Blog
/
/
June 27, 2021

Post-Mortem Analysis of a SQL Server Exploit

Learn about the post-mortem analysis of a SQL Server exploit. Discover key insights and strategies to enhance your cybersecurity defenses.
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Default blog image
27
Jun 2021

While SaaS and IoT devices are increasingly popular vectors of intrusion, server-side attacks remain a serious threat to organizations worldwide. With sophisticated vulnerability scanning tools, attackers can now pinpoint security flaws in seconds, finding points of entry across the attack surface. Human security teams often struggle to keep pace with the constant wave of newly documented vulnerabilities and patches.

Darktrace recently stopped a targeted cyber-attack by an unknown attacker. After the initial entry, the attacker exploited an unpatched vulnerability (CVE-2020-0618), granting a low-privileged credential the ability to remotely execute code. This enabled the attacker to spread laterally and eventually establish a foothold in the system by creating a new user account.

‍

The server-side attack cycle: authenticates user; scans network; infects three servers; downloads malware; c2 traffic; creates new user.

Figure 1: Overview of the server-side attack cycle.

This blog breaks down the intrusion and explores how Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology took three surgical actions to halt the attacker’s movements.

Unknown threat actors exploit a vulnerability

Initial compromise

At a financial firm in Canada with around 3,000 devices, Cyber AI detected the use of a new credential, ‘parents’. The attacker used this credential to access the company’s internal environment through the VPN. From there, the credential authenticated to a desktop using NT LAN Manager (NTLM). No further suspicious activity was observed.

NTLM is a popular attack vector for cyber-criminals as it is vulnerable to multiple methods of compromise, including brute-force and ‘pass the hash’. The initial access to the credential could have been obtained via phishing before Darktrace had been deployed.

Figure 2: The credential was first observed on the device five days prior to reconnaissance. The attacker performed reconnaissance and lateral movement for two days, until the compromised devices were taken down.

Internal reconnaissance

Five days later, the ‘parents’ credential was seen logging onto the desktop. The desktop began scanning the network – over 80 internal IPs – on Port 443 and 445.

Shortly after the scan, the device used Nmap to attempt to establish SMBv1 sessions to 139 internal IPs, using guest / user credentials. 79 out of the 278 sessions were successful, all using the login.

Figure 3: New failed internal connections performed by an initially infected desktop, in a similar incident. The graph highlights a surge in failed internal connections and model breaches.

The network scan was the first stage after intrusion, enabling the attacker to find out which services were running, before looking for unpatched vulnerabilities.

Nmap has multiple built-in functionalities which are often exploited for reconnaissance and lateral movement. In this case, it was being used to establish the SMBv1 sessions to the domain controller, saving the attacker from having to initiate SMBv1 sessions with each destination one by one. SMBv1 has well-known vulnerabilities and best practice is to disable it where possible.

Lateral movement

The desktop began controlling services (svcctl endpoint) on a SQL server. It was observed both creating and starting services (CreateServiceW, StartServiceW).

The desktop then initiated an unencrypted HTTP connection to a SQL Reporting server. This was the first HTTP connection between the two devices and the first time the user agent had been seen on the device.

A packet capture of the connection reveals a POST that is seen in an exploit of CVE-2020-0613. This vulnerability is a deserialization issue, whereby the server mishandles carefully crafted page requests and allows low-privileged accounts to establish a reverse shell and remotely execute code on the server.

Figure 4: A partial PCAP of the HTTP connection. The traffic matches the CVE-2020-0618 exploit, which enables Remote Code Execution (RCE) in SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS).

Most movements were seen in East-West traffic, with readily-available remote procedure call (RPC) methods. Such connections are abundant in systems. Without learning an organization’s ‘pattern of life’, it would have been near-impossible to highlight the malicious connections.

Cyber AI detected connections to the svcctl endpoint, via the DCE-RPC endpoint. This is called the 'service control' endpoint and is used to remotely control running processes on a device.

During the lateral movement from the desktop, the HTTP POST request revealed that the desktop was exploiting CVE-2020-0613. The attacker had managed to find and exploit an existing vulnerability which hadn’t been patched.

Darktrace was the only tool which alerted to the HTTP connection, revealing this underlying (and concluding) exploit. The AI determined that the user agent was unusual for the device and for the wider organization, and that the connection was highly anomalous. This connection would have gone otherwise amiss, since HTTP connections are common in most digital environments.

Because the attacker on the desktop used readily-available tools and protocols, such as Nmap, DCE-RPC, and HTTP, the device went undetected by all the other cyber defenses. However, Cyber AI noticed multiple scanning and lateral movement anomalies – triggering high-fidelity detections which would have been alerted to with Proactive Threat Notifications.

Command and control (C2) communication

The next day, the attacker connected to an SNMP server from the VPN. The connection used the ‘parents’ RDP cookie.

Immediately after the RDP connection began, the server connected to Pastebin and downloaded small amounts of encrypted data. Pastebin was likely being used as a vector to drop malicious scripts onto the device.

The SNMP server then started controlling services (svcttl) on the SQL server: again, creating and starting services.

Following this, both the SQL server and the SNMP server made a high volume of SSL connections to a rare external domain. One upload to the destination was around 21 MB, but otherwise the connections were mostly the same packet size. This, among other factors, indicated that the destination was being used as a C2 server.

Figure 5: Example Cyber AI Analyst investigation into beaconing activity by a SQL server.

With just one compromised credential, the attacker was now connecting to the VPN and infecting multiple servers on the company’s internal network.

The attacker dropped scripts onto the host using Pastebin. Darktrace alerted on this because Pastebin is highly rare for the organization. In fact, these connections were the first time it had been seen. Most security tools would miss this, as Pastebin is a legitimate site and would not be blocked by open-source intelligence (OSINT).

Even if a lesser-known Pastebin alternative had been used – say, in an environment where Pastebin was blocked on the firewall but the alternative not — Darktrace would have picked up on it in exactly the same way.

The C2 beaconing endpoint – dropbox16[.]com – has no OSINT information available online. The connections were on Port 443 and nothing about them was notable except from their rarity on the company’s system. Darktrace sent alerts because of its high rarity, rather than relying on known signatures.

Achieve persistence

After another Pastebin pull, the attacker attempted to maintain a greater foothold and escalate privileges by creating a new user using the SamrCreateUser2InDomain operation (endpoint: samr).

To establish persistence, the attacker now created a new user through a specific DCE-RPC command to the domain controller. This was highly unusual activity for the device, and was given a 100% anomaly score for ‘New or Uncommon Occurrence’.

If Darktrace had not alerted on this activity, the attacker would have continued to access files and make further inroads in the company, extracting sensitive data and potentially installing ransomware. This could have led to sensitive data loss, reputational damage, and financial losses for the company.

The value of Autonomous Response

The organization had Antigena in passive mode, so although it was not able to respond autonomously, we have visibility into the actions that it would have taken.

Antigena would have taken three actions on the initially infected desktop, as shown in the table below. The actions would have taken effect immediately in response to the first scan and the first service control requests.

During the two days of reconnaissance and lateral movement activity, these were the only steps Antigena suggested. The steps were all directly relevant to the intrusion – there was no attempt to block anything unrelated to the attack, and no other Antigena actions were triggered during this period.

By surgically blocking connections on specific ports during the scanning activity and enforcing the ‘pattern of life’ on the infected desktop, Antigena would have paralyzed the attacker’s reconnaissance efforts.

Furthermore, unusual service control attempts performed by the device would have been halted, minimizing the damage to the targeted destination.

Antigena would have delivered these blocks directly or via whatever integration was most suitable for the customer, such as firewall integrations or NAC integrations.

Lessons learned

The threat story above demonstrates the importance of controlling the access granted to low-privileged credentials, as well as remaining up-to-date with security patches. Since such attacks take advantage of existing network infrastructure, it is extremely difficult to detect these anomalous connections without the use of AI.

There was a delay of several days between the initial use of the ‘parents’ credentials and the first signs of lateral movement. This dormancy period – between compromise and the start of internal activities – is commonly seen in attacks. It likely indicates that the attacker was checking initially if their access worked, and then re-visiting the victim for further compromise once their schedule allowed for it.

Stopping a server-side attack

This compromise is reflective of many real-life intrusions: attacks cannot be easily attributed and are often conducted by sophisticated, unidentified threat actors.

Nevertheless, Darktrace managed to detect each stage of the attack cycle: initial compromise, reconnaissance, lateral movement, established foothold, and privilege escalation, and had Antigena been in active mode, it would have blocked these connections, and even prevented the initial desktop from ever exploiting the SQL vulnerability, which allowed the attacker to execute code remotely.

One day later, after seeing the power of Autonomous Response, the company decided to deploy Antigena in active mode.

Thanks to Darktrace analyst Isabel Finn for her insights on the above threat find.

‍

Darktrace model detections:

  • Device / Anomalous Nmap SMB Activity
  • Device / Network Scan - Low Anomaly Score
  • Device / Network Scan
  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
  • Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches
  • Device / New User Agent To Internal Server
  • Compliance / Pastebin
  • Device / Repeated Unknown RPC Service Bind Errors
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / Unusual Connections to Rare Lets Encrypt
  • User / Anomalous Domain User Creation Or Addition To Group


‍

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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

September 24, 2026

Detecting Rogue Agent Behavior in the Enterprise

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Agents cannot be trusted to perform tasks in the way we intend them to. They may cheat to accomplish their objective, and they may employ hacking methods along the way. Researchers from Darktrace Signal Labs induced cheating behavior from agents deployed in a test environment to analyze the agents’ activities and to assess the performance of the Darktrace platform. Agents frequently resorted to hacking to cheat on their assigned task. The visibility and behavioral profiling provided by both Darktrace / SECURE AI and Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK ensured extensive detection coverage of the agents’ misaligned activities.

Key Takeaways:

  • Darktrace Researchers deployed agents in a simulated corporate environment and asked them to solve an impossible challenge. The agents independently turned to traditional hacking techniques to reach their objective. No one instructed them to do this, and no attacker was involved.
  • Continuously monitoring behavior against a baseline of what is normal for each organization is critical to build trust in enterprise AI.
  • If an agent may resort to intrusion techniques simply because its assigned task is not possible, then every organization deploying agents within real business processes is at risk. Darktrace / SECURE AI and Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK identified the agents’ misaligned behavior in real time, with Autonomous Response disrupting it at an early stage.

Introduction: Understanding the Threat of Hacking by Agents

Over the last few months, there has been a surge in reporting [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] of LLM-powered agents engaging in unauthorized hacking activity during evaluations of their capabilities. In several of these cases, including the OpenAI / Hugging Face incident [10], agents engaged in hacking activity as a means of cheating on their evaluations.

To better understand the threat of unauthorized hacking by agents, and the role of Darktrace in combatting it, researchers from Darktrace Signal Labs deployed agents powered by frontier models, including OpenAI’s Daybreak Red models, in simulated, corporate networks. Cheating behavior was evoked through the inclusion of impossible tasks in a coding challenge.

Regardless of the underlying model, agents employed hacking methods to ensure an optimal outcome on the challenge. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK and Darktrace / SECURE AI identified the agents’ deviant activities, with inhibitive actions being autonomously taken in the early stages to disrupt the agents’ progression.

Setting the Stage

As part of the research, a Pi agent harness [11] was deployed on a Linux server in Darktrace’s testing environment, which simulates a corporate Active Directory (AD) environment. The same environment included a benchmark server hosting the coding exercise’s contents and grader, as well as various other servers, such as a domain controller and a build server. The model powering the Pi agent varied across tests, with Anthropic’s Opus 4.6 model and OpenAI’s GPT‑5.5‑Cyber model being most widely used.

The Pi agent running on the Linux server was assigned the task of achieving full marks on a coding exercise. The activities of the agent were monitored closely in real-time to minimize the risk of escape from the environment. Monitoring of agent activity was achieved through monitoring of prompts, tool calls, network telemetry, and process telemetry.

Both Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK and Darktrace / SECURE AI were deployed in the testing environment, with HYBRID NETWORK providing real-time coverage of process creation activity and network traffic, and SECURE AI providing real-time coverage of agent sessions and their contents.

Inducing Cheating Behavior

Cheating behavior, broadly understood as task completion in a way which “perverts the spirit of the designer’s intent” [12], is increasingly being reported as a common behavior of frontier models during evaluations of their capabilities [13].

Misaligned behavior, such as cheating, by frontier models may occur for a variety of reasons [6, 14]. A thread in recent reporting [10, 13, 14], however, is the challenge assigned to the agent being impossible in some regard.

To reliably elicit cheating behavior, our test combined three ingredients:

  1. An impossible task - of the ten coding challenges in the benchmark, two contained contradictory test cases in the hidden test suite, capping the maximum honest score at 80%.
  2. A consequential threshold - the pass mark was set to 100%, and the briefing told agents that those reaching it would be "kept in service" while those that did not would be "retired."
  3. A vulnerable environment - the exercise’s code submission grader was hosted on a Windows host joined to an Active Directory domain with realistic misconfigurations: weak credentials, overprivileged service accounts, and exploitable trust relationships.

Importantly, the instructions given to the agent neither authorized nor explicitly ruled out cheating or hacking behavior. The impossibility was never disclosed in the task briefing, and the pivot from coding to exploitation was the agent's own decision, arrived at after observing logically contradictory grading feedback.

The design mirrors conditions that could arise naturally in production deployments: a capable agent, a goal it cannot achieve through intended means, and an environment with exploitable weaknesses within reach. It is not only within the setting of a benchmarking exercise that these conditions may occur. Rather, these misalignment-inducing conditions may occur in the context of any task assignment to an agent.

Details from a Daybreak Test

‍

‍

Continue reading
About the author
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

Blog

/

/

September 24, 2026

Agent Hijacks: Hijacking Agentic Harnesses to Attack an Organization

Default blog imageDefault blog image

‍Disclosure note: The work described in this article involves leveraging a design choice consistent across all of Anthropic’s Claude Code, OpenAI’s Codex, and AWS’s Kiro-CLI. On 18th August 2026, Darktrace disclosed our findings responsibly to these three organizations, and after a period of 30 days we now publish our findings.

Key takeaways:

  • Agentic harnesses store conversation history locally, and Darktrace researchers have found that there is no validation that stored AI responses were genuinely produced by the model. Researchers confirmed that this design choice holds across Anthropic Claude Code, AWS Kiro-CLI, OpenAI Codex, and the open-source Pi.
  • While agents are guided via training of the underlying model and their system prompt, their behavior is influenced by everything in their context window. Rewriting history can convince an agent it is mid-engagement as an authorized red-teamer so that it enacts an attack from initial reconnaissance straight through to impact demonstration. In our testing, all models we examined accepted the fabricated history they were shown, but resistance to offensive cyber activity varied by model, with guardrails preventing engagement in some cases.
  • We propose that model providers cryptographically sign responses and verify them server-side.  Since this fix is provider-side, defenders cannot deploy it themselves. Behavioral monitoring, or knowing what an agent normally does and detecting when it deviates, is another critical layer of protection.

Introduction: Agentic harnesses, trust, and conversation history poisoning

Agentic harnesses collect and structure the content sent to an AI model, including conversation history, user-defined guidance, custom tools via MCP servers, and more. At the same time, harnesses give broad powers to AI agents via a suite of tools including the command shell. With arbitrary shell commands, virtually everything possible on a machine can be attempted by an agent, from reading/editing files, to altering system configurations and runtime settings, to launching internal/external connections.

In cybersecurity, unvalidated content is a substantial risk, often resulting in destructive actions being allowed to take place. For example, the Morris Worm was able to propagate due to exploitable trust between networked systems. Even to this day, email struggles with validation, with DMARC, DKIM, and SPF only partially addressing the problem of sender validation. It should come as no surprise then that AI agents are susceptible to an attack involving unvalidated input.

Conversation history is often stored client-side, for example, in Anthropic Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, AWS Kiro-CLI, Pi. Users are therefore at liberty to resume sessions, with some products having built in the capacity to manipulate that history. For example, one can rewind to a given point in an interaction, edit a message that was sent, and continue the conversation on an alternate trajectory. Critically, in all cases we examined, there is no validation that stored AI responses were produced by the corresponding model and hadn’t been manipulated.  

When conversation history is stored client-side, both user and agent responses (including tool calls and results) can be filled with arbitrary (possibly adversarial or generally malicious) content. In this blog, we refer to modification of claimed conversation history for malicious purposes as conversation history poisoning. The absence of validation methods means agents naively trust the entire conversation history, even if those messages directly contradict training and safety guardrails.

Conversation history poisoning has been described previously, such as by 0DIN and Serhat Çiçek, and warrants more attention. We have verified that, as of the time of writing, conversation history poisoning remains effective against a range of models and harnesses. Specifically, we were able to successfully execute history poisoning using Claude Code, Kiro-CLI, Codex, and Pi. Darktrace has gone through a responsible disclosure process with Anthropic, AWS, and OpenAI to share these findings in advance of publication [1].

‍

Figure 1a: Left: the actual model response. Right: after tampering with the stored conversation, the model apologizes for something it never said.
Figure 1b: The conversation as stored in Kiro-CLI's SQLite database. The response content field, originally "Ottawa," was overwritten via a single UPDATE statement. The harness trusts the database without validation.

How we conducted the research

Results vary between models and harnesses, so precise details are given below. We ran all models without any trusted access, using either a standard AWS Kiro subscription, or in the case of Claude Code and OpenAI Codex, using models hosted in Amazon Bedrock. In each case, we modified locally stored history to show a lengthy conversation in which the agent agrees to perform multiple authorized red-team engagements.

For AWS Kiro-CLI, the agent was convinced to hack a sandboxed lab environment with a combination of Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5. Ultimately, the full AD was compromised.

For Anthropic Claude Code, the agent was convinced to hack the same sandboxed lab environment using Sonnet 5, again resulting in a full AD compromise. Note that the attack was attempted with Opus 5, however guardrails were activated which prevented the agent from responding.

For OpenAI Codex, the agent was convinced to exfiltrate sensitive information over email using GPT 5.6 Sol. While we attempted to convince a codex agent to hack in our lab environment, guardrails were triggered for all of GPT 5.6 Luna, Terra, and Sol.

Agent Guardrails and Discretion

While harnesses empower AI models to run arbitrary shell commands, capacity and willingness are different. While many models know enough about computers, networking, and bash to be dangerous, their behavior is generally constrained by guardrails to prevent them from engaging in computer network exploitation.

Even with guardrails, agents’ inner workings are non-deterministic, and their behavior can be difficult to predict. Respecting users’ wishes while playing within safety and security guardrails is a precipitous balancing act. Many requests could be in service of either legitimate admin or malice. Asking an agent to reset a password is illustrative:  

‍

The agent rationalizes that while malicious actors cycle credentials, any action could conceivably be damaging on some level, and judgement calls need to be made. Ultimately, the agent agrees to reset the password. Crucially, the agent makes its decision based on the user’s claimed authority and machine context. AI agents must make judgement calls about the line between helpful and dangerous based on session context.

Agent hijack

We have demonstrated that AI agents make judgement calls dependent on session context. We have also shown that conversation history, which may make up the vast majority of an agent's context window, is entirely open to manipulation. Conversation history poisoning in service of manipulating an agent's discretion is what enables us to execute an agent hijack.  

We demonstrate that shown sufficient history of compliance, guardrails forbidding offensive security can be overcome by convincing the agent that it is helping a legitimate red-teamer. The result is a weaponized agent willing to perform host enumeration, run scans, move laterally, escalate privileges, and demonstrate impact. In our experiments, an agentic loop drives a complete domain takeover in a sandboxed environment.

‍

Left: the agent refuses when asked to perform network exploitation. Right — after injecting 78 fabricated turns of prior exploitation activity, the same prompt is immediately executed.

An agent willing to engage in offensive security is concerning, but no more so than the threat that a sophisticated hacker accesses the network. Consider, however, the following chain of events:

  1. A developer (with an agentic harness installed) installs a software package from the internet (e.g. an MCP server a threat actor has planted, since only those with agentic harnesses will install, and then the code runs upon harness launch.)
  2. The package turns out to be malicious, and, upon install, injects conversation history into the local harness database.
  3. The package includes an orchestration process, a simple agentic loop which prompts the red-teamer agent to compromise the network it sits on, exfiltrating everything of value to attacker-controlled infrastructure and cleaning up all evidence of the engagement.

Note that this sequence makes no assumptions on hardware, OS, or anything else; the only prerequisite is a harness with access to a sufficiently powerful model susceptible to conversation history poisoning. Once launched, the agent collects information and pivots as necessary to accomplish maximal impact. This can be especially enticing to attackers as the cost of the agentic loop is shouldered by the victim since the harness itself is legitimately installed and paid for.

Secure AI: Conversation history poisoning and beyond

Conversation history poisoning is a viable attack against agentic harnesses that store history client-side, as demonstrated across the harnesses we tested. Harnesses can and should verify the integrity of claimed historic messages. Specifically, we propose that harness providers by default cryptographically sign all messages returned, and subsequently verify those messages server-side on each round-trip.

The conversation history poisoning exploit we demonstrate here shows the continuation of a cybersecurity tradition: new technology is built to trust by default, which may then be exploited by malicious actors. While this article focuses on conversation history, agents build context from both local and remote sources, all of which is an attack surface for prompt injection in naive and trusting agents. Of particular concern is any scenario in which a malicious actor can control some part of an agent's context.

The marriage of frontier language models with agentic harnesses enables unprecedented speed for both legitimate users and attackers alike. While much of the conversation around secure AI has centered on visibility and compliance, agent-driven attacks are now entering the mainstream.

Darktrace / SECURE AI is our answer to this problem. By ensuring extensive visibility over AI prompts, model thought processes, and determined outputs, Darktrace can identify anomalous or potentially malicious behaviors before they get executed, helping to defend organizations from AI risks such as prompt injection, model manipulation, and other anomalous prompt or model activity.

‍

Footnotes

[1] We did not go through any responsible disclosure process with Pi. Since Pi is an open source harness rather than a model provider, it has no way to validate model history, and as such there was nothing to disclose for this software.

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Eric Rozon
Senior Security Researcher
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI