September 20, 2022

Modern Extortion: Detecting Data Theft From the Cloud

Darktrace highlights a handful of data theft incidents on shared cloud platforms, showing that cloud computing can be a vulnerable place for modern extortion.

Written by

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research 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

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research Analyst

Sep 2022

Ransomware Industry

The ransomware industry has benefitted from a number of factors in recent years: inadequate cyber defenses, poorly regulated cryptocurrency markets, and geopolitical tensions have allowed gangs to extort increasingly large ransoms while remaining sheltered from western law enforcement [1]. However, one of the biggest success stories of the ransomware industry has been the adaptability and evolution of attacker TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures). The WannaCry and NotPetya attacks of 2017 popularized a form of ransomware which used encryption algorithms to hold data to ransom in exchange for a decryption key. Last year in 2021, almost all ransomware strains evolved to use double extortion tactics: holding stolen data to ransom as well as encrypted data [2]. Now, some ransomware gangs have dropped encryption entirely, and are using data theft as their sole means of extortion.

Using data theft for extortion is not new. In 2020 the Finnish psychotherapy center Vastaamo had over 40,000 patient records stolen. Impacted patients were told that their psychiatric transcripts would be published online if they failed to pay a Bitcoin ransom. [3]. A later report by BlackFog in May 2021 predicted data theft extortion would become one of the key emerging cybersecurity trends that year [4]. Adoption of offline back-ups and endpoint detection had made encryption harder, while a large-scale move to Cloud and SaaS platforms offered new vectors for data theft. By moving from data encryption to data exfiltration, ransomware attackers pivoted from targeting data availability within the CIA triad (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability) to threatening data confidentiality.

In November 2021, Darktrace detected a data theft incident following the compromise of two SaaS accounts within an American tech customer’s Office365 environment. The client was a longstanding user of Darktrace DETECT/Network, and was in the process of expanding their coverage by trialing Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND/ Apps + Cloud.

Attack Overview

On November 23^rd 2021, an Ask the Expert (ATE) ticket was raised prompting investigation into a breached SaaS model, ‘SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use’, and the activities of a user (censored as UserA) over the prior week.

1. Office365: UserA

The account UserA had been logging in from an unusual location in Nigeria on November 21^st. At the time of the incident there were no flags of malicious activity from this IP in widely used OSINT sources. It is also highly probable the attacker was not located in Nigeria but using Nigerian infrastructure in order to hide their true location. Regardless, the location of the login from this IP and ASN was considered highly unusual for users within the customer’s digital estate. The specific user in question most commonly accessed their account from IP ranges located in the US.

Figure 1: In the Geolocation tab of the External Sites Summary on the SaaS Console, UserA was seen logging in from Nigeria when previous logins were exclusively from USA

Further investigation revealed an additional anomaly in the Outlook Web activity of UserA. The account was using the Firefox browser to access their account for the first time in at least 4 weeks (the maximum period for which the customer stored such data). SaaS logs detailing the access of confidential folders and other suspicious actions were identified using the Advanced Search (AS) query:

@fields.saas_actor:"UserA@[REDACTED]" AND @fields.saas_software:"Firefox"

Most actions were ‘MailItemsAccessed’ events originating from IPs located in Nigeria [5,6] and one other potentially malicious IP located in the US [7].

‘MailItemsAccessed’ is part of the new Advanced Audit functionality from Microsoft and can be used to determine when email data is accessed by mail protocols and clients. A bind mail access type denotes an individual access to an email message [8].

Figure 2: AS logs shows UserA had not used Firefox to access Office365 for at least 4 weeks prior to the unusual login on the 21st November

Below are details of the main suspicious SaaS activities:

· Time: 2021-11-21 09:05:25 - 2021-11-22 16:57:39 UTC

· SaaS Actor: UserA@[REDACTED]

· SaaS Service: Office365

· SaaS Service Product: Exchange

· SaaS Software: Firefox

· SaaS Office365 Parent Folders:

          o   \Accounts/Passwords
          o   \Invoices
         o   \Sent Items
          o   \Inbox
          o   \Recoverable Items\Deletions

· SaaS Event:

          o   MailItemsAccessed
          o   UserLoggedIn
          o   Update

· SaaS Office365 Mail Access Type: Bind (47 times)

· Source IP addresses:

          o   105.112.59[.]83
          o   105.112.36[.]212
          o   154.6.17[.]16
          o   45.130.83[.]129

· SaaS User Agents:

o Client=OWA;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/80.0;
o Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/80.0

· Total SaaS logs: 57

At the start of the month on the 5^th November, the user had also been seen logging in from a potentially malicious endpoint [9] in Europe, performing ‘MailItemsAccessed’ and ‘Updates’ events with subjects and a resource location related to invoices and wire transfers from the Sent items folder. This suggests the initial compromise had been earlier in the month, giving the threat actor time to make preparations for the final stages of the attack.

Figure 3: Event log showing the activity of UserA from IP 45.135.187[.]108

2. Office365: UserB

Looking into the model breach ‘SaaS / Access / Suspicious Credential Use And Login User-Agent’, it was seen that a second account, UserB, was also observed logging in from a rare and potentially malicious location in Bangladesh [7]. Similar to UserA, this user had previously logged in exclusively from the USA, and no other accounts within the digital estate had been observed interacting with the Bangladeshi IP address. The login event appeared to bypass MFA (Multi-factor Authentication) and a suspicious user agent, BAV2ROPC, was used. Against misconfigured accounts, this Microsoft user agent is commonly used by attackers to bypass MFA on Office365. It targets Exchange’s Basic Authentication (normally used in POP3/IMAP4 conditions) and results in an OAuth flow which circumvents the additional password security brought by MFA [10].

During the session, additional resources were accessed which appear to be associated with bill and invoice payments. In addition, on the 4^th November, two new suspicious email rules named “..” were created from rare IPs (107.10.56[.]48 and 76.189.202[.]66). This type of behavior is commonly seen during SaaS compromises to delete or forward emails. Typically, an email rule created by a human user will be named to reflect the change being made, such as ‘Move emails from Legal to Urgent’. In contrast, malicious email rules are often short and undescriptive. The rule “..” is likely to blend in without arousing suspicion, while also being easy for the attacker to create and remember.

Details of these rule changes are as follows:

·      Time: 2021-11-04 13:25:06, 2021-11-05 15:50:00 [UTC]
·      SaaS Service: Office365
·      SaaS Service Product: Exchange
·      SaaS Status Message: True
·      SaaS Source IP addresses: 107.10.56[.]48, 76.189.202[.]66
·      SaaS Account Name: O365
·      SaaS Actor: UserB@[REDACTED]
·      SaaS Event: SetInboxRule
·      SaaS Office365 Modified Property Names:
          o   AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob, Force, Identity, MoveToFolder, Name, FromAddressContainsWords, StopProcessingRules
          o   AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob, Force, Identity, Name, FromAddressContainsWords, StopProcessingRules
·      SaaS Resource Name: ..

During cloud account compromises, attackers will often use sync operations to download emails to their local email client. During the operations, these clients typically download a large set of mail items from the cloud to a local computer. If the attacker is able to sync all mail items to their mail client, the entire mailbox can be compromised. The attacker is able to disconnect from the account and review and search the email without generating additional event logs.

Both accounts UserA and UserB were observed using ‘MailItemsAccessed’ sync operations between the 1^st and 23^rd November when this attack occurred. However, based on the originating IP of the sync operations, the activity is likely to have been initiated by the legitimate, US-based users. Once the security team were able to confirm the events were expected and legitimate, they could establish that the contents of the mailbox were not a part of the data breach.

Accomplish Mission

After gaining access to the Office365 accounts, sensitive data was downloaded by the attackers to their local system. Either on or before 14^th December, the attacker had seemingly uploaded the documents onto a data leak website. In total, 130MB of data had been made available for download in two separate packages. The packages included audit and accounting financial documents, with file extensions such as DB, XLSX, and PDF.

Figure 4: The two data packages uploaded by the attacker and the extracted contents

In a sample of past SaaS activity of UserA, the subject and attachments appear related to the ‘OUTSTANDING PREPAY WIRES 2021’ excel document found from the data leak website in Figure 4, suggesting a further possibility that the account was associated with the leaked data.

Historic SaaS activity associated with UserA:

·      Time: 2021-11-05 21:21:18 [UTC]
·      SaaS Office365 Logon Type: Owner
·      Protocol: OFFICE365
·      SaaS Account Name: O365
·      SaaS Actor: UserA@[REDACTED].com
·      SaaS Event: Send
·      SaaS Service: Office365
·      SaaS Service Product: Exchange
·      SaaS Status Message: Succeeded
·      SaaS Office365 Attachment: WIRE 2021.xlsx (92406b); image.png (9084b); image.png (1454b); image.png (1648b); image.png (1691b); image.png (1909b); image.png (2094b)
·      SaaS Office365 Subject: Wires 11/8/21
·      SaaS Resource Location: \Drafts
·      SaaS User Agent: Client=OWA;Action=ViaProxy

Based on the available evidence, it is highly likely that the data packages contain the data stolen during the account compromise the previous month.

Once the credentials of an Office365 account are stolen, an attacker can not only access the user's mailbox, but also a full range of Office365 applications such as SharePoint folders, Teams Chat, or files in the user's OneDrive [11]. For example, files shared in Teams chat are stored in OneDrive for Business in a folder named Microsoft Teams Chat Files in the default Document library on SharePoint. One of the files visible on the data leak website, called ‘[REDACTED] CONTRACT.3.1.2020.pdf’, was also observed in the default document folder of a third user account (UserC) within the victim organization, suggesting the compromised accounts may have been able to access shared files stored on other accounts by moving laterally via other O365 applications such as Teams.

One example can be seen in the below AS logs:

·      Time: 2021-11-11 01:58:35 [UTC]
·      SaaS Resource Type: File
·      Protocol: OFFICE365
·      SaaS Account Name: 0365
·      SaaS Actor: UserC@[REDACTED]
·      SaaS Event: FilePreviewed
·      SaaS Service Product: OneDrive
·      SaaS Metric: ResourceViewed
·      SaaS Office365 Application Name: Media Analysis and Transformation Service
·      SaaS Office365 File Extension: pdf
·      SaaS Resource Location: https://[REDACTED]-my.sharepoint.com/personal/userC_[REDACTED]_com/Documents/Microsoft Teams Chat Files/[REDACTED] CONTRACT 3.1.2020.pdf
·      SaaS Resource Name: [REDACTED] CONTRACT 3.1.2020.pdf
·      SaaS Service: Office365
·      SaaS Service Product: OneDrive
·      SaaS User Agent: OneDriveMpc-Transform_Thumbnail/1.0

In the period between the 1^st and 30^th November, the customer’s Darktrace DETECT/Apps trial had raised multiple high-level alerts associated with SaaS account compromise, but there was no evidence of file encryption.

Establish Foothold

Looking back at the start of the attack, it is unclear exactly how the attacker evaded the customer’s pre-existing security stack. At the time of the incident, the victim was using a Barracuda email gateway and Microsoft 365 Threat Management for their cloud environment.

Darktrace detected no indication the accounts were compromised via credential bruteforcing, which would have enabled the attacker to bypass the Azure Active Directory smart lockout (if enabled). The credentials may have been harvested via a phishing campaign which successfully evaded the list of known ‘bad’ domains maintained by their email gateway.

Upon gaining access to the account, the Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps anomaly detection policies would have been expected to raise an alert [12]. In this instance, the unusual login from Nigeria occurred over 16 hours after the previous login from the US, potentially evading anomaly detection policies such as the ‘Impossible Travel’ rule.

Figure 5: Event log showing the user accessing mail from USA a day before the suspicious usage from Nigeria

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace DETECT

Throughout this event, high scoring model breaches associated with the attack were visible in the customer’s SaaS Console. In addition, there were two Cyber AI Analyst incidents for ‘Possible Account Hijack’ associated with the two compromised SaaS Office365 accounts, UserA and UserB. The visibility given by Darktrace DETECT also enabled the security team to confirm which files had been accessed and were likely part of the data leak.

Figure 6: Example Cyber AI Analyst incident of UserB SaaS Office365 account

Darktrace RESPOND

In this incident, the attackers successfully compromised O365 accounts in order to exfiltrate customer data. Whilst Darktrace RESPOND/Apps was being trialed and suggested several actions, it was configured in human confirmation mode. The following RESPOND/Apps actions were advised for these activities:

· ‘Antigena [RESPOND] Unusual Access Block’ triggered by the successful login from an unusual IP address, would have actioned the ‘Block IP’ inhibitor, preventing access to the account from the unusual IP for up to 24 hours
· ‘Suspicious Source Activity Block’, triggered by the suspicious user agent used to bypass MFA, would have actioned the ‘Disable User’ inhibitor, disabling the user account for up to 24 hours

During this incident, Darktrace RESPOND/Network was being used in fully autonomous mode in order to prevent the threat actor from pivoting into the network. The security team were unable to conclusively say if any attempts by the attacker to do this had been made.

Concluding Thoughts

Data theft extortion has become a widely used attack technique, and ransomware gangs may increasingly use this technique alone to target organizations without secure data encryption and storage policies.

This case study describes a SaaS data theft extortion incident which bypassed MFA and existing security tools. The attacker appeared to compromise credentials without bruteforce activity, possibly with the use of social engineering through phishing. However, from the first new login, Darktrace DETECT identified the unusual credential use in spite of it being an existing account. Had Darktrace RESPOND/Apps been configured, it would have autonomously responded to halt this login and prevent the attacker from accomplishing their data theft mission.

Thanks to Oakley Cox, Brianna Leddy and Shuh Chin Goh for their contributions.

Appendices

References

[1] https://securelist.com/new-ransomware-trends-in-2022/106457/

[2] https://www.itpro.co.uk/security/ransomware/367624/the-rise-of-double-extortion-ransomware

[3] https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2020/10/vastaamo-psychotherapy-data-breach-sees-the-most-vulnerable-victims-extorted

[4] https://www.blackfog.com/shift-from-ransomware-to-data-theft-extortion/

[5] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/105.112.59.83

[6] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/105.112.36.212

[7] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/45.130.83.129

[8] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/mailitemsaccessed-forensics-investigations?view=o365-worldwide

[9] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/45.135.187.108

[10] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.137.20.65/details

[11] https://tidorg.com/new-bec-phishing-attack-steals-office-365-credentials-and-bypasses-mfa/

[12] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/office-365-security/responding-to-a-compromised-email-account?view=o365-worldwide

Written by

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Adrianne Marques

Senior Research Analyst

•

October 21, 2026

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Senior Product Executive

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

OT

October 21, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

In October 2026, hundreds of supermarkets across France were reportedly affected by a cyberattack targeting their refrigeration systems. According to public reports, the attackers gained access to internet-connected controllers and modified their settings, forcing refrigeration units into high and extremely low temperatures and causing significant disruption. Total losses have been reported to reach several million euros.

The incident drew attention to the security of industrial refrigeration systems, particularly older devices with exposed management interfaces and known vulnerabilities.

The exact details of how the attackers gained access have not been confirmed, however it is speculated that the public-facing web server could be accessed with the username “admin” and password being the current date. Researchers from Claroty’s Team82 identified a vulnerability in Danfoss AK-SM 8xxA Series in 2025, “CVE-2025-41450", allowing for administrative access using a time-based “code-of-the-day" for authentication [1].

Default credentials, outdated firmware and publicly accessible administrative interfaces have been an issue for years. And yet these systems continue to appear in internet scans and require little sophistication to gain admin access. A simple search of internet-connected devices shows a range of exposed devices from Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and remote gateways, to, yes, more fridges.

Darktrace malware researchers identified hundreds of IoT and OT devices publicly exposed on the internet, many of which are configured with no authentication, weak credentials, or default credentials. As shown in Figure 1, an exposed Copeland XWEB web interface, used to manage Dixell equipment, including refrigerators, can provide the ability to remotely control connected devices.

‍

Figure 1: Copeland XWEB interface used to control systems including refrigerators and air conditioning.

However, it’s not only fridges; web management interfaces for industrial controls are also publicly accessible, often protected only by weak credentials. Figure 2 shows an example of a publicly exposed WAGO interface. The WAGO management interface is a configuration and administration panel for controllers. Through it, a logged-in user can view device details and diagnostics, manage user accounts and passwords, update firmware, back up or restore the full configuration, set the clock, and manage SD card storage. While it typically doesn’t manage switch outputs or read live process values, someone with access could still disrupt operation by changing network or Modbus settings, loading bad firmware or configurations, or by resetting passwords and enabling insecure services.

‍

‍

The issue extends beyond management interfaces. During our research, we identified publicly accessible web interfaces belonging to PLCs, including Rockwell Automation Allen-Bradley devices. In each case, the risk arises from how the devices have been deployed and configured, not from a flaw in the vendors’ products.

‍

Figure 3: Web interface for Allen-Bradley CompactLogix controller.

‍

Figure 3 shows the web interface of an Allen-Bradley CompactLogix controller. Unlike the previous examples, this interface provides a view into the controller's operation, including running tasks, network connections, memory usage and diagnostic information. Rockwell Automation's CompactLogix controllers are commonly used to automate industrial processes, from manufacturing and packaging lines to water treatment and material handling systems. Depending on their configuration, these controllers can operate motors, pumps, valves and other physical equipment.

Although in this example the interface shown does not provide direct control over the PLC's logic, it exposes information about the model, firmware, network layout, and connections, which is useful reconnaissance for a bigger attack.

The concern is not necessarily that every exposed interface allows an attacker to immediately manipulate industrial processes. However, these devices are accessible from the public internet in the first place, providing information about systems that may be responsible for controlling physical equipment.

The attacks on refrigeration systems in France highlight the consequences of poorly secured industrial devices. As demonstrated throughout this research, publicly accessible management interfaces are not limited to refrigeration controllers but extend to PLCs and other systems used to manage industrial equipment.

Finding these devices requires little effort. Internet scanners make it possible to identify publicly exposed interfaces quickly, and in some cases these interfaces rely on publicly documented default credentials or have no authentication at all. As attackers increasingly use AI tools, such attacks may be identified and carried out faster and at a greater scale.

The consequences of this access depend on the device and the functionality exposed. While some interfaces provide little more than diagnostic information, others allow users to modify configurations, disrupt communications, or change settings that affect physical equipment. In industrial environments, this can result in operational downtime, damaged equipment and financial losses.

Weak passwords, default credentials and exposed administrative interfaces are not new security issues. Yet their continued presence on internet-connected industrial systems demonstrates how easily preventable weaknesses can leave physical operations vulnerable to attack.

Exposed devices often come from third-party suppliers and contractors, who frequently install refrigeration controllers, gateways and PLCs without the organization ever being aware they are connected to the internet. Asset visibility remains an important foundation, but organizations should assume that some unknown assets and services will exist. Effective security therefore also depends on continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, network segmentation and rapid response, so that risky exposure and unusual activity can be identified and addressed before it becomes disruptive.

Darktrace helps security teams gain visibility across IT and OT and respond to risks: https://www.darktrace.com/products/operational-technology.

Copeland, Dixell, WAGO, Rockwell Automation, Allen-Bradley and CompactLogix are trademarks of their respective owners. Their use here is for identification only and does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by those owners.

References

1. https://claroty.com/team82/research/freeze-the-controller-defrost-the-food-uncovering-vulnerabilities-in-danfoss-refrigeration-controllers

‍

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Blog

Network

October 20, 2026

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Kubernetes has become a foundational technology for modern cloud-native infrastructure. It can orchestrate everything from customer-facing applications to data pipelines and, increasingly, AI workloads. This is due to the highly scalable nature of Kubernetes, making it cost efficient and reliable.

Gartner projects that by 2028, 95% of new AI deployments will run on Kubernetes, up from less than 30% today¹. However, the same qualities that make Kubernetes powerful also make it uniquely challenging to secure, leaving many organizations with limited visibility into their clusters. This lack of visibility increases risk - it’s difficult to secure what you can’t see.

However, this risk is often looked at as purely a posture management challenge. While Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) solutions can tell you how a cluster should be configured, they don’t tell you what it is doing in real time. This requires runtime behavioral monitoring of clusters to detect active threats.

Yet existing approaches to securing Kubernetes by most Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) and Network Detection and Response (NDR) vendors often have limited coverage or require a third-party integration to forward traffic and metadata. This means that capabilities can be limited and detections can lack the context of the wider environment, which slows down triage, investigation and response.

Why Kubernetes is hard to secure

Traditional security tooling was built for persistent, long-term infrastructure such as servers and virtual machines with fixed identities that last months or years. Some elements of Kubernetes environments can have a much shorter lifespan, breaking many assumptions those tools rely on:

Increased complexity
1. Kubernetes environments can be complex in comparison to traditional infrastructure, with many different elements to consider such as nodes, clusters, containers, pods and the workloads themselves.
Ephemeral by design
1. Kubernetes pods can spin up and terminate in seconds. A container that was compromised may no longer exist by the time a deeper investigation is required, leaving no artifact to analyze. This poses a unique challenge for security operations.
Weaker workload boundaries
1. Kubernetes containers use lightweight, shared-kernel isolation rather than separate virtual machines, improving efficiency but reducing separation between workloads and the host. As a result, a compromised container may have a greater potential impact on the node and neighboring workloads than a compromised virtual machine (VM).²
2. Recent vulnerabilities have shown that threat actors can escape a container and gain access to the underlying host.^{3, 4}
Everything is API-driven
1. Dozens or hundreds of microservices communicate over internal APIs, and the Kubernetes control plane itself is an API. This creates a large and dynamic attack surface, making it difficult to distinguish legitimate activity from malicious behavior.
2. Without identity-aware runtime visibility, threat actors can move laterally between pods and exploit misconfigured role-based access controls (RBAC) with little chance of detection.

Rising to the challenge of securing Kubernetes

With the release of Darktrace 7.2, Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK can extend behavioral security into Kubernetes, delivering visibility, detection and response capabilities across runtime activity. Darktrace addresses the challenges of securing Kubernetes environments in several ways.

Behavioral detection, not static rules

Many Kubernetes runtime tools rely on predefined rules and signatures - a fixed list of “bad” behaviors to match against. That approach struggles with novel attacks and generates noise at scale. Darktrace takes a different approach: our Adaptive AI builds a Unique Behavioral Profile for each organization from the ground up, learning the normal behavior of every workload, node and identity in your cluster. It then uses this understanding to detect meaningful deviations from expected behavior, which serves as the basis for surfacing suspicious and malicious activity.

A pod reaching out to an unfamiliar destination, an unexpected executable launching inside a workload, or an identity performing an action it has never performed, all surface as anomalies without anyone having to write a rule in advance.

Darktrace surfaces unexpected Kubernetes activity that does not align with an organization’s Unique Behavioral Profile

‍

Visibility across the network, the process, and the control plane

Darktrace monitors Kubernetes at three levels that together provide comprehensive runtime visibility:

Network-layer
1. Traffic between pods, across nodes and out to the internet. This helps to detect lateral movement and unusual connectivity, whether internal or external.
Process-layer
1. What is executing inside your containers. If a process reads a sensitive credential file or spawns an unexpected shell inside a production pod, Darktrace can identify that activity and use it as context for further detections.
Control plane
1. Activity against the Kubernetes API itself: someone executes a command in a running pod, RBAC changes, or unusual administrative actions. Many high-impact security events involve the control plane, an area that is often less visible to solutions that only analyze or scan network-layer telemetry.

Misconfiguration and vulnerability awareness

Runtime detection is strongest when combined with posture and exposure management. Darktrace surfaces risky pod configurations, such as privileged containers, host networking, and over-permissive service accounts as workloads are deployed, and links CVEs from images to the workloads running them. Security teams can go beyond simply knowing that a vulnerability exists and see exactly where it is in the cluster. When combined with behavior-based detections, this provides invaluable context that can help prioritize incidents and proactively identify areas that need further attention. For example, anomalous workload behavior on its own might not be very interesting to a security team at first, but if that same workload is known to host sensitive data, is known to have critical vulnerabilities associated with it, or is publicly accessible, then this narrative becomes much more suspicious and demanding of their attention.

Darktrace highlights Kubernetes misconfigurations such as privileged containers, host networking, and missing security controls, helping teams prioritize runtime alerts with valuable exposure and risk context

‍

Response, tailored to Kubernetes

Detection is most effective when paired with response. Darktrace can take precise actions on Kubernetes workloads, including blocking a malicious connection at the pod level, helping to safely contain threats while security teams investigate. Response actions can be taken fully autonomously or via a human-in-the-loop process, which is completely configurable depending on the desired level of autonomy and scope. Darktrace is expanding the number of Kubernetes-native response actions to give customers even more flexibility when containing threats.

Forensics that survive the workload

Because containers are so short-lived, evidence disappears fast and this can make it very difficult to answer questions related to the initial detections. Darktrace solves this with Forensic Acquisition & Investigation capabilities that extend to Kubernetes containers, allowing investigations to be triggered manually by an analyst, or automatically from an alert, preserving evidence before the workload is gone.

For incident responders, this addresses a key challenge in container security: being able to answer “what actually happened?” after an ephemeral workload has vanished.

One platform, not another silo

Kubernetes doesn't exist in isolation, and neither should its security. Darktrace correlates cluster activity with the surrounding cloud environment, including AWS, Azure and GCP identities, network activity and cloud assets, allowing analysts to pivot between a Kubernetes workload and its wider context. A single anomalous action can be traced from the control plane to the pod, and from the pod to the cloud identity behind it, all within a single investigation workflow. This can also include alerts from other areas of hybrid infrastructure or third-party sources where relevant, adding more context to investigations and speeding up workflows for human analysts.

Built to deploy easily

Operational complexity can be a barrier to security adoption. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK for Kubernetes installs with a single command, and for teams that manage their infrastructure as code, it supports raw manifests so the deployment can live in a Git repository and be managed through existing GitOps workflows. The same deployment approach works across Kubernetes environments in AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and on-premises infrastructure. Early adopters of Darktrace’s Kubernetes capabilities have highlighted the simplicity of deployment and time to value.

Darktrace can deploy across your Kubernetes environment and wider hybrid infrastructure, while also providing visibility into Kubernetes deployment structure and status

Next steps

Kubernetes environments are dynamic, ephemeral and API-driven in ways that challenge traditional security tooling. With Kubernetes usage increasing due to widespread AI adoption, it is essential to secure Kubernetes environments as part of securing what AI can do. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK addresses these challenges by learning normal behavior in Kubernetes environments across network, process and control-plane layers, identifying meaningful threats and enabling targeted response. Combined with the context of wider hybrid infrastructure and forensic investigation capabilities, Darktrace provides visibility into both emerging threats and active incidents.

To see how Darktrace can help secure your Kubernetes environment and your wider hybrid infrastructure, get in touch to arrange your free trial. Existing customers can contact their Darktrace Account Team for more information about deployment options and licensing.

‍

Sources

[1] Gartner, Container Management research, 2025: "By 2028, 95% of new AI deployments will use Kubernetes, up from less than 30% today." https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7913109. (quote reproduced under Gartner reprint at https://www.kubermatic.com/magic-quadrant-and-critical-capabilities-for-container-management/)

[2] Palo Alto Networks (Unit 42) – Container Breakouts: Escape Techniques in Cloud Environments. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/container-escape-techniques/

[3] runC container-escape vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-31133, CVE-2025-52565, CVE-2025-52881), disclosed by a SUSE researcher on November 5, 2025. https://www.securityweek.com/runc-vulnerabilities-can-be-exploited-to-escape-containers/

[4] NVIDIAScape (CVE-2025-23266), CVSS 9.0. https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5659

[related-resource]

‍

About the author

Elise Longhurst

Senior Product Executive

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Modern Extortion: Detecting Data Theft From the Cloud

Modern Extortion: Detecting Data Theft From the Cloud

Ransomware Industry

Attack Overview

Accomplish Mission

Establish Foothold

Darktrace Coverage

Darktrace DETECT

Darktrace RESPOND

Concluding Thoughts

Appendices

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Why Hybrid Environments Need Unified Visibility

Forensics or Fauxrensics: Five Core Capabilities for Cloud Forensics and Incident Response

Bringing Together SOC and IR teams with Automated Threat Investigations for the Hybrid World

Blog

OT

October 21, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

References

Blog

Network

October 20, 2026

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Why Kubernetes is hard to secure

Rising to the challenge of securing Kubernetes

Behavioral detection, not static rules

Visibility across the network, the process, and the control plane

Misconfiguration and vulnerability awareness

Response, tailored to Kubernetes

Forensics that survive the workload

One platform, not another silo

Built to deploy easily

Next steps