Blog
/
Network
/
September 21, 2023

How Darktrace Detected Black Basta Ransomware

Discover how Darktrace uncovered Black Basta ransomware. Learn about its tactics, techniques, and how to protect your network from this threat.
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
Matthew John
Director of Operations, SOC
Default blog image
21
Sep 2023

What is Black Basta?

Over the past year, security researchers have been tracking a new ransomware group, known as Black Basta, that has been observed targeted organizations worldwide to deploy double extortion ransomware attacks since early 2022. While the strain and group are purportedly new, evidence seen suggests they are an offshoot of the Conti ransomware group [1].

The group behind Black Basta run a Ransomware as a Service (RaaS) model. They work with initial access brokers who will typically already have a foothold in company infrastructure to begin their attacks. Once inside a network, they then pivot internally using numerous tools to further their attack.

Black Basta Ransomware

Like many other ransomware actors, Black Basta uses double extortion as part of its modus operandi, exfiltrating sensitive company data and using the publication of this as a second threat to affected companies. This is also advertised on a dark web site, setup by the group to apply further pressure for affected companies to make ransom payments and avoid reputational damage.

The group also seems to regularly take advantage of existing tools to undertake the earlier stages of their attacks. Notably, the Qakbot banking trojan, seems to be the malware often used to gain an initial foothold within compromised environments.

Analysis of the tools, procedures and infrastructure used by Black Basta belies a maturity to the actors behind the ransomware. Their models and practices suggest those involved are experienced individuals, and security researchers have drawn possible links to the Conti ransomware group.

As such, Black Basta is a particular concern for security teams as attacks will likely be more sophisticated, with attackers more patient and able to lie low on digital estates for longer, waiting for the opportune moment to strike.

Cyber security is an infinite game where defender and attacker are stuck as cat and mouse; as new attacks evolve, security vendors and teams respond to the new indicators of compromise (IoCs), and update their existing rulesets and lists. As a result, attackers are forced to change their stripes to evade detection or sometimes even readjust their targets and end goals.

Anomaly Based Detection

By using the power of Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI, security teams are able to detect deviations in behavior. Threat actors need to move through the kill chain to achieve their aims, and in doing so will cause affected devices within networks to deviate from their expected pattern of life. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows it recognize these subtle deviations that indicate the presence of an attacker, and stop them in their tracks.

Additionally, the ecosystem of cyber criminals has matured in the last few decades. It is well documented how many groups now operate akin to legitimate companies, with structure, departments and governance. As such, while new attack methods and tactics do appear in the wild, the maturity in their business models belie the experience of those behind the attack.

As attackers grow their business models and develop their arsenal of attack vectors, it becomes even more critical for security teams to remain vigilant to anomalies within networks, and remain agnostic to underlying IoCs and instead adopt anomaly detection tools able to identify tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) that indicate attackers may be moving through a network, ahead of deployment of ransomware and data encryption.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Black Basta

In April 2023, the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) assisted a customer in triaging and responding to an ongoing ransomware infection on their network. On a Saturday, the customer reached out directly to the Darktrace analyst team via the Ask the Expert service for support after they observed encrypted files and locked administrative accounts on their network. The analyst team were able to investigate and clarify the attack path, identifying affected devices and assisting the customer with their remediation. Darktrace DETECT™ observed varying IoCs and TTPs throughout the course of this attack’s kill chain; subsequent analysis into these indicators revealed this had likely been a case of Black Basta seen in the wild.

Initial Intrusion

The methods used by the  group to gain an initial foothold in environments varies – sometimes using phishing, sometimes gaining access through a common vulnerability exposed to the internet. Black Basta actors appear to target specific organizations, as opposed to some groups who aim to hit multiple at once in a more opportunistic fashion.

In the case of the Darktrace customer likely affected by Black Basta, it is probable that the initial intrusion was out of scope. It may be that the path was via a phishing email containing an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that launches malicious powershell commands; a noted technique for Black Basta. [3][4]  Alternatively, the group may have worked with access brokers who already had a foothold within the customer’s network.

One particular device on the network was observed acting anomalously and was possibly the first to be infected. The device attempted to connect to multiple internal devices over SMB, and connected to a server that was later found to be compromised and is described throughout the course of this blog. During this connection, it wrote a file over SMB, “syncro.exe”, which is possibly a legitimate Remote Management software but could in theory be used to spread an infection laterally. Use of this tool otherwise appears sporadic for the network, and was notably unusual for the environment.

Given these timings, it is possible this activity is related to the likely Black Basta compromise. However, there is some evidence online that use of Syncro has been seen installed as part of the execution of loaders such as Batloader, potentially indicating a separate or concurrent attack [5].

Internal Reconnaissance + Lateral Movement

However the attackers gained access in this instance, the first suspicious activity observed by Darktrace originated from an infected server. The attacker used their foothold in the device to perform internal reconnaissance, enumerating large portions of the network. Darktrace DETECT’s anomaly detection noted a distinct rise in connections to a large number of subnets, particularly to closed ports associated with native Windows services, including:

  • 135 (RPC)
  • 139 (NetBIOS)
  • 445 (SMB)
  • 3389 (RDP)

During the enumeration, SMB connections were observed during which suspiciously named executable files were written:

  • delete.me
  • covet.me

Data Staging and Exfiltration

Around 4 hours after the scanning activity, the attackers used their knowledge gained during enumeration about the environment to begin gathering and staging data for their double extortion attempts. Darktrace observed the same infected server connecting to a file storage server, and downloading over 300 GiB of data. Darktrace DETECT identified that the connections had been made via SMB and was able to present a list of filenames to the customer, allowing their security team to determine the data that had likely been exposed to the attackers.

The SMB paths detected by Darktrace showed a range of departments’ file areas being accessed by threat actors. This suggests they were interested in getting as much varied data as possible, presumably in an attempt to ensure a large amount of valuable information was at their disposal to make any threats of releasing them more credible, and more damaging to the company.

Shortly after the download, the device made an external connection over SSH to a rare domain, dataspt[.]com, hosted in the United States. The connection itself was made over an unusual port, 2022, and Darktrace recognized that the domain was new for the network.

During this upload, the threat actors uploaded a similar volume of data to the 300GiB that had been downloaded internally earlier. Darktrace flagged the usual elements of this external upload, making the identification and triage of this exfiltration attempt easier for the customer.

On top of this, Darktrace’s autonomous investigation tool Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an investigation into this on-going activity and was able to link the external upload events to the internal download, identifying them as one exfiltration incident rather than two isolated events. AI Analyst then provided a detailed summary of the activity detected, further speeding up the identification of affected files.

Preparing for Exploitation

All the activity documented so far had occurred on a Wednesday evening. It was at this point that the burst of activity calmed, and the ransomware lay in wait within the environment. Other devices around the network, particularly those connected to by the original infected server and a domain controller, were observed performing some elements of anomalous activity, but the attack seemed to largely take a pause.

However, on the Saturday morning, 3 days later, the compromised server began to change the way it communicated with attackers by reaching out to a new command and control (C2) endpoint. It seemed that attackers were gearing up for their attack, taking advantage of the weekend to strike while security teams often run with a reduced staffing.

Darktrace identified connections to a new endpoint within 4 minutes of it first being seen on the customer’s environment. The server had begun making repeated SSL connections to the new external endpoint, faceappinc[.]com, which has been flagged as malicious by various open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources.

The observed JA3 hash (d0ec4b50a944b182fc10ff51f883ccf7) suggests that the command-line tool BITS Admin was being used to launch these connections, another suggestion of the use of mature tooling.

In addition to this, Darktrace also detected the server using an administrative credential it had never previously been associated with. Darktrace recognized that the use of this credential represented a deviation from the device’s usual activity and thus could be indicative of compromise.

The server then proceeded to use the new credential to authenticate over Keberos before writing a malicious file (“management.exe”) to the Temp directory on a number of internal devices.

Encryption

At this point, the number of anomalous activities detected from the server increased massively as the attacker seems to connect networkwide in an attempt to cause as quick and destructive an encryption effort as possible. Darktrace observed numerous files that had been encrypted by a local process. The compromised server began to write ransom notes, named “instructions_read_me.txt” to other file servers, which presumably also had successfully deployed payloads. While Black Basta actors had initially been observed dropping ransom notes named “readme.txt”, security researchers have since observed and reported an updated variant of the ransomware that drops “instructions_read_me_.txt”, the name of the file detected by Darktrace, instead [6].

Another server was also observed making repeated SSL connections to the same rare external endpoint, faceappinc[.]com. Shortly after beginning these connections, the device made an HTTP connection to a rare IP address with no hostname, 212.118.55[.]211. During this connection, the device also downloaded a suspicious executable file, cal[.]linux. OSINT research linked the hash of this file to a Black Basta Executable and Linkable File (ELF) variant, indicating that the group was highly likely behind this ransomware attack.

Of particular interest again, is how the attacker lives off the land, utilizing pre-installed Windows services. Darktrace flagged that the server was observed using PsExec, a remote management executable, on multiple devices.

Darktrace Assistance

Darktrace DETECT was able to clearly detect and provide visibility over all stages of the ransomware attack, alerting the customer with multiple model breaches and AI Analyst investigation(s) and highlighting suspicious activity throughout the course of the attack.

For example, the exfiltration of sensitive data was flagged for a number of anomalous features of the meta-data: volume; rarity of the endpoint; port and protocol used.

In total, the portion of the attack observed by Darktrace lasted about 4 days from the first model breach until the ransomware was deployed. In particular, the encryption itself was initiated on a Saturday.

The encryption event itself was initiated on a Saturday, which is not uncommon as threat actors tend to launch their destructive attacks when they expect security teams will be at their lowest capacity. The Darktrace SOC team regularly observes and assists in customer’s in the face of ransomware actors who patiently lie in wait. Attackers often choose to strike as security teams run on reduced hours of manpower, sometimes even choosing to deploy ahead of longer breaks for national or public holidays, for example.

In this case, the customer contacted Darktrace directly through the Ask the Expert (ATE) service. ATE offers customers around the clock access to Darktrace’s team of expert analysts. Customers who subscribe to ATE are able to send queries directly to the analyst team if they are in need of assistance in the face of suspicious network activity or emerging attacks.

In this example, Darktrace’s team of expert analysts worked in tandem with Cyber AI Analyst to investigate the ongoing compromise, ensuring that the investigation and response process were completed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Thanks to Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI, the analyst team were able to quickly produce a detailed report enumerating the timeline of events. By combining the human expertise of the analyst team and the machine learning capabilities of AI Analyst, Darktrace was able to quickly identify anomalous activity being performed and the affected devices. AI Analyst was then able to collate and present this information into a comprehensive and digestible report for the customer to consult.

Conclusion

It is likely that this ransomware attack was undertaken by the Black Basta group, or at least using tools related to their method. Although Black Basta itself is a relatively novel ransomware strain, there is a maturity and sophistication to its tactics. This indicates that this new group are actually experienced threat actors, with evidence pointing towards it being an offshoot of Conti.

The Pyramid of Pain is a well trodden model in cyber security, but it can help us understand the various features of an attack. Indicators like static C2 destinations or file hashes can easily be changed, but it’s the underlying TTPs that remain the same between attacks.

In this case, the attackers used living off the land techniques, making use of tools such as BITSAdmin, as well as using tried and tested malware such as Qakbot. While the domains and IPs involved will change, the way these malware interact and move about systems remains the same. Their fingerprint therefore causes very similar anomalies in network traffic, and this is where the strength of Darktrace lies.

Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection means that these new attack types are quickly drawn out of the noise of everyday traffic within an environment. Once attackers have gained a foothold in a network, they will have to cause deviation from the usual pattern of a life on a network to proceed; Darktrace is uniquely placed to detect even the most subtle changes in a device’s behavior that could be indicative of an emerging threat.

Machine learning can act as a force multiplier for security teams. Working hand in hand with the Darktrace SOC, the customer was able to generate cohesive and comprehensive reporting on the attack path within days. This would be a feat for humans alone, requiring significant resources and time, but with the power of Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI, these deep and complex analyses become as easy as the click of a button.

Credit to: Matthew John, Director of Operations, SOC, Paul Jennings, Principal Analyst Consultant

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Attackers are adapting, are you ready? This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2025.

  • Identity-based attacks: How attackers are bypassing traditional defenses
  • Zero-day exploitation: The rise of previously unknown vulnerabilities
  • AI-driven threats: How adversaries are leveraging AI to outmaneuver security controls

Stay ahead of evolving threats with expert analysis from Darktrace. Download the report here.

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

Internal Reconnaissance

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Device / Network Scan

Device / Anomalous RDP Followed by Multiple Model Breaches

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

Anomalous Connection / Possible Share Enumeration Activity

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / RDP Scan

Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

Device / Increase in New RPC Services

Device / ICMP Address Scan

Download and Upload

Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Anomalous Connection / Download and Upload

Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Unusual Activity / SMB Access Failures

Lateral Movement and Encryption

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Anomalous Connection / High Volume of New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

Additional Beaconing and Tooling

Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

Device / Multiple C2 Model Breaches

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon

Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behavior

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination

Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

dataspt[.]com - Hostname - Highly Likely Exfiltration Server

46.22.211[.]151:2022 - IP Address and Unusual Port - Highly Likely Exfiltration Server

faceappinc[.]com - Hostname - Likely C2 Infrastructure

Instructions_read_me.txt - Filename - Almost Certain Ransom Note

212.118.55[.]211 - IP Address - Likely C2 Infrastructure

delete[.]me - Filename - Potential lateral movement script

covet[.]me - Filename - Potential lateral movement script

d0ec4b50a944b182fc10ff51f883ccf7 - JA3 Client Fingerprint - Potential Windows BITS C2 Process

/download/cal.linux - URI - Likely BlackBasta executable file

1f4dcfa562f218fcd793c1c384c3006e460213a8 - Sha1 File Hash - Likely BlackBasta executable file

References

[1] https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2022/05/black-basta-rebrand-of-conti-or-something-new

[2] https://www.cybereason.com/blog/threat-alert-aggressive-qakbot-campaign-and-the-black-basta-ransomware-group-targeting-u.s.-companies

[3] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/22/e/examining-the-black-basta-ransomwares-infection-routine.html

[4] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/atoms/blackbasta-ransomware/

[5] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_gb/research/23/a/batloader-malware-abuses-legitimate-tools-uses-obfuscated-javasc.html

[6] https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/23666-black-basta-ransomware

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
Matthew John
Director of Operations, SOC

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 17, 2026

AI Is Taking on Stadium Operations. How Can Security Teams Keep it Protected?

Photo of a sports stadiumDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How to Secure AI in Stadium Operations

Key takeaways

  • AI is entering high-impact stadium functions such as access control, crowd management, ticketing, facilities, and surveillance.  
  • Shadow AI and third-party AI use can create risks that stadium security teams cannot readily see.  
  • Security teams must understand not only which AI systems exist, but also what they can access and what actions they can take.  
  • Live-event resilience requires continuous monitoring and response across AI, IT, OT, identities, and third parties.

Modern stadiums are infrastructure unlike any other. I’ve written before on event day sparking stadiums into life with shops and food stands, transport hubs, vast telecommunications infrastructure, field-side technology and beyond, acting as one super-sized, connected ecosystem. Stadiums’ scale and complexity make them some of the toughest environments in cybersecurity. Now, we’re adding AI to those operations and bringing a new dimension of risk.

The benefits of AI in stadium operations are easy to see. It can help stadium operators move fans safely through crowded gates, forecast demand at concession stands, support biometric entry, identify suspicious behavior on CCTV, and manage heating and ventilation. Used well, it can make live events safer, faster, and more efficient.

But it also changes the security model.

In Darktrace’s recent research into the threat landscape surrounding sports, we asked cybersecurity professionals protecting professional sports organizations where in their footprint a cyber compromise would have the greatest impact. The area they named most, highlighted by 34% of the professionals we spoke to, was stadium operations. At the same time, 35% said their organizations are already using AI in stadium operations, or plan to do so in the next 12 months.

Security teams are no longer just protecting traditional IT systems around a stadium. They are increasingly being asked to protect AI systems that are operating in the stadium’s most fundamental functions.

Approved AI vs. shadow AI in stadium operations

There is a clear difference between AI a stadium’s security team knows about and AI it does not.

Approved AI is the AI that has been reviewed, tested, and integrated into the venue’s operating environment. It may support CCTV analytics, access control, facility management, ticketing, logistics, broadcast operations, or anti-piracy monitoring. It should have clear ownership, access controls, logging, vendor review, and data protection rules. That does not make it risk-free, but it allows security teams to institute proper governance.

Shadow AI is different. It is the unapproved use of AI tools by employees, contractors, or suppliers. It often starts with good intent. Someone wants to work faster. A staff member pastes internal information into a public AI tool to draft a briefing. A developer uses an AI assistant to debug ticketing code. A supplier connects an AI scheduling tool to delivery routes. A designer uploads unreleased venue plans or sponsor material to generate a mockup.

None of those actions may feel like a security decision to the person doing them. But each one can move sensitive operational data into an environment the stadium does not control, creating hidden risk.

The approved AI stack may be visible to security teams. The shadow AI stack often is not.

Why game day increases AI cybersecurity risk

In a typical enterprise environment, a security team may have hours to investigate a strange login or an unexpected connection to a third-party service. Within a stadium, the moment an incident is likely to occur is also the moment when teams are at their most stretched and the incident can have the greatest repercussions: game day.

If an AI system used for crowd management behaves unexpectedly, the issue is not only technical. It may affect physical movement inside the venue.

If a supplier tool is sending operational data to an unapproved AI platform, the issue is not only data governance. It may expose delivery routes, restricted access schedules, or staffing plans.

The most dangerous scenario is not always a loud, dramatic attack but a hidden dependency that no one has mapped such as a vendor adding an AI feature through a software update or a staff workflow using an unapproved tool.

By the time the venue is live, those hidden connections can become operational risk.

The supply chain is part of the stadium attack surface

Any major sporting event is made by its supply chain and partnerships: catering firms, transport providers, broadcast systems, facilities teams. Every piece is necessary and each creates a security channel. The risk of supply chain compromise has been well established for some time and has been the source of some of the most high-profile breaches we’ve seen. The data breach at MSG Entertainment, owner of Madison Square Garden, that was widely reported in March, originated in a breach of Oracle’s E-Business Suite, used in MSG Entertainment’s back-office systems, while the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack on the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics reportedly began with the compromise of the main IT service provider for the Games. The addition of AI is heightening the risk.

A stadium can have strict rules for its own AI systems, but its vendors may be using separate tools. Some may use AI to manage staffing, delivery windows, inventory, or customer communications. Others may not realize that AI features have been added into software they already use.

This is one of the hardest parts of securing AI in stadium operations. The risk does not always come from a tool the venue selected. It may come from a tool a supplier selected or a feature the supplier did not know had been turned on.

Security teams need to treat vendor AI the same way they treat vendor access. They need to know what suppliers can connect to, what data they can see, what tools they use, and whether those tools introduce new routes for data exposure or lateral movement.

A third-party AI tool does not need deep access to create risk. Sometimes it only needs the right operational detail at the wrong time.

Four questions for securing AI in stadium operations

As AI becomes part of stadium operations, security teams need to move beyond basic approval lists. There are four questions they need to ask:

1. Where is AI being used?

This includes obvious tools, such as computer vision, access control, ticketing, logistics, and facility management. But it also includes less visible AI inside SaaS platforms, vendor tools, browser extensions, developer workflows, smart building systems, and collaboration tools.

2. What can the AI access?

Can it see incident logs, staffing plans, ticketing data, video feeds, building controls, fan information, credentials, or supplier systems? Can it only analyze information, or can it also trigger actions?

3. What can the AI do?

AI agents are not just passive tools. Some can call APIs, update records, generate instructions, trigger workflows, or act with the permissions of a user or service account. In a stadium, that distinction is critical. There is a big difference between an AI system that recommends an action and one that can take an action.

4. What does normal look like?

In your security architecture, static rules will not be enough. AI use changes quickly: tools appear inside existing platforms, vendors add new services, and staff find workarounds when they are under pressure. Security teams need to understand normal behavior across people, identities, devices, networks, cloud services, suppliers, and AI tools so they can spot when something changes.

That is especially important in live-event environments, where small anomalies can matter. A connection to an unapproved AI service may be harmless in one context and serious in another, and an AI agent taking action at 3 a.m. may be expected during setup but suspicious during a match. Context is what turns raw activity into useful security insight. It’s also what enables rapid response. Your own AI-based security systems can respond to threats at machine speed if they can build the live context to know action needs to be taken.

AI can make stadiums safer, but only if it is secured

AI has a real role to play in stadium operations. It can help teams detect crowd pressure earlier, reduce bottlenecks, manage facilities more efficiently, improve the fan experience, and support event teams during high-pressure moments.

The answer is not to slow all AI adoption. That's not the goal. The answer is to make AI visible, governed, and secure before it becomes part of match-day operations.

For stadium operators and event organizers, that means mapping AI use across the venue and supplier ecosystem. It means understanding what each AI system can access and what actions it can take. It means giving staff approved tools that meet their needs, rather than leaving them to find workarounds. It means writing AI use into vendor contracts and audits. And it means monitoring behavior across the full environment, not only the systems that are easiest to see. A stadium cannot secure what it cannot see.

When AI becomes part of how a stadium moves people, controls access, manages facilities, supports suppliers, and protects media rights, it stops being a side project. It becomes part of the event infrastructure.

Event infrastructure must be thoroughly prepared before venue gates open and sustained with the operational resilience required to support a secure, seamless, and reliable event experience.

How Darktrace helps secure AI in stadium operations

Darktrace brings more than a decade of behavioral AI expertise, built on an enterprise‑wide platform designed to operate in complex, ambiguous environments. We protect the large-scale integrated IT and OT environments that underpin stadium operations from the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, to Formula 1 Grand Prixes around the world and stadiums across the USA.

Other cybersecurity technologies try to predict each new attack based on historical attacks. The problem is that AI operates like humans do. Every action introduces new information that changes how AI behaves, making it unpredictable in nature. Historical attack tactics are now only a small part of the equation, forcing vendors to retrofit unproven acquisitions to secure AI.  

Darktrace is fundamentally different. Our Adaptive AI continuously learns how your people and AI behave, building an understanding of your organization so it can detect and respond autonomously when behavior deviates. Our Behavioral Defense Platform secures your AI, people, and infrastructure as you onboard new workflows, agents, and applications, enabling your AI transformation at scale.

As AI changes what organizations can do, Darktrace helps them move forward with confidence. We give the security teams defending the people and technology within stadium infrastructure the understanding, visibility, and autonomous action they need to protect new technologies as they are integrated into operations, so their organizations drive the progress that will define the AI era.

[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
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI