Blog
/
/
May 28, 2019

[Part 2] Top Cyber Hygiene Issues Leading to a Breach

Spotting cyber hygiene issues caused by a lapse of attention requires AI tools that alert critical changes to network activity. Read part two here!
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
28
May 2019

Read the first part: Part one — A perimeter in ruins

Earlier this month, I discussed some of the most critical challenges that today’s institutions face in their efforts to reinforce the network perimeter. Eliminating common attack vectors, from unauthorized uploads in the cloud to outdated protocol usage on-premise, is an essential step toward a more secure digital future.

Ultimately, however, I concluded that even flawless cyber hygiene at the perimeter will never be a panacea for all possible cyber-threats, since defenders cannot possibly address vulnerabilities about which they aren’t yet aware. Building strong borders is vital, clearly, but as attackers continue to launch novel attacks, even 50-foot walls are imperiled by 50-foot ladders.

Of course, such concerns become merely academic when your walls aren’t placed correctly, or watched attentively, or expanded when the digital estate grows. For countless employees and organizations alike, the allure of convenience has weakened the perimeter in all of these ways and more, rendering the work of cyber-criminals exponentially easier. Yet given the complexity of the modern enterprise, discovering exactly where users have cut corners is often difficult for human security teams alone. Spotting cyber hygiene issues caused by a lack of due diligence — like the five detailed below — therefore requires AI tools that alert on critical changes to network activity in real time.

Issue #6: Not keeping an inventory of hardware on the network

As all manner of non-traditional IT makes its way into workplaces around the world, keeping an inventory of these seamlessly integrated devices often proves an arduous undertaking, one that many organizations shirk altogether. Between app-controlled thermostats and smart refrigerators, connected cameras and Bluetooth sensors, few security teams possess a rigorous list of the hardware under their care.

Yet attaining 100% network visibility is a prerequisite to any viable security posture. Attackers are increasingly targeting poorly secured IoT devices to bypass the perimeter at its weakest points, before moving laterally to compromise more sensitive databases and machines. By analyzing all traffic from the entire enterprise, Darktrace detects when new devices come online and alert on any unusual activity from them with its AI models, some of which are:

  • Device / New Device with Attack Tools
  • Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Read & Write from New Device
  • Unusual Activity / Sustained Unusual Activity from New Device
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual Activity from New Device

Issue #7: Using corporate devices for private use

While the divide between corporate and private networks is a primary facet of cyber hygiene, few employees are immune to the temptation and convenience of using company devices for personal use. Whether it’s torrenting movies, visiting social media websites, or checking personal email accounts during the workday, these activities all expose carefully guarded corporate environments to ones that are far less secure. At the same time, many organizations lack visibility over their own online traffic, preventing their security teams from catching such risky behavior until it’s already too late.

Employees have also been known to violate internal compliance policies by downloading unauthorized software for private purposes, which introduces serious security risks and opens the door for supply chain attacks. Darktrace has detected a plethora of threats related to such downloads across our customer base, including outdated software, network scanners, BitTorrent clients, and crypto-mining programs. Such compliance issues trigger a number of Darktrace’s behavioral models, for example:

  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Incoming RAR File
  • Compliance / BitTorrent
  • Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

To bypass compliance policies and access resources blocked by network administrators, employees often turn to VPNs as well as onion routing services like Tor, which facilitate anonymous communication. These services are equivalent to inhibiting security controls on the offending device; consequently, companies must have the ability to detect and terminate them whenever they are used on the network. Because Darktrace provides 100% visibility across the digital infrastructure, it can flag private VPN and Tor sessions with the following example models:

  • Anomalous Connection / New Outbound VPN
  • Compliance / Privacy VPN
  • Compliance / Tor Usage

Darktrace detected one such case earlier this year wherein a corporate device connected to a third-party VPN. Although this activity is not inherently risky or threatening in all situations, Darktrace’s understanding of the company’s network revealed that the device was the only one using the VPN — strongly suggesting a compliance violation. Moreover, when the device was not using the VPN service, it was seen making a large amount of HTTP post requests to another rare destination and displaying other signs of infection. It turned out that the device was infected with the elusive Ursnif trojan.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s external site summary showing that only one device in the network connected to the VPN.

Issue #8: Lack of strong access management

Ensuring that only rightful users have access to private company resources is a foundational component of cyber security. Yet as these users and their privileges continuously evolve, maintaining strong access management can be time-consuming and difficult.

Out of all the users in the network, the accounts to which the most attention should be paid are those with administrator or root privileges. While it is common to keep a tight control on high-privilege accounts, there are still organizations that find it hard to manage the access control well, making their devices more vulnerable to both malware and insider threats. In fact, even well-intentioned insiders can jeopardize the organization in the absence of strong access management, such as employees who download unauthorized software without understanding its associated risks.

Darktrace has a list of models to detect the unusual usage of credentials, including:

  • User / New Admin Credentials on Client
  • User / Overactive User Credential
  • SaaS / Unusual SaaS Administration

Issue #9: TFTP Usage

Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) is an application layer protocol commonly employed to transfer files between devices. Due to its relatively simplistic design and easy implementation, TFTP was very popular in the past. In the context of today’s sophisticated cyber-threats, however, TFTP has become highly insecure. Among the protocol’s numerous weaknesses from a cyber hygiene perspective is its lack of authentication mechanisms, a flaw which allows essentially anyone to read and write resources on the exposed device.

Darktrace’s Compliance / External TFTP model enables network administrators to detect any incoming TFTP connections from external IP addresses that don’t normally connect to the network. Crucially, Darktrace AI’s understanding what constitutes “normal” versus “abnormal” for each particular network serves to differentiate the most serious threats, as TFTP connections from a rare IP address are much more likely to be malicious than similar connections between known IP addresses on the network.

TFTP is just one example of insecure protocol usage – Darktrace monitors for the abnormal usage of various other attack-prone protocols as well. Another example is Telnet.

Issue #10: Unencrypted data transferred between internal and external devices

While encrypting communication can be a hassle, cleartext messages are liable to be intercepted or even altered by malicious actors — with potentially devastating ramifications. Indeed, Darktrace’s Compliance / FTP / Unusual Outbound FTP model has frequently flagged credentials being sent via unencrypted channels, which attackers could have used to access privileged resources within the company’s network.

In the first few months of 2019, Darktrace detected an unusual connection made to an external device on port 1414 using the IBM WebSphere MQ Protocol. When potentially sensitive information was transmitted in cleartext, Darktrace AI alerted the customer in real time.

Figure 2: Packet capture showing that potential sensitive information was captured

Sacrificing convenience for security in these most egregious cases remains the foundation of robust cyber hygiene, whether that means not torrenting Shrek 2 on a work laptop or taking inventory of the smart juicer in the office kitchen. Of course, just as no perimeter defenses are formidable enough to keep motivated attackers at bay, so too is there no level of due diligence sufficient to close off all possible attack vectors or ensure that all employees are compliant with internal policies. With cyber AI defenses like Darktrace, security teams have an extra set of eyes watching out for poor cyber hygiene practices across the entire digital infrastructure, empowering them to grow those infrastructures with confidence.

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