Blog
/
Network
/
October 30, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities on Fortinet Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

This blog explores recent findings from Darktrace's Threat Research team on active exploitation campaigns targeting Fortinet appliances. This analysis focuses on the September 2024 exploitation of FortiManager via CVE-2024-47575, alongside related malicious activity observed in June 2024.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior 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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
30
Oct 2024

Introduction: Uncovering active exploitation of Fortinet vulnerabilities

As part of the Darktrace Threat Research team's routine analysis of October's Patch Tuesday vulnerabilities, the team began searching for signs of active exploitation of a critical vulnerability (CVE-2024-23113) affecting the FortiGate to FortiManager (FGFM) protocol.[1]

Although the investigation was prompted by an update regarding CVE 2024-23113, results of the inquiry yielded evidence of widespread exploitation of Fortinet devices in both June and September 2024 potentially via multiple vulnerabilities including CVE 2024-47575. Analysts identified two clusters of activity involving overlapping indicators of compromise (IoCs), likely constituting unique campaigns targeting Fortinet appliances.

This blog will first highlight the finding and analysis of the network-based indicators of FortiManager post-exploitation activity in September, likely involving CVE 2024-47575. The article will then briefly detail a similar pattern of malicious activity observed in June 2024 that involved similar IoCs that potentially comprises a distinct campaign targeting Fortinet perimeter devices.

Fortinet CVE Disclosures

FortiManager devices allow network administrators to manage Fortinet devices on organizations’ networks.[2] One such subset of devices managed through this method are Fortinet firewalls known as FortiGate. These manager and firewall devices communicate with each other via a custom protocol known as FortiGate to FortiManager (FGFM), whereby devices can perform reachability tests and configuration-related actions and reporting.[3] By default, FortiManager devices operate this protocol via port 541.[4]

Fortinet Product Security Incident Response Team released multiple announcements revealing vulnerabilities within the daemon responsible for implementing operability of the FGFM service. Specifically, CVE 2024-23113 enables attackers to potentially perform arbitrary remote command execution through the use of a specially crafted format string to a FortiGate device running the “fgfm daemon”.[5][6]  Similarly, the exploitation of CVE 2024-47575  could also allow remote command execution due to a missing authentication mechanism when targeting specifically FortiManager devices.[7][8]  Given how prolific both FortiGate and FortiManager devices are within the global IT security ecosystem, Darktrace analysts hypothesized that there may have been specific targeting of such devices within the customer base using these vulnerabilities throughout mid to late 2024.

Campaign Analysis

In light of these vulnerability disclosures, Darktrace’s Threat Research team began searching for signs of active exploitation by investigating file download, lateral movement or tooling activity from devices that had previously received suspicious connections on port 541. The team first noticed increases in suspicious activity involving Fortinet devices particularly in mid-September 2024. Further analysis revealed a similar series of activities involving some overlapping devices identified in June 2024. Analysis of these activity clusters revealed a pattern of malicious activity against likely FortiManager devices, including initial exploitation, payload retrieval, and exfiltration of probable configuration data.

Below is an overview of malicious activity we have observed by sector and region:

Sector and region affected by malicious activity on fortigate devices
The sectors of affected customers listed above are categorized according to the United Kingdom’s Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).

Initial Exploitation of FortiManager Devices

Across many of the observed cases in September, activity began with the initial exploitation of FortiManager devices via incoming connectivity over TLS/SSL. Such activity was detected due to the rarity of the receiving devices accepting connections from external sources, particularly over destination port 541. Within nearly all investigated incidents, connectivity began with the source IP, 45.32.41[.]202, establishing an SSL session with likely FortiManager devices.  Device types were determined through a combination of the devices’ hostnames and the noted TLS certificate issuer for such encrypted connections.

Due to the encrypted nature of the connection, it was not possible to ascertain the exploit used in the analyzed cases. However, given the similarity of activities targeting FortiManager devices and research conducted by outside firms, attackers likely utilized CVE 2024-47575.[9] For example, the source IP initiating the SSL sessions also has been referenced by Mandiant as engaging in CVE 2024-47575 exploitation. In addition to a consistent source IP for the connections, a similar JA3 hash was noted across multiple examined accounts, suggesting a similarity in source process for the activity.

