Blog
/
/
December 13, 2023

Defending Against Personalized Cyber Attacks

Stay informed about the latest trends in cyber threats with Darktrace experts, including how attacks are evolving and becoming more personalized.
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
The Darktrace Community
Default blog image
13
Dec 2023

Cyber-attacks are getting personal. The usual opportunistic “spray and pray” attacks that reach many would-be targets at once are still present, but as cyber defence has advanced, today’s more sophisticated campaigns take precise aim at a particular company.

Threat actors willingly put in extra time and effort to realize a bigger payday at the end of it, but developments in the tools they have at their disposal are also making targeted, personal attacks easier.

CAPTCHA-breaking AI techniques like computer vision and convolutional neural networks can be used to gather information on an organization’s attack surface, and Generative AI is able to perform OSINT collection on a specific target, or targets, within an organization. Once inside, attackers can further leverage AI to automatically tweak attacks and create novel, highly targeted threats that elude defenses.

A new white paper, The CISO’s Guide to Cyber AI, explains how CISOs and their teams can make smarter use of defensive AI and machine learning (ML) to protect today’s digital environments from these and more advanced novel threats.

Today’s threats don’t necessarily resemble past attacks  

Darktrace analytics pointed to a sharp rise in novel cyber-attacks earlier this year. Generative AI and large language model (LLM) tools continue to lower the barrier to entry for threat actors, making it easier than ever to build smarter, faster, more targeted attacks.

But while attacks are getting personal, security tools that apply AI in the wrong way won’t see these attacks coming.

Here’s why: most cyber security tools and platforms rely on a combination of supervised machine learning, deep learning, and transformers to train and inform their systems. This entails shipping your company’s data out to a large data lake housed somewhere in the cloud where it gets blended with attack data from thousands of other organizations. The resulting homogenized data set gets used to train AI systems — yours and everyone else’s — to recognize patterns of attack based on previously encountered threats.

At its conception, this was a reasonably smart way of approaching cyber security. For a long time, the assumption that today’s threats will resemble yesterday’s attacks was a valid one. But in an age where the commoditization of cyber-crime has lowered the bar-to-entry for attackers, and where Generative AI and other open-source tools are enabling personalized attacks at scale, this is no longer the case.

Darktrace has seen evidence this year of a marked rise in more sophisticated attack techniques. Between May and July this year, our Cyber AI Research Centre observed that multistage payload attacks, in which a malicious email encourages the recipient to follow a series of steps before delivering a payload or attempting to harvest sensitive information, have increased by an average of 59% across Darktrace customers. Some of this will be QR code phishing, the latest trend in attack tactics, others will include automation. The speed of these types of attacks will likely rise as greater automation and AI are adopted and applied by attackers.

This ‘historical’ approach is not able to identify threats that haven’t been seen before: attacks that use new malware, novel social engineering, and those that are targeted to your organization. There are no indicators of compromise (IoCs) to teach your system to recognize these kinds of attacks.

IoC-based defenses won’t necessarily spot strange and unusual activity by an authorized user, device, or known IP address until threat actors tip their hand — and by then it’s too late. Looking for repeat patterns works well for detecting threats that resemble past attacks, but this increasingly won’t be the case. The only way to spot unique and novel threats is to build cyber security that’s tailored to you, and that requires a whole new approach.

Smarter use of AI levels the playing field

Security teams and adversaries continue to innovate to gain the upper-hand, and the advantage of time.

Since AI equips even novice cyber criminals to mount sophisticated attacks, AI must evolve to do three things:

  • Understand and continue to learn what “normal” looks like for your unique digital environment
  • Detect and alert on any anomalous behavior the instant it occurs
  • Initiate a targeted response to contain threats and give your analysts more time, without disrupting the flow of business

Darktrace uses Self-Learning AI to understand what constitutes ‘normal’ for everyone and everything in your business, including cloud resources, identities, email accounts, endpoint devices, and even OT controllers. As the name suggests, Self-Learning AI trains itself, developing and maintaining deep understanding of ‘patterns of life’ for your business environment. Used in combination with other AI methods such as LLMs, generative AI, and supervised ML, Self-Learning AI identifies novel cyber-threats most static (backward-looking) tools miss.

The technology learns ‘on the job’ and from scratch, without relying on historical data or a massive upfront effort by your team to train the system. Probabilistic mathematics revise assumptions about behavior on a constant basis so the system keeps itself up-to-date without repeat efforts by your team.

The result is that areas of risk, as well as real-time emerging attacks, are brought to the surface – regardless of whether those attacks have been seen before in the wild.

Surgical attacks warrant surgical response

Supervised ML continues to serve a purpose, but the dawning age of novel and AI-led attacks favors a more proactive approach to securing the cloud. Tools must take greater responsibility for their own education and greater initiative via autonomous response.

What some solutions call response ultimately amounts to sending alerts and opening tickets that create more needless work for analysts. Other tools claim to automate response, but either take very limited actions like automating the process of ticket creation, or overly ambitious steps like quarantining entire systems.

Darktrace’s dynamic understanding of your environment enables a truly autonomous and precise cloud-native response. Its understanding of ‘normal’ for every user and device allows it to enforce ‘normal’ – cutting out only the malicious activity, while allowing normal business to continue functioning.

How this response will take place will depend on where Darktrace is deployed in your environment. In the network, it might mean blocking specific, anomalous connections over a certain port. In the cloud, it could mean detaching EC2 instances and applying security groups to contain only assets at risk. In email, this could be locking links or flattening attachments.

Get personal with ‘One on One’ Security

The widespread accessibility of generative AI has altered the threat landscape permanently, allowing cyber-criminals to deploy unique and personalized attacks at scale and at machine speed. In the near future, we can expect to see more novel and sophisticated phishing attacks, new automated creation of malicious code, sustained attack campaigns targeting an individual or company, and even deep fakes designed to elicit human trust.

To meet the needs of today and tomorrow, cyber security needs to leverage AI deeply and intelligently – not just using it to automate outdated historical approaches, or bolting generative AI onto existing products to keep up with the latest trend. Since 2013 Darktrace has been using AI in a fundamentally unique way: a system that learns your unique organization and understands what’s normal at a granular level. Only with this personalized understanding can you be confident in your ability as an organization to identify and shut down novel threats on the first encounter.

This form of personalized, ‘One on One’ security is a no longer a ‘nice to have’ for defenders. ‘Spray and pray’ tactics will continue to exist, but the attacks most likely to slip through the net and cause you damage are the sophisticated, the personal, and the never-before-seen. That’s what Self-Learning AI was built for – learning your business to deliver personalized cyber security, meeting every attack one-on-one.

The CISO’s Guide to Cyber AI overviews the differences between common AI approaches in cyber security and offers a high-level checklist for choosing the ideal solution for stopping attacks — including new novel threats.  To learn more about making the smartest use of AI to stop novel and targeted cloud attacks, download the guide today.

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
The Darktrace Community

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