December 6, 2023

How Darktrace Triumphed Over MyKings Botnet

Darktrace has provided full visibility over the MyKings botnet kill chain from the beginning of its infections to the eventual cryptocurrency mining activity.

Written by

Oluwatosin Aturaka

Analyst Team Lead, Cambridge

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

Oluwatosin Aturaka

Analyst Team Lead, Cambridge

Dec 2023

Botnets: A persistent cyber threat

Since their appearance in the wild over three decades ago, botnets have consistently been the attack vector of choice for many threat actors. The most prevalent of these attack vectors are distributed denial of service (DDoS) and phishing campaigns. Their persistent nature means that even if a compromised device in identified, attackers can continue to operate by using the additional compromised devices they will likely have on the target network. Similarly, command and control (C2) infrastructure can easily be restructured between infected systems, making it increasingly difficult to remove the infection.

MyKings Botnet

One of the most prevalent and sophisticated examples in recent years is the MyKings botnet, also known as Smominru or DarkCloud. Darktrace has observed numerous cases of MyKings botnet compromises across multiple customer environments in several different industries as far back as August 2022. The diverse tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and sophisticated kill chains employed by MyKings botnet may prove a challenge to traditional rule and signature-based detections.

However, Darktrace’s anomaly-centric approach enabled it to successfully detect a wide-range of indicators of compromise (IoCs) related to the MyKings botnet and bring immediate awareness to customer security teams, as it demonstrated on the network of multiple customers between March and August 2023.

Background on MyKings Botnet

MyKings has been active and spreading steadily since 2016 resulting in over 520,000 infections worldwide.^[1] Although verified attribution of the botnet remains elusive, the variety of targets and prevalence of crypto-mining software on affected devices suggests the threat group behind the malware is financially motivated. The operators behind MyKings appear to be highly opportunistic, with attacks lacking an obvious specific target industry. Across Darktrace’s customer base, the organizations affected were representative of multiple industries such as entertainment, mining, education, information technology, health, and transportation.

Given its longevity, the MyKings botnet has unsurprisingly evolved since its first appearance years ago. Initial analyses of the botnet showed that the primary crypto-related activity on infected devices was the installation of Monero-mining software. However, in 2019 researchers discovered a new module within the MyKings malware that enabled clipboard-jacking, whereby the malware replaces a user's copied cryptowallet address with the operator's own wallet address in order to siphon funds.^[2]

Similar to other botnets such as the Outlaw crypto-miner, the MyKings botnet can also kill running processes of unrelated malware on the compromised hosts that may have resulted from prior infection.^[3] MyKings has also developed a comprehensive set of persistence techniques, including: the deployment of bootkits, initiating the botnet immediately after a system reboot, configuring Registry run keys, and generating multiple Scheduled Tasks and WMI listeners.^[4] MyKings have also been observed rotating tools and payloads over time to propagate the botnet. For example, some operators have been observed utilizing PCShare, an open-source remote access trojan (RAT) customized to conduct C2 services, execute commands, and download mining software^[5].

Darktrace Coverage

Across observed customer networks between March and August 2023, Darktrace identified the MyKings botnet primarily targeting Windows-based servers that supports services like MySQL, MS-SQL, Telnet, SSH, IPC, WMI, and Remote Desktop (RDP). In the initial phase of the attack, the botnet would initiate a variety of attacks against a target including brute-forcing and exploitation of unpatched vulnerabilities on exposed servers. The botnet delivers a variety of payloads to the compromised systems including worm downloaders, trojans, executable files and scripts.

This pattern of activity was detected across the network of one particular Darktrace customer in the education sector in early March 2023. Unfortunately, this customer did not have Darktrace RESPOND™ deployed on their network at the time of the attack, meaning the MyKings botnet was able to move through the cyber kill chain ultimately achieving its goal, which in this case was mining cryptocurrency.

Initial Access

On March 6, Darktrace observed an internet-facing SQL server receiving an unusually large number of incoming MySQL connections from the rare external endpoint 171.91.76[.]31 via port 1433. While it is not possible to confirm whether these suspicious connections represented the exact starting point of the infection, such a sudden influx of SQL connection from a rare external endpoint could be indicative of a malicious attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in the server's SQL database or perform password brute-forcing to gain unauthorized access. Given that MyKings typically spreads primarily through such targeting of internet-exposed devices, the pattern of activity is consistent with potential initial access by MyKings.^[6]

Initial Command and Control

The device then proceeded to initiate a series of repeated HTTP connections between March 6 and March 10^, to the domain www[.]back0314[.]ru (107.148.239[.]111). These connections included HTTP GET requests featuring URIs such as ‘/back.txt', suggesting potential beaconing and C2 communication. The device continued this connectivity to the external host over the course of four days, primarily utilizing destination ports 80, and 6666. While port 80 is commonly utilized for HTTP connections, port 6666 is a non-standard port for the protocol. Such connectivity over non-standard ports can indicate potential detection evasion and obfuscation tactics by the threat actors. During this time, the device also initiated repeated connections to additional malicious external endpoints with seemingly algorithmically generated hostnames such as pc.pc0416[.]xyz.

Darktrace UI image — Figure 1: Model breach showing details of the malicious domain generation algorithm (DGA) connections.

Tool Transfer

While this beaconing activity was taking place, the affected device also began to receive potential payloads from unusual external endpoints. On April 29, the device made an HTTP GET request for “/power.txt” to the endpoint 192.236.160[.]237, which was later discovered to have multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) links to malware. Power.txt is a shellcode written in PowerShell which is downloaded and executed with the purpose of disabling Windows Defenders related functions.^[7] After the initial script was downloaded (and likely executed), Darktrace went on to detect the device making a series of additional GET requests for several varying compressed and executable files. For example, the device made HTTP requests for '/pld/cmd.txt' to the external endpoint 104.233.224[.]173. In response the external server provided numerous files, including ‘u.exe’, and ‘upsup4.exe’ for download, both of which share file names with previously identified MyKings payloads.

MyKings deploys a diverse array of payloads to expand the botnet and secure a firm position within a compromised system. This multi-faceted approach may render conventional security measures less effective due to the intricacies of and variety of payloads involved in compromises. Darktrace, however, does not rely on static or outdated lists of IoCs in order to detect malicious activity. Instead, DETECT’s Self-Learning AI allows it to identify emerging compromise activity by recognizing the subtle deviations in an affected device’s behavior that could indicate it has fallen into the hands of malicious actors.

Figure 2: External site summary of the endpoint 103.145.106[.]242 showing the rarity of connectivity to the external host.

Achieving Objectives – Crypto-Mining

Several weeks after the initial payloads were delivered and beaconing commenced, Darktrace finally detected the initiation of crypto-mining operations. On May 27, the originally compromised server connected to the rare domain other.xmrpool[.]ru over port 1081. As seen in the domain name, this endpoint appears to be affiliated with pool mining activity and the domain has various OSINT affiliations with the cryptocurrency Monero coin. During this connection, the host was observed passing Monero credentials, activity which parallels similar mining operations observed on other customer networks that had been compromised by the MyKings botnet.

Although mining activity may not pose an immediate or urgent concern for security unauthorized cryptomining on devices can result in detrimental consequences, such as compromised hardware integrity, elevated energy costs, and reduced productivity, and even potential involvement in money laundering.

Figure 3: Event breach log showing details of the connection to the other.xmrpool[.]ru endpoint associated with cryptocurrency mining activity.

Conclusion

Detecting future iterations of the MyKings botnet will likely demand a shift away from an overreliance on traditional rules and signatures and lists of “known bads”, instead requiring organizations to employ AI-driven technology that can identify suspicious activity that represents a deviation from previously established patterns of life.

Despite the diverse range of payloads, malicious endpoints, and intricate activities that constitute a typical MyKing botnet compromise, Darktrace was able successfully detect multiple critical phases within the MyKings kill chain. Given the evolving nature of the MyKings botnet, it is highly probable the botnet will continue to expand and adapt, leveraging new tactics and technologies. By adopting Darktrace’s product of suites, including Darktrace DETECT, organizations are well-positioned to identify these evolving threats as soon as they emerge and, when coupled with the autonomous response technology of Darktrace RESPOND, threats like the MyKings botnet can be stopped in their tracks before they can achieve their ultimate goals.

Credit to: Oluwatosin Aturaka, Analyst Team Lead, Cambridge, Adam Potter, Cyber Analyst

Appendix

IoC Table

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

162.216.150[.]108- IP - C2 Infrastructure

103.145.106[.]242 - IP - C2 Infrastructure

137.175.56[.]104 - IP - C2 Infrastructure

138.197.152[.]201 - IP - C2 Infrastructure

139.59.74[.]135 - IP - C2 Infrastructure

pc.pc0416[.]xyz - Domain - C2 Infrastructure (DGA)

other.xmrpool[.]ru - Domain - Cryptomining Endpoint

xmrpool[.]ru - Domain - Cryptomining Endpoint

103.145.106[.]55 - IP - Cryptomining Endpoint

ntuser[.]rar - Zipped File - Payload

/xmr1025[.]rar - Zipped File - Payload

/20201117[.]rar - Zipped File - Payload

wmi[.]txt - File - Payload

u[.]exe - Executable File - Payload

back[.]txt - File - Payload

upsupx2[.]exe - Executable File - Payload

cmd[.]txt - File - Payload

power[.]txt - File - Payload

ups[.]html - File - Payload

xmr1025.rar - Zipped File - Payload

171.91.76[.]31- IP - Possible Initial Compromise Endpoint

www[.]back0314[.]ru - Domain - Probable C2 Infrastructure

107.148.239[.]111 - IP - Probable C2 Infrastructure

194.67.71[.]99 - IP- Probable C2 Infrastructure

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer (x37)
Compromise / Large DNS Volume for Suspicious Domain
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations (x30)
Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days (x2)
Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous Server Activity / New Internet Facing System
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location (x37)
Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints
Anomalous Server Activity / Server Activity on New Non-Standard Port (x3)
Device / Threat Indicator (x3)
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Activity
Compromise / Crypto Currency Mining Activity (x37)
Compliance / Internet Facing SQL Server
Device / Anomalous Scripts Download Followed By Additional Packages
Device / New User Agent

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

ATT&CK Technique - Technique ID

Reconnaissance – T1595.002 Vulnerability Scanning

Resource Development – T1608 Stage Capabilities

Resource Development – T1588.001 Malware

Initial Access – T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application

Command and Control – T15568.002 Domain Generated Algorithms

Command and Control – T1571 Non-Standard Port

Execution – T1047 Windows Management Instrumentation

Execution – T1059.001 Command and Scripting Interpreter

Persistence – T1542.003 Pre-OS Boot

Impact – T1496 Resource Hijacking

References

^[1] https://www.binarydefense.com/resources/threat-watch/mykings-botnet-is-growing-and-remains-under-the-radar/

^[2] https://therecord.media/a-malware-botnet-has-made-more-than-24-7-million-since-2019

^[3] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/outlaw-returns-uncovering-returning-features-and-new-tactics

^[4] https://www.sophos.com/en-us/medialibrary/pdfs/technical-papers/sophoslabs-uncut-mykings-report.pdf

^[5] https://www.antiy.com/response/20190822.html

^[6] https://ethicaldebuggers.com/mykings-botnet/

^[7] https://ethicaldebuggers.com/mykings-botnet/

Written by

Oluwatosin Aturaka

Analyst Team Lead, Cambridge

Inside the SOC

Written by

Oluwatosin Aturaka

Analyst Team Lead, Cambridge

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Email

December 18, 2025

Why organizations are moving to label-free, behavioral DLP for outbound email

Why outbound email DLP needs reinventing

In 2025, the global average cost of a data breach fell slightly — but remains substantial at USD 4.44 million (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025). The headline figure hides a painful reality: many of these breaches stem not from sophisticated hacks, but from simple human error: mis-sent emails, accidental forwarding, or replying with the wrong attachment. Because outbound email is a common channel for sensitive data leaving an organization, the risk posed by everyday mistakes is enormous.

In 2025, 53% of data breaches involved customer PII, making it the most commonly compromised asset (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025). This makes “protection at the moment of send” essential. A single unintended disclosure can trigger compliance violations, regulatory scrutiny, and erosion of customer trust –consequences that are disproportionate to the marginal human errors that cause them.

Traditional DLP has long attempted to mitigate these impacts, but it relies heavily on perfect labelling and rigid pattern-matching. In reality, data loss rarely presents itself as a neat, well-structured pattern waiting to be caught – it looks like everyday communication, just slightly out of context.

How data loss actually happens

Most data loss comes from frustratingly familiar scenarios. A mistyped name in auto-complete sends sensitive data to the wrong “Alex.” A user forwards a document to a personal Gmail account “just this once.” Someone shares an attachment with a new or unknown correspondent without realizing how sensitive it is.

Traditional, content-centric DLP rarely catches these moments. Labels are missing or wrong. Regexes break the moment the data shifts formats. And static rules can’t interpret the context that actually matters – the sender-recipient relationship, the communication history, or whether this behavior is typical for the user.

It’s the everyday mistakes that hurt the most. The classic example: the Friday 5:58 p.m. mis-send, when auto-complete selects Martin, a former contractor, instead of Marta in Finance.

What traditional DLP approaches offer (and where gaps remain)

Most email DLP today follows two patterns, each useful but incomplete.

Policy- and label-centric DLP works when labels are correct — but content is often unlabeled or mislabeled, and maintaining classification adds friction. Gaps appear exactly where users move fastest
Rule and signature-based approaches catch known patterns but miss nuance: human error, new workflows, and “unknown unknowns” that don’t match a rule

The takeaway: Protection must combine content + behavior + explainability at send time, without depending on perfect labels.

Your technology primer: The three pillars that make outbound DLP effective

1) Label-free (vs. data classification)

Protects all content, not just what’s labeled. Label-free analysis removes classification overhead and closes gaps from missing or incorrect tags. By evaluating content and context at send time, it also catches misdelivery and other payload-free errors.

No labeling burden; no regex/rule maintenance
Works when tags are missing, wrong, or stale
Detects misdirected sends even when labels look right

2) Behavioral (vs. rules, signatures, threat intelligence)

Understands user behavior, not just static patterns. Behavioral analysis learns what’s normal for each person, surfacing human error and subtle exfiltration that rules can’t. It also incorporates account signals and inbound intel, extending across email and Teams.

Flags risk without predefined rules or IOCs
Catches misdelivery, unusual contacts, personal forwards, odd timing/volume
Blends identity and inbound context across channels

3) Proprietary DSLM (vs. generic LLM)

Optimized for precise, fast, explainable on-send decisions. A DSLM understands email/DLP semantics, avoids generative risks, and stays auditable and privacy-controlled, delivering intelligence reliably without slowing mail flow.

Low-latency, on-send enforcement
Non-generative for predictable, explainable outcomes
Governed model with strong privacy and auditability

The Darktrace approach to DLP

Darktrace / EMAIL – DLP stops misdelivery and sensitive data loss at send time using hold/notify/justify/release actions. It blends behavioral insight with content understanding across 35+ PII categories, protecting both labeled and unlabeled data. Every action is paired with clear explainability: AI narratives show exactly why an email was flagged, supporting analysts and helping end-users learn. Deployment aligns cleanly with existing SOC workflows through mail-flow connectors and optional Microsoft Purview label ingestion, without forcing duplicate policy-building.

Deployment is simple: Microsoft 365 routes outbound mail to Darktrace for real-time, inline decisions without regex or rule-heavy setup.

A buyer’s checklist for DLP solutions

When choosing your DLP solution, you want to be sure that it can deliver precise, explainable protection at the moment it matters – on send – without operational drag.

To finish, we’ve compiled a handy list of questions you can ask before choosing an outbound DLP solution:

Can it operate label free when tags are missing or wrong? 
Does it truly learn per user behavior (no shortcuts)? 
Is there a domain specific model behind the content understanding (not a generic LLM)? 
Does it explain decisions to both analysts and end users? 
Will it integrate with your label program and SOC workflows rather than duplicate them?

For a deep dive into Darktrace’s DLP solution, check out the full solution brief.

[related-resource]

About the author

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Blog

Email

December 17, 2025

Beyond MFA: Detecting Adversary-in-the-Middle Attacks and Phishing with Darktrace

What is an Adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) attack?

Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) attacks are a sophisticated technique often paired with phishing campaigns to steal user credentials. Unlike traditional phishing, which multi-factor authentication (MFA) increasingly mitigates, AiTM attacks leverage reverse proxy servers to intercept authentication tokens and session cookies. This allows attackers to bypass MFA entirely and hijack active sessions, stealthily maintaining access without repeated logins.

This blog examines a real-world incident detected during a Darktrace customer trial, highlighting how Darktrace / EMAIL^TM and Darktrace / IDENTITY^TM identified the emerging compromise in a customer’s email and software-as-a-service (SaaS) environment, tracked its progression, and could have intervened at critical moments to contain the threat had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability been enabled.

What does an AiTM attack look like?

Inbound phishing email

Attacks typically begin with a phishing email, often originating from the compromised account of a known contact like a vendor or business partner. These emails will often contain malicious links or attachments leading to fake login pages designed to spoof legitimate login platforms, like Microsoft 365, designed to harvest user credentials.

Proxy-based credential theft and session hijacking

When a user clicks on a malicious link, they are redirected through an attacker-controlled proxy that impersonates legitimate services. This proxy forwards login requests to Microsoft, making the login page appear legitimate. After the user successfully completes MFA, the attacker captures credentials and session tokens, enabling full account takeover without the need for reauthentication.

Follow-on attacks

Once inside, attackers will typically establish persistence through the creation of email rules or registering OAuth applications. From there, they often act on their objectives, exfiltrating sensitive data and launching additional business email compromise (BEC) campaigns. These campaigns can include fraudulent payment requests to external contacts or internal phishing designed to compromise more accounts and enable lateral movement across the organization.

Darktrace’s detection of an AiTM attack

At the end of September 2025, Darktrace detected one such example of an AiTM attack on the network of a customer trialling Darktrace / EMAIL and Darktrace / IDENTITY.

In this instance, the first indicator of compromise observed by Darktrace was the creation of a malicious email rule on one of the customer’s Office 365 accounts, suggesting the account had likely already been compromised before Darktrace was deployed for the trial.

Darktrace / IDENTITY observed the account creating a new email rule with a randomly generated name, likely to hide its presence from the legitimate account owner. The rule marked all inbound emails as read and deleted them, while ignoring any existing mail rules on the account. This rule was likely intended to conceal any replies to malicious emails the attacker had sent from the legitimate account owner and to facilitate further phishing attempts.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the anomalous email rule creation.

Internal and external phishing

Following the creation of the email rule, Darktrace / EMAIL observed a surge of suspicious activity on the user’s account. The account sent emails with subject lines referencing payment information to over 9,000 different external recipients within just one hour. Darktrace also identified that these emails contained a link to an unusual Google Drive endpoint, embedded in the text “download order and invoice”.

Figure 2: Darkrace’s detection of an unusual surge in outbound emails containing suspicious content, shortly following the creation of a new email rule.

Figure 3: Darktrace / EMAIL’s detection of the compromised account sending over 9,000 external phishing emails, containing an unusual Google Drive link.

As Darktrace / EMAIL flagged the message with the ‘Compromise Indicators’ tag (Figure 2), it would have been held automatically if the customer had enabled default Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Action Flows in their email environment, preventing any external phishing attempts.

Figure 4: Darktrace / EMAIL’s preview of the email sent by the offending account.

Darktrace analysis revealed that, after clicking the malicious link in the email, recipients would be redirected to a convincing landing page that closely mimicked the customer’s legitimate branding, including authentic imagery and logos, where prompted to download with a PDF named “invoice”.

Figure 5: Download and login prompts presented to recipients after following the malicious email link, shown here in safe view.

After clicking the “Download” button, users would be prompted to enter their company credentials on a page that was likely a credential-harvesting tool, designed to steal corporate login details and enable further compromise of SaaS and email accounts.

Darktrace’s Response

In this case, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response was not fully enabled across the customer’s email or SaaS environments, allowing the compromise to progress, as observed by Darktrace here.

Despite this, Darktrace / EMAIL’s successful detection of the malicious Google Drive link in the internal phishing emails prompted it to suggest ‘Lock Link’, as a recommended action for the customer’s security team to manually apply. This action would have automatically placed the malicious link behind a warning or screening page blocking users from visiting it.

Figure 6: Autonomous Response suggesting locking the malicious Google Drive link sent in internal phishing emails.

Furthermore, if active in the customer’s SaaS environment, Darktrace would likely have been able to mitigate the threat even earlier, at the point of the first unusual activity: the creation of a new email rule. Mitigative actions would have included forcing the user to log out, terminating any active sessions, and disabling the account.

Conclusion

AiTM attacks represent a significant evolution in credential theft techniques, enabling attackers to bypass MFA and hijack active sessions through reverse proxy infrastructure. In the real-world case we explored, Darktrace’s AI-driven detection identified multiple stages of the attack, from anomalous email rule creation to suspicious internal email activity, demonstrating how Autonomous Response could have contained the threat before escalation.

MFA is a critical security measure, but it is no longer a silver bullet. Attackers are increasingly targeting session tokens rather than passwords, exploiting trusted SaaS environments and internal communications to remain undetected. Behavioral AI provides a vital layer of defense by spotting subtle anomalies that traditional tools often miss

Security teams must move beyond static defenses and embrace adaptive, AI-driven solutions that can detect and respond in real time. Regularly review SaaS configurations, enforce conditional access policies, and deploy technologies that understand “normal” behavior to stop attackers before they succeed.

Credit to David Ison (Cyber Analyst), Bertille Pierron (Solutions Engineer), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Models

SaaS / Anomalous New Email Rule

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

Phishing - T1566

Adversary-in-the-Middle - T1557

About the author

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: How Darktrace Triumphed Over MyKings Botnet

How Darktrace Triumphed Over MyKings Botnet

Botnets: A persistent cyber threat

MyKings Botnet

Background on MyKings Botnet

Darktrace Coverage

Initial Access

Initial Command and Control

Tool Transfer

Achieving Objectives – Crypto-Mining

Conclusion

Appendix

IoC Table

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Beyond MFA: Detecting Adversary-in-the-Middle Attacks and Phishing with Darktrace

Why organizations are moving to label-free, behavioral DLP for outbound email

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

React2Shell: How Opportunist Attackers Exploited CVE-2025-55182 Within Hours

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

Blog

Email

December 18, 2025

Why organizations are moving to label-free, behavioral DLP for outbound email

Why outbound email DLP needs reinventing

How data loss actually happens

What traditional DLP approaches offer (and where gaps remain)

Your technology primer: The three pillars that make outbound DLP effective

1) Label-free (vs. data classification)

2) Behavioral (vs. rules, signatures, threat intelligence)

3) Proprietary DSLM (vs. generic LLM)

The Darktrace approach to DLP

A buyer’s checklist for DLP solutions

Blog

Email

December 17, 2025

Beyond MFA: Detecting Adversary-in-the-Middle Attacks and Phishing with Darktrace

What is an Adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) attack?

What does an AiTM attack look like?

Inbound phishing email

Proxy-based credential theft and session hijacking

Follow-on attacks

Darktrace’s detection of an AiTM attack

Internal and external phishing

Darktrace’s Response

Conclusion

Appendices

Models