In most cases observed by Darktrace, the incoming connectivity was followed by an outgoing connection on port 443 to the IP 45.32.41[.]202. Uncommon reception of encrypted connections over port 541, followed by the initiation of outgoing SSL connections to the same endpoint would suggest probable successful exploitation of FortiManager CVEs during this time.

Model alert logs highlighting the incoming connectivity over port 541 to the FortiManager devices followed by outgoing connection to the external IP.
Figure 1: Model alert logs highlighting the incoming connectivity over port 541 to the FortiManager devices followed by outgoing connection to the external IP.

Payload Retrieval

Investigated devices commonly retrieved some form of additional content after incoming connectivity over port 541. Darktrace’s Threat Research team noted how affected devices would make HTTP GET requests to the initial exploitation IP for the URI: /dom.js. This URI, suggestive of JavaScript content retrieval, was then validated by the HTTP response content type. Although Darktrace could see the HTTP content of the connections, usage of destination port 443 featured prominently during these HTTP requests, suggesting an attempt at encryption of the session payload details.

‍

Figure 2: Advanced Search HTTP log to the exploitation IP noting the retrieval of JavaScript content using the curl user agent.

‍

‍

Cyber AI Analyst investigation into the initial exploitation activity. This incident emphasizes the rare external connectivity over port 443 requesting JavaScript content following the incoming connections over port 541.
Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst investigation into the initial exploitation activity. This incident emphasizes the rare external connectivity over port 443 requesting JavaScript content following the incoming connections over port 541.

The operators of the campaign also appear to have used a consistent user agent for payload retrieval: curl 8.4.0. Usage of an earlier version of the curl (version 7 .86.0) was only observed in one instance. The incorporation of curl utility to establish HTTP connections therefore suggests interaction with command-line utilities on the inspected Fortinet hosts. Command-line interaction also adds validity to the usage of exploits such as CVE 2024-47575 which enable unauthenticated remote command execution. Moreover, given the egress of data seen by the devices receiving this JavaScript content, Darktrace analysts concluded that this payload likely resulted in the configuration aggregation activity noted by external researchers.

Data Exfiltration

Nearly all devices investigated during the September time period performed some form of data exfiltration using the HTTP protocol. Most frequently, devices would initiate these HTTP requests using the same curl user agent already observed during web callback activity.  Again, usage of this tool heavily suggests interaction with the command-line interface and therefore command execution.

The affected device typically made an HTTP POST request to one or both of the following two rare external IPs: 104.238.141[.]143 and 158.247.199[.]37. One of the noted IPs, 104.238.141[.]143, features prominently within external research conducted by Mandiant during this time. These HTTP POST requests nearly always sent data to the /file endpoint on the destination IPs. Analyzed connections frequently noted an HTTP mime type suggestive of compressed archive content. Some investigations also revealed specific filenames for the data sent externally: “.tm”. HTTP POST requests occurred without a specified hostname. This would suggest the IP address may have already been cached locally on the device from a running process or the IP address was hardcoded into the details of unwarranted code running on the system. Moreover, many such POSTs occurred without a GET request, which can indicate exfiltration activity.

Model alert logs noting both the connection to the IP 158.247.199[.]37 over port 443 without a hostname, and the unusual activity metric describing how the request was made without a prior HTTP GET request. Such activity can indicate malicious data exfiltration.
Figure 4: Model alert logs noting both the connection to the IP 158.247.199[.]37 over port 443 without a hostname, and the unusual activity metric describing how the request was made without a prior HTTP GET request. Such activity can indicate malicious data exfiltration.

Interestingly, in many investigations, analysts noticed a lag period between the initial access and exploitation, and the exfiltration of data via HTTP. Such a pause, sometimes over several hours to over a day, could reflect the time needed to aggregate data locally on the host or as a strategic pause in activity to avoid detection. While not present within every compromise activity logs inspected, the delay could represent slight adjustments in behavior during the campaign by the threat actor.

Figure 5: Advanced search logs showing both the payload retrieval and exfiltration activity, emphasizing the gap in time between payload retrieval and exfiltration via HTTP POST request.

HTTP and file identification details identified during this time also directly correspond to research conducted by Mandiant. Not only do we see overlap in IPs identified as receiving the posted data (104.238.141[.]143) we also directly observed an overlap in filenames for the locally aggregated configuration data. Moreover, the gzip mime type identified in multiple customer investigations also corresponds directly to exfiltration activity noted by Mandiant researchers.

Advanced search logs noting the filename and URL of the posted data to one of the exfiltration IPs. The .tm filename corresponds to the locally stored file on affected FortiManager devices analyzed by external researchers.
Figure 6: Advanced search logs noting the filename and URL of the posted data to one of the exfiltration IPs. The .tm filename corresponds to the locally stored file on affected FortiManager devices analyzed by external researchers.

Activity detected in June 2024

Common indicators

Analysts identified a similar pattern of activity between June 23 and June 25. Activity in this period involved incoming connections from the aforementioned IP 45.32.41[.]202 on either port 541 or port 443 followed by an outgoing connection to the source. This behavior was then followed by HTTP POSTs to the previously mentioned IP address 158.247.199[.]37 in addition to the novel IP: 195.85.114[.]78  using same URI ‘/file’ noted above. Given the commonalties in indicators, time period, and observed behaviors, this grouping of exploitation attempts appears to align closely with the campaign described by Mandiant and may represent exploitation of CVE 2024-47575 in June 2024. The customers targeted in June fall into the same regions and sectors as seen those in the September campaign.

Deviations in behavior

Notably, Darktrace detected a different set of actions during the same June timeframe despite featuring the same infrastructure. This activity involved an initial incoming connection from 158.247.199[.]37 to an internal device on either port 541 or port 443. This was then followed by an outgoing HTTP connection to 158.247.199[.]37 on port 443 with a URI containing varying external IPs. Upon further review, analysts noticed the IPs listed may be the public IPs of the targeted victim, suggesting a potential form device registration by the threat actor or exploit validation. While the time period and infrastructure closely align with the previous campaign described, the difference in activity may suggest another threat actor sharing infrastructure or the same threat actor carrying out a different campaign at the same time. Although the IP 45.32.41[.]202 was contacted, paralleling activity seen in September, analysts did notice a different payload received from the external host, a shell script with the filename ver.sh.

‍

Figure 7: AI Analyst timeline noting the suspicious HTTP behavior from a FortiManager device involving the IP 158.247.199[.] 37.

Darktrace's depth of detection and investigation

Darktrace detected spikes in anomalous behavior from Fortinet devices within the customer base between September 22 and 23, 2024. Following an in-depth investigation into affected accounts and hosts, Darktrace identified a clear pattern where one, or multiple, threat actors leveraged CVEs affecting likely FortiManager devices to execute commands on the host, retrieve malicious content, and exfiltrate sensitive data. During this investigation, analysts then identified possibly related activity in June 2024 highlighted above.

The gathering and exfiltration of configuration data from network security management or other perimeter hosts is a technique that can enable future access by threat actors. This parallels activity previously discussed by Darktrace focused on externally facing devices, such as Palo Alto Networks firewall devices.  Malicious entities could utilize stolen configuration data and potentially stored passwords/hashes to gain initial access in the future, irrespective of the state of device patching. This data can also be potentially sold by initial access brokers on illicit sites. Moreover, groups can leverage this information to establish persistence mechanisms within devices and host networks to enable more impactful compromise activity.

Uncover threat pattens before they strike your network

Network and endpoint management services are essential tools for network administrators and will remain a critical part of IT infrastructure. However, these devices are often configured as internet-facing systems, which can unintentionally expose organizations networks' to attacks. Internet exposure provides malicious groups with novel entry routes into target environments. Although threat actors can swap vulnerabilities to access target networks, the exploitation process leaves behind unusual traffic patterns, making their presence detectable with the right network detection tools.

By detecting the unusual patterns of network traffic which inevitably ensue from exploitation of novel vulnerabilities, Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection and response approach can continue to identify and inhibit such intrusion activities irrespective of exploit used. Eulogizing the principle of least privilege, configuration and asset management, and maintaining the CIA Triad across security operations will continue to help security teams boost their defense posture. ‍

See how anomaly-based detection can enhance your security operations—schedule a personalized demo today.

Get a demo button for Darktrace

Credit to Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Principal Cyber Analyst), Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst), Hyeongyung Yeom (Principal Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead, East Asia), Sam Lister (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Appendix

Model Alerts

  • Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP without Hostname
  • Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
  • Anomalous Server Activity / New Internet Facing Server
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

  • Possible HTTP Command and Control
  • Possible HTTP Command and Control to Multiple Endpoints

IoCs

Indicator – Type - Description

104.238.141[.]143 -  IP Address  - C2 infrastructure

158.247.199[.]37 - IP Address - C2 infrastructure

45.32.41[.]202 - IP Address - C2 infrastructure

104.238.141[.]143/file – URL - C2 infrastructure

158.247.199[.]37/file  - URL - C2 infrastructure

45.32.41[.]202/dom.js – URL - C2 infrastructure

.tm – Filename - Gzip file

MITRE Attack Framework

  • Initial Access: 
    T1190 Exploiting Public-Facing Application
  • Execution:
    T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter  (Sub-Techniques: T1059.004 Unix Shell, T1059.008 Network Device CLI)
  • Discovery:
    T1083 File and System Discovery
    T1057 Process Discovery
  • Collection:
    T1005 Data From Local System
  • Command and Control:
    T1071 Application Layer Protocols (Sub-Technique:
    T1071.001 Web Protocols)
    T1573  Encrypted Channel
    T1573.001  Symmetric Cryptography
    T1571 Non-Standard Port
    T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer
    T1572 Protocol Tunnelling 
  • Exfiltration:
    T1048.003 Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol

‍

References

{1} https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/fortimanager-zero-day-exploitation-cve-2024-47575/‍

{2} https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortimanager/6.4.0/ports-and-protocols/606094/fortigate-fortimanager-protocol#:~:text=The%20FortiGate%2DFortiManager%20(FGFM),by%20using%20the%20FGFM%20protocol.

{3)https://docs.fortinet.com/document/fortigate/6.4.0/ports-and-protocols/373486/fgfm-fortigate-to-fortimanager-protocol
{4} https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-029
{5} https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-423
{6}https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/data-sheets/fortimanager.pdf

{7} https://doublepulsar.com/burning-zero-days-fortijump-fortimanager-vulnerability-used-by-nation-state-in-espionage-via-msps-c79abec59773

{8} https://darktrace.com/blog/post-exploitation-activities-on-pan-os-devices-a-network-based-analysis

Written by
Adam Potter
Senior 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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst

Inside Cloud Compromise: Investigating Attacker Activity with Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

Cloud
•
March 4, 2026
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Securing Generative AI: Managing Risk in Amazon Bedrock with Darktrace / CLOUD
Nov 19, 2025
2
The 17% of email threats SEGs miss – and how Darktrace catches them
Dec 4, 2025
3
Darktrace Named as a Leader in 2025 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Email Security Platforms
Dec 3, 2025
4
From Amazon to Louis Vuitton: How Darktrace Detects Black Friday Phishing Attacks
Nov 27, 2025
5
Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability
Jul 2, 2025

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
Network
•
February 13, 2026

CVE-2026-1731: How Darktrace Sees the BeyondTrust Exploitation Wave Unfolding

A new exploitation wave targeting BeyondTrust products has emerged following disclosure of CVE‑2026‑1731. Darktrace is observing early malicious activity across customer environments and highlights the importance of proactive defenses.
Emma Foulger
Global Threat Research Operations Lead
Read more
Network
•
February 10, 2026

AI/LLM-Generated Malware Used to Exploit React2Shell

Darktrace identified an AI/LLM generated malware sample exploiting the React2Shell vulnerability within its Cloudypots environment. The incident shows how LLM‑assisted development enables low‑skill attackers to rapidly create effective exploitation tools. This analysis outlines the attack chain, AI‑generated payload, and the growing defensive challenges posed by accessible, AI‑enabled cyber threats.
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Read more
Network
•
February 5, 2026

AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign

This blog explores a macOS phishing campaign that leverages social engineering, AppleScript loaders, and attempted abuse of the macOS’ TCC feature to gain privileged access. It highlights a broader trend: attackers increasingly exploit user trust rather than system vulnerabilities, using staged payload delivery and persistence techniques to maintain long‑term access.
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Read more

Blog

/

Cloud

/

March 5, 2026

Inside Cloud Compromise: Investigating Attacker Activity with Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

Forensic Acquisition and investigationDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Investigating cloud attacks with Darktrace/ Forensic Acquisition & Investigation

Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation™ is the industry’s first truly automated forensic solution purpose-built for the cloud. This blog will demonstrate how an investigation can be carried out against a compromised cloud server in minutes, rather than hours or days.

The compromised server investigated in this case originates from Darktrace’s Cloudypots system, a global honeypot network designed to observe adversary activity in real time across a wide range of cloud services. Whenever an attacker successfully compromises one of these honeypots, a forensic copy of the virtual server's disk is preserved for later analysis. Using Forensic Acquisition & Investigation, analysts can then investigate further and obtain detailed insights into the compromise including complete attacker timelines and root cause analysis.

Forensic Acquisition & Investigation supports importing artifacts from a variety of sources, including EC2 instances, ECS, S3 buckets, and more. The Cloudypots system produces a raw disk image whenever an attack is detected and stores it in an S3 bucket. This allows the image to be directly imported into Forensic Acquisition & Investigation using the S3 bucket import option.

As Forensic Acquisition & Investigation runs cloud-natively, no additional configuration is required to add a specific S3 bucket. Analysts can browse and acquire forensic assets from any bucket that the configured IAM role is permitted to access. Operators can also add additional IAM credentials, including those from other cloud providers, to extend access across multiple cloud accounts and environments.

Figure 1: Forensic Acquisition & Investigation import screen.

Forensic Acquisition & Investigation then retrieves a copy of the file and automatically begins running the analysis pipeline on the artifact. This pipeline performs a full forensic analysis of the disk and builds a timeline of the activity that took place on the compromised asset. By leveraging Forensic Acquisition & Investigation’s cloud-native analysis system, this process condenses hour of manual work into just minutes.

Successful import of a forensic artifact and initiation of the analysis pipeline.
Figure 2: Successful import of a forensic artifact and initiation of the analysis pipeline.

Once processing is complete, the preserved artifact is visible in the Evidence tab, along with a summary of key information obtained during analysis, such as the compromised asset’s hostname, operating system, cloud provider, and key event count.

The Evidence overview showing the acquired disk image.
Figure 3: The Evidence overview showing the acquired disk image.

Clicking on the “Key events” field in the listing opens the timeline view, automatically filtered to show system- generated alarms.

The timeline provides a chronological record of every event that occurred on the system, derived from multiple sources, including:

  • Parsed log files such as the systemd journal, audit logs, application specific logs, and others.
  • Parsed history files such as .bash_history, allowing executed commands to be shown on the timeline.
  • File-specific events, such as files being created, accessed, modified, or executables being run, etc.

This approach allows timestamped information and events from multiple sources to be aggregated and parsed into a single, concise view, greatly simplifying the data review process.

Alarms are created for specific timeline events that match either a built-in system rule, curated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team or an operator-defined rule  created at the project level. These alarms help quickly filter out noise and highlight on events of interest, such as the creation of a file containing known malware, access to sensitive files like Amazon Web Service (AWS) credentials, suspicious arguments or commands, and more.

The timeline view filtered to alarm_severity: “1” OR alarm_severity: “3”, showing only events that matched an alarm rule.
Figure 4: The timeline view filtered to alarm_severity: “1” OR alarm_severity: “3”, showing only events that matched an alarm rule.

In this case, several alarms were generated for suspicious Base64 arguments being passed to Selenium. Examining the event data, it appears the attacker spawned a Selenium Grid session with the following payload:

"request.payload": "[Capabilities {browserName: chrome, goog:chromeOptions: {args: [-cimport base64;exec(base64...], binary: /usr/bin/python3, extensions: []}, pageLoadStrategy: normal}]"

This is a common attack vector for Selenium Grid. The chromeOptions object is intended to specify arguments for how Google Chrome should be launched; however, in this case the attacker has abused the binary field to execute the Python3 binary instead of Chrome. Combined with the option to specify command-line arguments, the attacker can use Python3’s -c option to execute arbitrary Python code, in this instance, decoding and executing a Base64 payload.

Selenium’s logs truncate the Arguments field automatically, so an alternate method is required to retrieve the full payload. To do this, the search bar can be used to find all events that occurred around the same time as this flagged event.

Pivoting off the previous event by filtering the timeline to events within the same window using timestamp: [“2026-02-18T09:09:00Z” TO “2026-02-18T09:12:00Z”].
Figure 5: Pivoting off the previous event by filtering the timeline to events within the same window using timestamp: [“2026-02-18T09:09:00Z” TO “2026-02-18T09:12:00Z”].

Scrolling through the search results, an entry from Java’s systemd journal can be identified. This log contains the full, unaltered payload. GCHQ’s CyberChef can then be used to decode the Base64 data into the attacker’s script, which will ultimately be executed.

Decoding the attacker’s payload in CyberChef.
Figure 6: Decoding the attacker’s payload in CyberChef.

In this instance, the malware was identified as a variant of a campaign that has been previously documented in depth by Darktrace.

Investigating Perfctl Malware

This campaign deploys a malware sample known as ‘perfctl to the compromised host. The script executed by the attacker downloads a Go binary named “promocioni.php” from 200[.]4.115.1. Its functionality is consistent with previously documented perfctl samples, with only minor changes such as updated filenames and a new command-and-control (C2) domain.

Perfctl is a stealthy malware that has several systems designed  to evade detection. The main binary is packed with UPX, with the header intentionally tampered with to prevent unpacking using regular tools. The binary also avoids executing any malicious code if it detects debugging or tracing activity, or if artifacts left by earlier stages are missing.

To further aid its evasive capabilities, perfctl features a usermode rootkit using an LD preload. This causes dynamically linked executables to load perfctl’s rootkit payload before other system modules, allowing it to override functions, such as intercepting calls to list files and hiding output from the returned list. Perfctl uses this to hide its own files, as well as other files like the ld.so.preload file, preventing users from identifying that a rootkit is present in the first place.

This also makes it difficult to dynamically analyze, as even analysts aware of the rootkit will struggle to get around it due to its aggressiveness in hiding its components. A useful trick is to use the busybox-static utilities, which are statically linked and therefore immune to LD preloading.

Perfctl will attempt to use sudo to escalate its permissions to root if the user it was executed as has the required privileges. Failing this, it will attempt to exploit the vulnerability CVE-2021-4034.

Ultimately, perfctl will attempt to establish a C2 link via Tor and spawn an XMRig miner to mine the Monero cryptocurrency. The traffic to the mining pool is encapsulated within Tor to limit network detection of the mining traffic.

Darktrace’s Cloudypots system has observed 1,959 infections of the perfctl campaign across its honeypot network in the past year, making it one of the most aggressive campaigns seen by Darktrace.

Key takeaways

This blog has shown how Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation equips defenders in the face of a real-world attacker campaign. By using this solution, organizations can acquire forensic evidence and investigate intrusions across multiple cloud resources and providers, enabling defenders to see the full picture of an intrusion on day one. Forensic Acquisition & Investigation’s patented data-processing system takes advantage of the cloud’s scale to rapidly process large amounts of data, allowing triage to take minutes, not hours.

Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation is available as Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) but can also be deployed on-premises as a virtual application or natively in the cloud, providing flexibility between convenience and data sovereignty to suit any use case.

Support for acquiring traditional compute instances like EC2, as well as more exotic and newly targeted platforms such as ECS and Lambda, ensures that attacks taking advantage of Living-off-the-Cloud (LOTC) strategies can be triaged quickly and easily as part of incident response. As attackers continue to develop new techniques, the ability to investigate how they use cloud services to persist and pivot throughout an environment is just as important to triage as a single compromised EC2 instance.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer

Blog

/

AI

/

March 2, 2026

What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders

Image of the Earth from spaceDefault blog imageDefault blog image

The challenge for today’s CISOs

At the broadest level, the defining characteristic of cybersecurity in 2026 is the sheer pace of change shaping the environments we protect. Organizations are operating in ecosystems that are larger, more interconnected, and more automated than ever before – spanning cloud platforms, distributed identities, AI-driven systems, and continuous digital workflows.  

The velocity of this expansion has outstripped the slower, predictable patterns security teams once relied on. What used to be a stable backdrop is now a living, shifting landscape where technology, risk, and business operations evolve simultaneously. From this vantage point, the central challenge for security leaders isn’t reacting to individual threats, but maintaining strategic control and clarity as the entire environment accelerates around them.

Strategic takeaways from the Annual Threat Report

The Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 reinforces a reality every CISO feels: the center of gravity isn’t the perimeter, vulnerability management, or malware, but trust abused via identity. For example, our analysis found that nearly 70% of incidents in the Americas region begin with stolen or misused accounts, reflecting the global shift toward identity‑led intrusions.

Mass adoption of AI agents, cloud-native applications, and machine decision-making means CISOs now oversee systems that act on their own. This creates an entirely new responsibility: ensuring those systems remain safe, predictable, and aligned to business intent, even under adversarial pressure.

Attackers increasingly exploit trust boundaries, not firewalls – leveraging cloud entitlements, SaaS identity transitions, supply-chain connectivity, and automation frameworks. The rise of non-human identities intensifies this: credentials, tokens, and agent permissions now form the backbone of operational risk.

Boards are now evaluating CISOs on business continuity, operational recovery, and whether AI systems and cloud workloads can fail safely without cascading or causing catastrophic impact.

In this environment, detection accuracy, autonomous response, and blast radius minimization matter far more than traditional control coverage or policy checklists.

Every organization will face setbacks; resilience is measured by how quickly security teams can rise, respond, and resume momentum. In 2026, success will belong to those that adapt fastest.

Managing business security in the age of AI

CISO accountability in 2026 has expanded far beyond controls and tooling. Whether we asked for it or not, we now own outcomes tied to business resilience, AI trust, cloud assurance, and continuous availability. The role is less about certainty and more about recovering control in an environment that keeps accelerating.

Every major 2026 initiative – AI agents, third-party risk, cloud, or comms protection – connects to a single board-level question: Are we still in control as complexity and automation scale faster than humans?

Attackers are not just getting more sophisticated; they are becoming more automated. AI changes the economics of attack, lowering cost and increasing speed. That asymmetry is what CISOs are being measured against.

CISOs are no longer evaluated on tool coverage, but on the ability to assure outcomes – trust in AI adoption, resilience across cloud and identity, and being able to respond to unknown and unforeseen threats.

Boards are now explicitly asking whether we can defend against AI-driven threats. No one can predict every new behavior – survival depends on detecting malicious deviations from normal fast and responding autonomously.  

Agents introduce decision-making at machine speed. Governance, CI/CD scanning, posture management, red teaming, and runtime detection are no longer differentiators but the baseline.

Cloud security is no longer architectural, it is operational. Identity, control planes, and SaaS exposure now sit firmly with the CISO.

AI-speed threats already reshaping security in 2026

We’re already seeing clear examples of how quickly the threat landscape has shifted in 2026. Darktrace’s work on React2Shell exposed just how unforgiving the new tempo is: a honeypot stood up with an exposed React was hit in under two minutes. There was no recon phase, no gradual probing – just immediate, automated exploitation the moment the code appeared publicly. Exposure now equals compromise unless defenses can detect, interpret, and act at machine speed. Traditional operational rhythms simply don’t map to this reality.

We’re also facing the first wave of AI-authored malware, where LLMs generate code that mutates on demand. This removes the historic friction from the attacker side: no skill barrier, no time cost, no limit on iteration. Malware families can regenerate themselves, shift structure, and evade static controls without a human operator behind the keyboard. This forces CISOs to treat adversarial automation as a core operational risk and ensure that autonomous systems inside the business remain predictable under pressure.

The CVE-2026-1731 BeyondTrust exploitation wave reinforced the same pattern. The gap between disclosure and active, global exploitation compressed into hours. Automated scanning, automated payload deployment, coordinated exploitation campaigns, all spinning up faster than most organizations can push an emergency patch through change control. The vulnerability-to-exploit window has effectively collapsed, making runtime visibility, anomaly detection, and autonomous containment far more consequential than patching speed alone.

These cases aren’t edge scenarios; they represent the emerging norm. Complexity and automation have outpaced human-scale processes, and attackers are weaponizing that asymmetry.  

The real differentiator for CISOs in 2026 is less about knowing everything and more about knowing immediately when something shifts – and having systems that can respond at the same speed.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Mike Beck
Global CISO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI