Blog
/
Network
/
November 13, 2024

Tactics Behind the Royal and Blacksuit Ransomware

Delve into the complexities of the Royal and Blacksuit ransomware strains and their implications for cybersecurity in today’s digital landscape.
Written by
Signe Zaharka
Principal Cyber 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
Signe Zaharka
Principal Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
13
Nov 2024

What is BlackSuit Ransomware?

Since late 2023, Darktrace has detected BlackSuit ransomware infiltrating multiple customer networks in the US. This ransomware has targeted a wide range of industries, including arts, entertainment, real estate, public administration, defense, and social security.

Emerging in May 2023, BlackSuit is believed to be a spinoff of Royal ransomware due to similarities in code and Conti, and most likely consists of Russian and Eastern European hackers [1]. Recorded Future reported that the ransomware had affected 95 organizations worldwide, though the actual number is likely much higher [2]. While BlackSuit does not appear to focus on any particular sector, it has targeted multiple organizations in the healthcare, education, IT, government, retail and manufacturing industries [3]. Employing double extortion tactics, BlackSuit not only encrypts files but also steals sensitive data to leverage ransom payments.

BlackSuit has demanded over USD 500 million in ransoms, with the highest individual demand reaching USD 60 million [4]. Notable targets include CDK Global, Japanese media conglomerate Kadokawa, multiple educational institutions, Octapharma Plasma, and the government of Brazil [5][6][7][8].

Darktrace’s Coverage of BlackSuit Ransomware Attack

Case 1, November 2023

The earliest attack on a Darktrace customer by BlackSuit was detected at the start of November 2023. The unusual network activity began on a weekend—a time commonly chosen by ransomware groups to increase their chances of success, as many security teams operate with reduced staff. Darktrace identified indicators of the attackers’ presence on the network for almost two weeks, during which a total of 15 devices exhibited suspicious behavior.

The attack commenced with unusual internal SMB (Server Message Block) connections using a compromised service account. An internal device uploaded an executable (zzza.exe) to a domain controller (DC) and shortly after, wrote a script (socks5.ps1) to another device. According to a Cybersecurity Advisory from the CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, US), the script file was a PowerShell reverse proxy [9].

Approximately an hour and a half later, the device to which the script was written exhibited uncommon WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation) activity. Two hours after receiving the executable file, the DC was observed making an outgoing NTLM request, using PowerShell to remotely execute commands, distributing differently named executable files (<PART OF THE CUSTOMER’S NAME>.exe), and controlling services on other devices.

Eighteen hours after the start of the unusual activity, Darktrace detected another device making repeated connections to “mystuff.bublup[.]com”, which the aforementioned CISA Advisory identifies as a domain used by BlackSuit for data exfiltration [9].

About ten minutes after the suspicious executables were distributed across the network, and less than 24 hours after the start of the unusual activity, file encryption began. A total of ten devices were seen appending the “.blacksuit” extension to files saved on other devices using SMB, as well as writing ransom notes (readme.blacksuit.txt). The file encryption lasted less than 20 minutes.

An example of the contents of a BlackSuit ransom note being written over SMB.
Figure 1: An example of the contents of a BlackSuit ransom note being written over SMB.

During this compromise, external connections to endpoints related to ConnectWise’s ScreenConnect remote management tool were also seen from multiple servers, suggesting that the tool was likely being abused for command-and-control (C2) activity. Darktrace identified anomalous connectivity associated with ScreenConnect was seen up to 11 days after the start of the attack.

10 days after the start of the compromise, an account belonging to a manager was detected adding “.blacksuit” extensions to the customer’s Software-a-Service (SaaS) resources while connecting from 173.251.109[.]106. Six minutes after file encryption began, Darktrace flagged the unusual activity and recommended a block. However, since Autonomous Response mode was not enabled, the customer’s security team needed to manually confirm the action. Consequently, suspicious activity continued for about a week after the initial encryption. This included disabling authentication on the account and an unusual Teams session initiated from the suspicious external endpoint 216.151.180[.]147.

Case 2, February 2024

Another BlackSuit compromise occurred at the start of February 2024, when Darktrace identified approximately 50 devices exhibiting ransomware-related activity in another US customer’s environment. Further investigation revealed that a significant number of additional devices had also been compromised. These devices were outside Darktrace’s purview to the customer’s specific deployment configuration. The threat actors managed to exfiltrate around 4 TB of data.

Initial access to the network was gained via a virtual private network (VPN) compromise in January 2024, when suspicious connections from a Romanian IP address were detected. According to CISA, the BlackSuit group often utilizes the services of initial access brokers (IAB)—actors who specialize in infiltrating networks, such as through VPNs, and then selling that unauthorized access to other threat actors [9]. Other initial access vectors include phishing emails, RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) compromise, and exploitation of vulnerable public-facing applications.

Similar to the first case, the file encryption began at the end of the working week. During this phase of the attack, affected devices were observed encrypting files on other internal devices using two compromised administrator accounts. The encryption activity lasted for approximately six and a half hours. Multiple alerts were sent to the customer from Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) team, who began reviewing the activity within four minutes of the start of the file encryption.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst clustering together multiple events related to unusual activity on the network, including file encryption over SMB by BlackSuit.
Figure 2: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst clustering together multiple events related to unusual activity on the network, including file encryption over SMB by BlackSuit.
Figure 3: A spike in model alerts on the day when file encryption by BlackSuit was observed in the network.

In this case, the threat actor utilized SystemBC proxy malware for command and control (C2). A domain controller (DC) was seen connecting to 137.220.61[.]94 on the same day the file encryption took place. The DC was also observed connecting to a ProxyScrape domain around the same time, which is related to the SOCKS5 protocol used by SystemBC. During this compromise, RDP, SSH, and SMB were used for lateral movement within the network.

Figure 4: A Cyber AI Analyst investigation alerting to a device on the VPN subnet making suspicious internal SSH connections due to malicious actors moving laterally within the network.

Signs of threat actors potentially being on the network were observed as early as two days prior to the file encryption. This included unusual internal network scanning via multiple protocols (ICMP, SMB, RDP, etc.), credential brute-forcing, SMB access failures, and anonymous SMBv1 sessions. These activities were traced to IP addresses belonging to two desktop devices in the VPN subnet associated with two regular employee user accounts. Threat actors were seemingly able to exploit at least one of these accounts due to LDAP legacy policies being in place on the customer’s environment.

A Cyber AI Analyst incident summary alerting to a device on the VPN subnet conducting internal reconnaissance.
Figure 5: A Cyber AI Analyst incident summary alerting to a device on the VPN subnet conducting internal reconnaissance.
Examples of the proposed Darktrace Autonomous Response actions on the day BlackSuit initiated file encryption.
Figure 6: Examples of the proposed Darktrace Autonomous Response actions on the day BlackSuit initiated file encryption.

Case 3, August 2024

The most recently observed BlackSuit compromise occurred in August 2024, when a device was observed attempting to brute-force the credentials of an IT administrator. This activity continued for 11 days.

Once the admin’s account was successfully compromised, network scanning, unusual WMI, and SAMR (Security Account Manager Remote protocol) activity followed. A spike in the use of this account was detected on a Sunday—once again, the attackers seemingly targeting the weekend—when the account was used by nearly 50 different devices.

The compromised admin’s account was exploited for data gathering via SMB, resulting in the movement of 200 GB of data between internal devices in preparation for exfiltration. The files were then archived using the naming convention “*.part<number>.rar”.

Around the same time, Darktrace observed data transfers from 19 internal devices to “bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com,” totaling just over 200 GB—the same volume of data gathered internally. Connections to other Bublup domains were also detected. The internal data download and external data transfer activity took approximately 8-9 hours.

Unfortunately, Darktrace was not configured in Autonomous Response mode at the time of the attack, meaning any mitigative actions to stop the data gathering or exfiltration required human confirmation.  

One of the compromised devices was seen sending 80 GB of data to bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com within a span of 4 hours.
Figure 7: One of the compromised devices was seen sending 80 GB of data to bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com within a span of 4 hours.

Once the information was stolen, the threat actor moved on to the final stage of the attack—file encryption. Five internal devices, using either the compromised admin account or connecting via anonymous SMBv1 sessions, were seen encrypting files and writing ransom notes to five other devices on the network. The attempts at file encryption continued for around two hours, but Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was able to block the activity and prevent the attack from escalating.

Conclusion

The persistent and evolving threat posed by ransomware like BlackSuit underscores the critical importance of robust cybersecurity measures across all sectors. Since its emergence in 2023, BlackSuit has demonstrated a sophisticated approach to infiltrating networks, leveraging double extortion tactics, and demanding substantial ransoms. The cases highlighted above illustrate the varied methods and persistence of BlackSuit attackers, from exploiting VPN vulnerabilities to abusing remote management tools and targeting off-hours to maximize impact.

Although many similar connection patterns, such as the abuse of Bublup services for data exfiltration or the use of SOCKS5 proxies for C2, were observed during cases investigated by Darktrace, BlackSuit actors are highly sophisticated and tailors their attacks to each target organization. The consequences of a successful attack can be highly disruptive, and remediation efforts can be time-consuming and costly. This includes taking the entire network offline while responding to the incident, restoring encrypted files from backups (if available), dealing with damage to the organization’s reputation, and potential lawsuits.

These BlackSuit ransomware incidents emphasize the need for continuous vigilance, timely updates to security protocols, and the adoption of autonomous response technologies to swiftly counteract such attacks. As ransomware tactics continue to evolve, organizations must remain agile and informed to protect their critical assets and data. By learning from these incidents and enhancing their cybersecurity frameworks, organizations can better defend against the relentless threat of ransomware and ensure the resilience of their operations in an increasingly digital world.

Credit to Signe Zaharka (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Insights from Darktrace’s First 6: Half-year threat report for 2024

First 6: half year threat report darktrace screenshot

Darktrace’s First 6: Half-Year Threat Report 2024 highlights the latest attack trends and key threats observed by the Darktrace Threat Research team in the first six months of 2024.

  • Focuses on anomaly detection and behavioral analysis to identify threats
  • Maps mitigated cases to known, publicly attributed threats for deeper context
  • Offers guidance on improving security posture to defend against persistent threats

‍

‍

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Anomalous Connection / High Volume of New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / Rare WinRM Outgoing

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB

Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion

Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session

Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

Anomalous File / Internal / Executable Uploaded to DC

Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Write to Network Accessible WebRoot

Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Read

Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Write

Compromise / Ransomware / SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions

Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity

Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Device / EXE Files Distributed to Multiple Devices

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Device / Network Scan

Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

Device / New User Agent To Internal Server

Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / Unusual LDAP Query For Domain Admins

SaaS / Access / Teams Activity from Rare Endpoint

SaaS / Resource / SaaS Resources With Additional Extensions

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Disabled Strong Authentication

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activity Scores

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual SaaS Activity Score

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual Volume of SaaS Modifications

Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Delete Volume

Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write

Unusual Activity / High Volume Client Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / High Volume Server Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Internal Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / SMB Access Failures

Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

User / New Admin Credentials on Client

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

User/ Kerberos Password Bruteforce

Autonomous Response Models

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Ransomware Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / SMB Ratio Antigena Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Internal Anomalous File Activity

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Internal Data Transfer Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Network Scan Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Pattern of Life Block

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Controlled and Model Breach

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Server Block

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Server Anomaly Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Repeated Antigena Breaches

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Unusual Activity Block

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

.blacksuit - File extension – When encrypting the files, this extension is appended to the filename – High

readme.blacksuit.txt – ransom note - A file demanding cryptocurrency payment in exchange for decrypting the victim's files and not leaking the stolen data – High

mystuff.bublup[.]com, bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com – data exfiltration domains related to an organization and project management app that has document sharing functionality – High

137.220.61[.]94:4001 – SystemBC C2 related IP address (this tool is often used by other ransomware groups as well) - Medium

173.251.109[.]106 – IP address seen during a SaaS BlackSuit compromise (during file encryption) – Medium

216.151.180[.]147 – IP address seen during a SaaS BlackSuit compromise (during an unusual Teams session) - Medium

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic - Technqiue

Account Manipulation - PERSISTENCE - T1098

Alarm Suppression - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0878

Application Layer Protocol - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071

Automated Collection - COLLECTION - T1119

Block Command Message - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0803

Block Reporting Message - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0804

Browser Extensions - PERSISTENCE - T1176

Brute Force I/O - IMPAIR PROCESS CONTROL - T0806

Brute Force - CREDENTIAL ACCESS - T1110

Client Configurations - RECONNAISSANCE - T1592.004 - T1592

Cloud Accounts - DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - T1078.004 - T1078

Data Destruction - IMPACT - T1485

Data Destruction - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0809

Data Encrypted for Impact - IMPACT - T1486

Data from Cloud Storage Object - COLLECTION - T1530

Data Staged - COLLECTION - T1074

Domain Groups - DISCOVERY - T1069.002 - T1069

Email Collection - COLLECTION - T1114

Exfiltration Over C2 Channel - EXFILTRATION - T1041

Exfiltration to Cloud Storage - EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - T1567

Exploit Public - Facing Application - INITIAL ACCESS - T1190

Exploitation for Privilege Escalation - PRIVILEGE ESCALATION - T0890

Exploitation of Remote Services - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1210

File and Directory Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1083

File Deletion - DEFENSE EVASION - T1070.004 - T1070

IP Addresses - RECONNAISSANCE - T1590.005 - T1590

Lateral Tool Transfer - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1570

LLMNR/NBT - NS Poisoning and SMB Relay - CREDENTIAL ACCESS, COLLECTION - T1557.001 - T1557

Modify Alarm Settings - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0838

Modify Control Logic - IMPAIR PROCESS CONTROL, INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0833

Modify Parameter - IMPAIR PROCESS CONTROL - T0836

Network Service Scanning - DISCOVERY - T1046

Network Share Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1135

Pass the Hash - DEFENSE EVASION, LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1550.002 - T1550

RDP Hijacking - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1563.002 - T1563

Remote Access Software - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1219

Remote Desktop Protocol - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1021.001 - T1021

Remote System Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1018

Rename System Utilities - DEFENSE EVASION - T1036.003 - T1036

Scanning IP Blocks - RECONNAISSANCE - T1595.001 - T1595

Scheduled Transfer - EXFILTRATION - T1029

Service Execution - EXECUTION - T1569.002 - T1569

Service Stop - IMPACT - T1489

SMB/Windows Admin Shares - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1021.002 - T1021

Stored Data Manipulation - IMPACT - T1565.001 - T1565

Taint Shared Content - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1080

Valid Accounts - DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - T1078

Vulnerability Scanning - RECONNAISSANCE - T1595.002 - T1595

Web Protocols - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - T1071

Web Services - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1583.006 - T1583

Web Shell - PERSISTENCE - T1505.003 - T1505

Windows Management Instrumentation - EXECUTION - T1047

Windows Remote Management - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1021.006 - T1021

References

1.     https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/23/e/investigating-blacksuit-ransomwares-similarities-to-royal.html

2.     https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/blacksuit-hacker-behind-cdk-global-attack-hitting-us-car-dealers-2024-06-27/

3.     https://www.sentinelone.com/anthology/blacksuit/

4.     https://thehackernews.com/2024/08/fbi-and-cisa-warn-of-blacksuit.html

5.     https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/The-CDK-Global-outage-Explaining-how-it-happened

6.     https://therecord.media/japanese-media-kadokawa-investigating-cyber

7.     https://therecord.media/plasma-donation-company-cyberattack-blacksuit

8.     https://thecyberexpress.com/government-of-brazil-cyberattack-by-blacksuit/

9.     https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-061a

Written by
Signe Zaharka
Principal Cyber 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
Signe Zaharka
Principal Cyber Analyst

When AI Becomes the Lure: A Fake Gemini Installer Delivers Vidar

AI
•
August 19, 2026
Rushanth Ramanathan
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches
May 20, 2026
2
What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders
Feb 26, 2026
3
Journey of a Threat: How Multi-Layered AI Works in Darktrace / EMAIL
May 26, 2026
4
How to Evaluate AI Vendors: 5 Key categories for AI Adoption
May 27, 2026
5
Darktrace Unites Human Behavior and Threat Detection Across Email, Slack, Teams, and Zoom
Mar 24, 2026

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
Network
•
August 6, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

A new UK AI Security Institute report shows autonomous AI agents independently developing novel attack chains, adapting when detected, and targeting humans and other AI systems. As agents become embedded across the enterprise, behavioral anomaly detection will be critical to securing the new attack surface they create.
Adam Stevens
Senior Director of Product
Read more
Network
•
July 27, 2026

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

Darktrace detected a multi-stage ransomware intrusion from its earliest stages, identifying reconnaissance, privilege escalation, lateral movement, command-and-control communications, and data exfiltration before encryption occurred. This analysis highlights how behavioral detection exposed attacker activity using legitimate tools and infrastructure, providing multiple opportunities for early intervention and containment.
Alexandra Evzona
Cyber Analyst
Read more
Network
•
July 1, 2026

9 Stages of Ransomware & How AI Responds

Discover the 9 stages of ransomware attacks and how AI responds at each stage. Learn how you can protect your business from cyber threats.
The Darktrace Community
Read more

Blog

/

AI

/

August 21, 2026

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

Photograph of AI data centerDefault blog imageDefault blog image

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently published guidance on managing the cyber risk of agentic AI. While the document is framed as interim advice as more formal guidance is developed, the framing reflects the current state of the industry: organizations are already deploying agents into production environments while standards, controls, and operating models for autonomous systems remain unsettled. Governance is evolving alongside adoption rather than preceding it, a reality which underscores the importance of robust controls.  

The NCSC’s guidance recommends aligning controls to an agent's level of autonomy, assigning distinct identities, limiting permissions, constraining access to systems and data, monitoring activity, maintaining human oversight, and preserving the ability to intervene when necessary. Most of these recommendations will sound familiar to security teams. The challenge is not the novelty of the controls. It is the type of system those controls now need to govern.

The shift from model security to agent security

For several years, AI security discussions have focused heavily on models. Can a model be manipulated? Jailbroken? Trusted? Can it expose information it should not? Those questions remain important, but they capture only part of the problem. A model generating text is one thing. A system connected to identities, applications, tools, workflows, and business data is another.

The difference becomes clearer when comparing a chatbot that answers questions with an agent that can retrieve customer records, update tickets, invoke tools, trigger workflows, and interact with external systems. The underlying model may be identical. Its access is not. The security question begins to shift from what the model knows to what the system can do.

The same theme appears in the Five Eyes statement released earlier this year, describing AI as a force multiplier that is accelerating both offensive and defensive cyber operations. The NCSC guidance explores what that reality looks like when autonomous systems begin operating inside enterprise environments.

Securing AI agents in operation

The NCSC spends relatively little time debating model behavior and considerably more time discussing identity, permissions, monitoring, oversight, containment, and response. Agents are treated as participants within an environment rather than isolated pieces of technology.  

That's broadly consistent with how we think about the problem at Darktrace.

An agent should not be treated as an extension of a user account. It develops its own behavioral patterns. It accesses systems, interacts with data, invokes tools, and moves across workflows in ways that can be observed independently. Understanding what an agent is permitted to do matters. Understanding how it actually behaves once deployed, and whether that behavior aligns with business intent, matters just as much.

Identity provides an obvious example. The NCSC recommends assigning distinct identities to agents rather than allowing them to disappear into surrounding human or service accounts. Most importantly, assigning agents distinct identities enables independent behavioral monitoring.

Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior

The same principle extends to monitoring. NCSC guidance places agent activity within normal security operations rather than treating it as a separate AI governance function. Many of the controls described are put in place before an agent begins operating. Sandboxing, credential design, approval workflows and human oversight all reflect judgments about how the system is expected to behave and what risks it is likely to create.

Actual use may challenge those assumptions. Access patterns change. Workflows expand. Systems begin interacting with resources they have never touched before. Processes that appeared reasonable during design behave differently in production. Human oversight requirements may turn out to be either excessive or inadequate once the system is operating at scale and operating within the context of unique business processes.

The Five Eyes statement points to a similar issue: organizations need confidence that controls continue to work as intended once systems are exposed to real users, data, tools and operational pressures. Often, the question is not whether an agent is technically allowed to perform an action, but whether its behavior remains consistent with the role it was intended to play.

Monitoring and governance of AI agents go hand-in-hand

This problem is exactly why monitoring and governance should be treated as part of the same process. Governance sets the initial parameters for deployment, while monitoring provides evidence about whether those parameters remain appropriate. That evidence should, in turn, inform changes to permissions, controls and oversight.

This matters increasingly as autonomous systems are integrated into business processes. The relevant risk is shaped not only by the model or agent itself, but by what it can access, what actions it can take, and how its behavior changes in practice.

Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior

The implication is clear: governance cannot end at deployment. Organizations need a way to understand how agents behave after deployment, test whether controls remain appropriate, and adjust them as conditions change. That requires visibility not just into technical activity, but into whether that activity makes sense in the context of the business process the agent is intended to support.

This is where business-centric behavioral security can become critical. Risk does not emerge from the model itself: it emerges from the actions an autonomous system takes within the enterprise and the downstream consequences of those actions.  

An agent can operate exactly as intended and still create risk if it accesses sensitive information in an unexpected context, exercises permissions in ways that create unintended exposure, or influences business processes in ways that were not anticipated during design and review.

Traditional governance vs. behavioral analytics

Traditional governance frameworks provide assurance at a point in time. Behavioral security can provide ongoing visibility into how autonomous systems interact with the organization they are meant to serve. Rather than focusing exclusively on model performance or policy compliance, organizations need to understand whether an agent's behavior aligns with business intent, operational expectations, and acceptable risk tolerances as conditions change.

As enterprises move from isolated AI deployments to interconnected ecosystems of agents, visibility into behavior becomes as important as visibility into code. Governance determines what an autonomous system is permitted to do. Behavioral analytics helps determine what it is doing, what business outcomes it is producing, and whether those outcomes remain aligned with the organization's objectives.

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Margaret Cunningham, PhD
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

/

AI

/

August 19, 2026

When AI Becomes the Lure: A Fake Gemini Installer Delivers Vidar

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

‍

  • Darktrace observed a customer download a fake Google Gemini installer hosted on Google Colab, resulting in the execution of the Vidar information stealer.
  • Darktrace identified the compromise through behavioral indicators, including suspicious process activity, anomalous network communications, and indicators of credential theft, before autonomously containing the threat.
  • The incident highlights how threat actors are increasingly exploiting trusted platforms and a growing interest in AI tools to distribute malware through seemingly legitimate software acquisition workflows.

‍

The Growing Abuse of Generative AI

As organizations are increasingly adopting generative AI tools into their daily workflows, attackers are adapting their distribution methods accordingly too. As part of their day-to-day work, users are now searching for AI assistants, programming tools, browser extensions, desktop applications, and productivity integrations.

Recent reports have highlighted campaigns that use fake AI software and AI-related installers to distribute malware and steal credentials [1]. Researchers have documented campaigns that exploit fake AI-themed websites and services to distribute information stealers and backdoors [2]. Security researchers have also observed attackers disguising malware as legitimate installers for AI software to increase the likelihood of victim interaction and execution [3].

In July 2026, Darktrace observed one such case within a customer environment in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, where attackers used a fake generative AI installer to deliver the prolific information stealer Vidar. This incident highlights how threat actors are exploiting interest in AI services to distribute established malware using increasingly convincing social engineering techniques.

How a Fake Gemini Installer Delivered Vidar

Initial Access: From Search Result to Malware Download

Unlike many malware campaigns that begin with a phishing email, this activity appears to have originated from a user searching for and downloading software.

Darktrace first observed unusual activity on the customer network after a suspicious executable file was launched from a user’s Download folder. Further investigation revealed that the file purported to be a Google Gemini installer and was named “Download_Google_Gemini_For_Windows.exe”.

During the initial analysis, it was noted that the top search result for the suspicious filename associated pointed to a file hosted on Google Colab, a cloud-based Jupyter notebook platform, commonly used by developers, researchers, and data scientists to run code and machine learning workloads through a web browser. By leveraging another trusted Google platform, the attacker increased the likelihood that users would perceive the download as legitimate, making the lure more convincing to those searching for Gemini-related software.

‍

Figure 1: The Google Colab page containing a download prompt for the fake Google Gemini installer.

Further investigation of the Google Colab page revealed that the download prompt redirected users to a secondary site, hxxps://micronsoftwares[.]com, which posed as a "Windows Software Hub" download page and offered the fake Gemini installer for download.

‍

Figure 2: The secondary website posing as a "Windows Software Hub" download page, which likely hosted the fake Gemini installer.

While the investigation did not uncover any HTTP or file-download telemetry data that conclusively identified the download source, SSL communication sessions with Google Colab were detected immediately before the suspicious file was executed. The timing of these connections suggests that the user interacted with the Colab resource before being redirected to the secondary site from which the executable was downloaded.

‍

The user was not simply tricked into opening an email attachment; instead, the attacker embedded malicious content into a process many users would consider entirely legitimate: searching for and downloading software associated with a trusted platform.

‍

Weaponizing Trusted Platforms

At the time of review (July 15, 2026), Darktrace's Threat Research team confirmed that the Google Colab page was still active and prompting users to download a ZIP archive containing the binary file.

‍

The archive also appeared to contain a README file instructing users to run the binary file with administrator privileges and add it to their antivirus software’s exception lists. These instructions suggest that the campaign relied heavily on social engineering, convincing users to take actions that would facilitate malware execution and potentially bypass security checks.

The use of a legitimate platform also complicates the user’s decision-making. Downloads associated with a trusted service are often perceived as less suspicious than those hosted on unfamiliar domains. When combined with the branding of a widely used AI tool, the lure becomes even more convincing.

Malware Analysis

Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified the executable file as the information-stealing malware Vidar. Analysis revealed that the binary file was a newer Go-compiled variant that communicated with Telegram-based infrastructure. Darktrace’s researchers also identified dtm[.]kijangturbo88[.]top as a command-and-control (C2) endpoint associated with the activity. While the malware itself was not novel, the lure and delivery mechanism was.

For a deeper look at the information stealer, see Darktrace’s 2023 analysis of Vidar.

‍

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual outbound connection associated with the fake Gemini installer.

Shortly after execution, the process established communications with the external IP address 91.98.98[.]86 via port 443, directly linking the executable to suspicious network activity observed on the device. Subsequent open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis of the revealed multiple malicious associations [5].

Additional Darktrace detections included unusual SSL activity from the affected device. Analysis of related SSL telemetry identified 91.98.111[.]49 as additional infrastructure associated  with the activity [6].

Subsequent alerts from the customer's Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration later confirmed activity consistent with the theft of browser credentials and other sensitive data from the affected endpoint.

Taken together, these detections provided a clear picture of the attack, from the execution of a suspicious file and unusual network connections to indicators of C2 activity and credential theft.

‍

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of anomalous activity following the execution of the fake Gemini installer, seen in the Model Alert Event Log.

Darktrace's Autonomous Response

Following the detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response took immediate containment action, including blocking communication with suspicious external infrastructure, including 91.98.98[.]86, and quarantining the compromised device.

Despite the apparent legitimacy of the activity, with the installer hosted on a trusted platform and resembling a routine software download, Darktrace was able to detect and contain the attack because the device's behavior deviated from its normal pattern.

‍

Figure 5: Automated containment actions implemented by Darktrace's Autonomous Response following the detection of activity associated with the fake Gemini installer.

Conclusion

This investigation highlights how threat actors continue to adapt established malware delivery techniques to emerging technology trends. While the malware itself was not new, the distribution method was. By disguising Vidar as a Google Gemini installer and hosting the malicious content on a trusted platform, the attack aligned its lure with a growing behavioral trend: users actively searching for AI tools and services as part of their day-to-day work.

Although fake installers are not a new phenomenon, the rapid rise of generative AI has created new opportunities for threat actors. Rather than relying solely on traditional delivery methods, attackers can now target users who are actively searching for AI applications. As AI adoption continues to accelerate across enterprise environments, organizations should remain alert to campaigns that exploit this interest through fake applications, malicious websites, manipulated search results, the misuse of trusted platforms, and AI-themed social engineering.

Credit to Rushanth Ramanathan (Cyber Analyst) Joanna Ng (Detection Engineer)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • Security Integration / C2 Activity and Integration Detection
  • Endpoint / New Suspicious Executable Launched
  • Endpoint / Process Connection / Unusual Connection from New Process
  • Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed
  • Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly /  Antigena Significant Security Integration and Network Activity Block

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

‍

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

‍

IoC Type Description
Download_Google_Gemini_For_Windows.exe File Fake Gemini-themed installer observed during the investigation.
GoogleAppInstaller.exe File Related executable identified through endpoint telemetry.
91.98.98[.]86 IP Address External destination contacted by the malicious executable.
91.98.111[.]49 IP Address Related infrastructure identified through SSL certificate pivoting.
dtm[.]kijangturbo88[.]top Domain Command-and-control endpoint identified during malware analysis.
1e13c2c9eac72daf63fd00a9946878949e159ae6ec51b54ec64f942d79d61913 SHA256 Malware sample associated with the fake Gemini installer.

MITRE ATT@CK Mapping

‍


MITRE ATT&CK Mapping Tactic Technique
Initial Access T1204 User Execution
Execution T1204.002 User Execution: Malicious File
Defence Evasion T1036 Masquerading
Credential Access T1555 Credentials from Password Stores
Credential Access T1555.003 Credentials from Web Browsers
Command and Control T1071 Application Layer Protocol
Exfiltration T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Continue reading
About the author
Rushanth Ramanathan
Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI