the data that follows , writing the output into the allocated memory region.

SnappyBee then calls VirtualProtect to set the decrypted memory region as Read + Execute, and subsequently executes the code at the memory pointer. This is clearly where the unpacked code containing the next stage will be placed.

Unpacking the malware

Understanding how the unpacking routine works is the first step. The next step is obtaining the actual code, which cannot be achieved through static analysis alone.

There are two viable methods to retrieve the next stage. The first method is implementing the unpacking routine from scratch in a language like Python and running it against the data file.

This is straightforward in this case, as the unpacking routine in relatively simple and would not require much effort to re-implement. However, many unpacking routines are far more complex, which leads to the second method: allowing the malware to unpack itself by debugging it and then capturing the result. This is the approach many analysts take to unpacking, and the following will document this method to unpack SnappyBee.

As SnappyBee is 32-bit Windows malware, debugging can be performed using x86dbg in a Windows sandbox environment to debug SnappyBee. It is essential this sandbox is configured correctly, because any mistake during debugging could result in executing malicious code, which could have serious consequences.

Before debugging, it is necessary to disable the DYNAMIC_BASE flag on the DLL using a tool such as setdllcharacteristics. This will stop ASLR from randomizing the memory addresses each time the malware runs and ensures that it matches the addresses observed during static analysis.

The first place to set a breakpoint is DllMain, as this is the start of the malicious code and the logical place to pause before proceeding. Using IDA, the functions address can be determined; in this case, it is at offset 10002DB0. This can be used in the Goto (CTRL+G) dialog to jump to the offset and place a breakpoint. Note that the “Run to user code” button may need to be pressed if the DLL has not yet been loaded by x32dbg, as it spawns a small process to load the DLL as DLLs cannot be executed directly.

The program can then run until the breakpoint, at which point the program will pause and code recognizable from static analysis can be observed.

Figure 5: The x32dbg dissassembly listing forDllMain.

In the previous section, this function was noted as responsible for setting up a hook, and in the disassembly listing the hook address can be seen being loaded at offset 10002E1C. It is not necessary to go through the whole hooking process, because only the function that gets hooked in needs to be run. This function will not be naturally invoked as the DLL is being loaded directly rather than via sideloading as it expects. To work around this, the Extended Instruction Pointer (EIP) register can be manipulated to point to the start of the hook function instead, which will cause it to run instead of the DllMain function.

To update EIP, the CRTL+G dialog can again be used to jump to the hook function address (10002B50), and then the EIP register can be set to this address by right clicking the first instruction and selecting “Set EIP here”. This will make the hook function code run next.

Figure 6: The start of the hookedin-in function

Once in this function, there are a few addresses where breakpoints should be set in order to inspect the state of the program at critical points in the unpacking process. These are:

- 10002C93, which allocates the memory for the data file and final code

- 10002D2D, which decrypts the memory

- 10002D81, which runs the unpacked code

Setting these can be done by pressing the dot next to the instruction listing, or via the CTRL+G Goto menu.

At the first breakpoint, the call to VirtualAlloc will be executed. The function returns the memory address of the created memory region, which is stored in the EAX register. In this case, the region was allocated at address 00700000.

Figure 7: The result of the VirtualAlloc call.

It is possible to right click the address and press “Follow in dump” to pin the contents of the memory to the lower pane, which makes it easy to monitor the region as the unpacking process continues.

*Figure 8: The allocated memory region shown in x32dbg’s dump.*

Single-stepping through the application from this point eventually reaches the call to ReadFile, which loads the file into the memory region.

*Figure 9: The allocated memory region after the file is read into it, showing high entropy data.*

The program can then be allowed to run until the next breakpoint, which after single-stepping will execute the call to mbedtls_arc4_crypt to decrypt the memory. At this point, the data in the dump will have changed.

*Figure 10: The same memory region after the decryption is run, showing lower entropy data.*

Right-clicking in the dump and selecting "Disassembly” will disassemble the data. This yields valid shell code, indicating that the unpacking succeeded, whereas corrupt or random data would be expected if the unpacking had failed.

*Figure 11: The disassembly view of the allocated memory.*

Right-clicking and selecting “Follow in memory map” will show the memory allocation under the memory map view. Right-clicking this then provides an option to dump the entire memory block to file.

*Figure 12: Saving the allocated memory region.*

This dump can then be opened in IDA, enabling further static analysis of the shellcode. Reviewing the shellcode, it becomes clear that it performs another layer of unpacking.

As the debugger is already running, the sample can be allowed to execute up to the final breakpoint that was set on the call to the unpacked shellcode. Stepping into this call will then allow debugging of the new shellcode.

The simplest way to proceed is to single-step through the code, pausing on each call instruction to consider its purpose. Eventually, a call instruction that points to one of the memory regions that were assigned will be reached, which will contain the next layer of unpacked code. Using the same disassembly technique as before, it can be confirmed that this is more unpacked shellcode.

Figure 13: The unpacked shellcode’s call to RDI, which points to more unpacked shellcode. Note this screenshot depicts the 64-bit variant of SnappyBee instead of 32-bit, however the theory is the same.

Once again, this can be dumped out and analyzed further in IDA. In this case, it is the final payload used by the SnappyBee malware.

Conclusion

Unpacking remains one of the most common anti-analysis techniques and is a feature of most sophisticated malware from threat groups. This technique of in-memory decryption reduces the forensic “surface area” of the malware, helping it to evade detection from anti-malware solutions. This blog walks through one such example and provides practical knowledge on how to unpack malware for deeper analysis.

In addition, this blog has detailed several other techniques used by threat actors to evade analysis, such as DLL sideloading to execute code without arising suspicion, dynamic API resolving to bypass static heuristics, and multiple nested stages to make analysis challenging.

Malware such as SnappyBee demonstrates a continued shift towards highly modular and low-friction malware toolkits that can be reused across many intrusions and campaigns. It remains vital for security teams to maintain the ability to combat the techniques seen in these toolkits when responding to infections.

While the technical details of these techniques are primarily important to analysts, the outcomes of this work directly affect how a Security Operations Centre (SOC) operates at scale. Without the technical capability to reliably unpack and observe these samples, organizations are forced to respond without the full picture.

The techniques demonstrated here help close that gap. This enables security teams to reduce dwell time by understanding the exact mechanisms of a sample earlier, improve detection quality with behavior-based indicators rather than relying on hash-based detections, and increase confidence in response decisions when determining impact.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

SnappyBee Loader 1 - 25b9fdef3061c7dfea744830774ca0e289dba7c14be85f0d4695d382763b409b

SnappyBee Loader 2 - b2b617e62353a672626c13cc7ad81b27f23f91282aad7a3a0db471d84852a9ac

SnappyBee Payload - 1a38303fb392ccc5a88d236b4f97ed404a89c1617f34b96ed826e7bb7257e296

References

[1] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_gb/research/24/k/earth-estries.html

[2] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/salty-much-darktraces-view-on-a-recent-salt-typhoon-intrusion

[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/dlls/dllmain#parameters

[4] https://mbed-tls.readthedocs.io/projects/api/en/v2.28.4/api/file/arc4_8h/#_CPPv418mbedtls_arc4_cryptP20mbedtls_arc4_context6size_tPKhPh

About the author

Nathaniel Bill

Malware Research Engineer

Blog

AI

February 3, 2026

The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders

2025 was the year enterprise AI went mainstream. In 2026, it’s made its way into every facet of the organizational structure – transforming workflows, revolutionizing productivity, and creating new value streams. In short, it’s opened up a whole new attack surface.

At the same time, AI has accelerated the pace of cybersecurity arms race on both sides: adversaries are innovating using the latest AI technologies at their disposal while defenders scramble to outmaneuver them and stay ahead of AI-powered threats.

That’s why Darktrace publishes this research every year. The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 provides an annual snapshot of how the AI threat landscape is shifting, where organizations are adopting AI to maximum advantage, and how they are securing AI in the enterprise.

What is the State of AI Cybersecurity 2026?

We surveyed over 1,500 CISOs, IT leaders, administrators, and practitioners from a range of industries and different countries to uncover their attitudes, understanding, and priorities when it comes to AI threats, agents, tools, and operations in 2026. 

The results show a fast-changing picture, as security leaders race to navigate the challenges and opportunities at play. Since last year, there has been enormous progress towards maturity in areas like AI literacy and confidence in AI-powered defense, while issues around AI governance remain inconclusive.

Let’s look at some of the key findings for 2026.

What’s the impact of AI on the attack surface?

Security leaders are seeing the adoption of AI agents across the workforce, and are increasingly concerned about the security implications.

44% are extremely or very concerned with the security implications of third-party LLMs (like Copilot or ChatGPT)
92% are concerned about the use of AI agents across the workforce and their impact on security

The rapid expansion of generative AI across the enterprise is outpacing the security frameworks designed to govern it. AI systems behave in ways that traditional defenses are not designed to monitor, introducing new risks around data exposure, unauthorized actions, and opaque decision-making as employees embed generative AI and autonomous agents into everyday workflows.

Their top concerns? Sensitive data exposure ranks top (61%), while regulatory compliance violations are a close second (56%). These risks tend to have the fastest and most material fallout – ranging from fines to reputational harm – and are more likely to materialize in environments where AI governance is still evolving.

What’s the impact of AI on the cyber threat landscape?

AI is now being used to expedite every stage of the attack kill chain – from initial intrusion to privilege escalation and data exfiltration. 

“73% say that AI-powered threats are already having a significant impact on their organization.”

With AI, attackers can launch novel attacks at scale, and this is significantly increasing the number of threats requiring attention by the security team – often to the point of overwhelm.

Traditional security solutions relying on historical attack data were never designed to handle an environment where attacks continuously evolve, multiply, and optimize at machine speed, so it’s no surprise that 92% agree that AI-powered cyber-threats are forcing them to significantly upgrade their defenses.

How is AI reshaping cybersecurity operations?

Cybersecurity workflows are still in flux as security leaders get used to the integration of AI agents into everyday operations.

“Generative AI is now playing a role in 77% of security stacks.” But only 35% are using unsupervised machine learning.

AI technologies are diverse, ranging from LLMs to NLP systems, GANs, and unsupervised machine learning, with each type offering specific capabilities and facing particular limitations. The lack of familiarity with the different types of AI used within the security stack may be holding some practitioners back from using these new technologies to their best advantage.

It also creates a lack of trust between humans and AI systems: only 14% of security professionals allow AI to take independent remediation actions in the SOC with no human in the loop.

Another new trend for this year is a strong preference (85%) for relying on Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) for SOC services instead of in-house teams, as organizations aim to secure expert, always-on support without the cost and operational burden of running an internal operation.

What impact is AI having on cybersecurity tools?

“96% of cybersecurity professionals agree that AI can significantly improve the speed and efficiency with which they work.”

The capacity of AI for augmenting security efforts is undisputed. But as vendor AI claims become far-reaching, it falls to security leaders to clarify which AI tools offer true value and can help solve their specific security challenges.

Security professionals are aligned on the biggest area of impact: 72% agree that AI excels at detecting anomalies thanks to its advanced pattern recognition. This enables it to identify unusual behavior that may signal a threat, even when the specific attack has never been encountered or recorded in existing datasets.

“When purchasing new security capabilities, 93% prefer ones that are part of a broader platform over individual point products.”

Like last year, the drive towards platform consolidation remains strong. Fewer vendors can mean tighter integrations, less console switching, streamlined management, and stronger cross-domain threat insights. The challenge is finding vendors that perform well across the board.

See the full report for more statistics and insights into how security leaders are responding to the AI landscape in 2026.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Darktrace Detection of 3CX Supply Chain Attack

Darktrace Detection of 3CX Supply Chain Attack

Background on the first known cascading supply chain attack

Initial Access

Persistence and Privilege Escalation

Lateral Movement and C2 activity

3CX detections observed by Darktrace

Darktrace Coverage

Conclusion

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Framework

List of IOCs

References

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

The State of Cybersecurity in the Finance Sector: Six Trends to Watch

Darktrace Identifies Campaign Targeting South Korea Leveraging VS Code for Remote Access

Blog

Network

February 3, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Unpacking SnappyBee

Introduction

First principles

Finding the unpacking routine

Conclusion

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

AI

February 3, 2026

The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders

What is the State of AI Cybersecurity 2026?

What’s the impact of AI on the attack surface?

What’s the impact of AI on the cyber threat landscape?

How is AI reshaping cybersecurity operations?

What impact is AI having on cybersecurity tools?