Blog
/
Identity
/
November 27, 2024

Behind the veil: Darktrace's detection of VPN exploitation in SaaS environments

A recent phishing attack compromised an internal email account, but Darktrace’s advanced AI quickly intervened. By identifying unusual activity across email and SaaS environments, Darktrace uncovered the attacker’s use of VPNs to mask their location and shut down the threat.
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
Priya Thapa
Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
27
Nov 2024

Introduction

In today’s digital landscape, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms have become indispensable for businesses, offering unparalleled flexibly, scalability, and accessibly across locations. However, this convenience comes with a significant caveat - an expanded attack surface that cyber criminals are increasingly exploiting. In 2023, 96.7% of organizations reported security incidents involving at least one SaaS application [1].

Virtual private networks (VPNs) play a crucial role in SaaS security, acting as gateways for secure remote access and safeguarding sensitive data and systems when properly configured. However, vulnerabilities in VPNs can create openings for attacks to exploit, allowing them to infiltrate SaaS environments, compromise data, and disrupt business operations. Notably, in early 2024, the Darktrace Threat Research team investigated the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure VPNs, which would allow threat actors to gain access to sensitive systems and execute remote code.

More recently, in August, Darktrace identified a SaaS compromise where a threat actor logged into a customer’s VPN from an unusual IP address, following an initial email compromise. The attacker then used a separate VPN to create a new email rule designed to obfuscate the phishing campaign they would later launch.

Attack Overview

The initial attack vector in this case appeared to be through the customer’s email environment. A trusted external contact received a malicious email from another mutual contact who had been compromised and forwarded it to several of the organization’s employees, believing it to be legitimate. Attackers often send malicious emails from compromised accounts to their past contacts, leveraging the trust associated with familiar email addresses. In this case, that trust caused an external victim to unknowingly propagate the attack further. Unfortunately, an internal user then interacted with a malicious payload included in the reply section of the forwarded email.

Later the same day, Darktrace / IDENTITY detected unusual login attempts from the IP 5.62.57[.]7, which had never been accessed by other SaaS users before. There were two failed attempts prior to the successful logins, with the error messages “Authentication failed due to flow token expired” and “This occurred due to 'Keep me signed in' interrupt when the user was signing in.” These failed attempts indicate that the threat actor may have been attempting to gain unauthorized access using stolen credentials or exploiting session management vulnerabilities. Furthermore, there was no attempt to use multi-factor authentication (MFA) during the successful login, suggesting that the threat actor had compromised the account’s credentials.

Following this, Darktrace detected the now compromised account creating a new email rule named “.” – a telltale sign of a malicious actor attempting to hide behind an ambiguous or generic rule name.

The email rule itself was designed to archive incoming emails and mark them as read, effectively hiding them from the user’s immediate view. By moving emails to the “Archive” folder, which is not frequently checked by end users, the attacker can conceal malicious communications and avoid detection. The settings also prevent any automatic deletion of the rules or forced overrides, indicating a cautious approach to maintaining control over the mailbox without raising suspicion. This technique allows the attacker to manipulate email visibility while maintaining a façade of normality in the compromised account.

Email Rule:

  • AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob: False
  • Force: False
  • MoveToFolder: Archive
  • Name: .
  • MarkAsRead: True
  • StopProcessingRules: True

Darktrace further identified that this email rule had been created from another IP address, 95.142.124[.]42, this time located in Canada. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources indicated this endpoint may have been malicious [2].

Given that this new email rule was created just three minutes after the initial login from a different IP in a different country, Darktrace recognized a geographic inconsistency. By analyzing the timing and rarity of the involved IP addresses, Darktrace identified the likelihood of malicious activity rather than legitimate user behavior, prompting further investigation.

Figure 1: The compromised SaaS account making anomalous login attempts from an unusual IP address in the US, followed by the creation of a new email rule from another VPN IP in Canada.

Just one minute later, Darktrace observed the attacker sending a large number of phishing emails to both internal and external recipients.

Figure 2: The compromised SaaS user account sending a high volume of outbound emails to new recipients or containing suspicious content.

Darktrace / EMAIL detected a significant spike in inbound emails for the compromised account, likely indicating replies to phishing emails.

Figure 3: The figure demonstrates the spike in inbound emails detected for the compromised account, including phishing-related replies.

Furthermore, Darktrace identified that these phishing emails contained a malicious DocSend link. While docsend[.]com is generally recognized as a legitimate file-sharing service belonging to Dropbox, it can be vulnerable to exploitation for hosting malicious content. In this instance, the DocSend domain in question, ‘hxxps://docsend[.]com/view/h9t85su8njxtugmq’, was flagged as malicious by various OSINT vendors [3][4].

Figure 4: Phishing emails detected containing a malicious DocSend link.

In this case, Darktrace Autonomous Response was not in active mode in the customer’s environment, which allowed the compromise to escalate until their security team intervened based on Darktrace’s alerts. Had Autonomous Response been enabled during the incident, it could have quickly mitigated the threat by disabling users and inbox rules, as suggested by Darktrace as actions that could be manually applied, exhibiting unusual behavior within the customer’s SaaS environment.

Figure 5: Suggested Autonomous Response actions for this incident that required human confirmation.

Despite this, Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service promptly alerted the Security Operations Center (SOC) team about the compromise, allowing them to conduct a thorough investigation and inform the customer before any further damage could take place.

Conclusion

This incident highlights the role of Darktrace in enhancing cyber security through its advanced AI capabilities. By detecting the initial phishing email and tracking the threat actor's actions across the SaaS environment, Darktrace effectively identified the threat and brought it to the attention of the customer’s security team.

Darktrace’s proactive monitoring was crucial in recognizing the unusual behavior of the compromised account. Darktrace / IDENTITY detected unauthorized access attempts from rare IP addresses, revealing the attacker’s use of a VPN to hide their location.

Correlating these anomalies allowed Darktrace to prompt immediate investigation, showcasing its ability to identify malicious activities that traditional security tools might miss. By leveraging AI-driven insights, organizations can strengthen their defense posture and prevent further exploitation of compromised accounts.

Credit to Priya Thapa (Cyber Analyst), Ben Atkins (Senior Model Developer) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Real-time Detection Models

  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Compromise / High Priority New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Compromise / New Email Rule and Unusual Email Activity
  • SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Outbound Email Spam
  • SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule
  • SaaS / Compromise / Suspicious Login and Suspicious Outbound Email(s)
  • SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam

Autonomous Response Models

  • Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Email Rule Block
  • Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS User Block
  • Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Technique Name Tactic ID Sub-Technique of

  • Cloud Accounts. DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS T1078.004 T1078
  • Compromise Accounts RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT T1586
  • Email Accounts RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT T1586.002 T1586
  • Internal Spearphishing LATERAL MOVEMENT T1534 -
  • Outlook Rules PERSISTENCE T1137.005 T1137
  • Phishing INITIAL ACCESS T1566 -

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC – Type – Description

5.62.57[.]7 – Unusual Login Source

95.142.124[.]42– IP – Unusual Source for Email Rule

hxxps://docsend[.]com/view/h9t85su8njxtugmq - Domain - Phishing Link

References

[1] https://wing.security/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-State-of-SaaS-Report-Wing-Security.pdf

[2] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/95.142.124.42

[3] https://urlscan.io/result/0caf3eee-9275-4cda-a28f-6d3c6c3c1039/

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/8631f8004ee000b3f74461e5060e6972759c8d38ea8c359d85da9014101daddb

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
Priya Thapa
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

May 5, 2026

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Software supply chain attacksDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Software supply-chain attacks in 2026

Software supply-chain attacks now represent the primary threat shaping the 2026 security landscape. Rather than relying on exploits at the perimeter, attackers are targeting the connective tissue of modern engineering environments: package managers, CI/CD automation, developer systems, and even the security tools organizations inherently trust.

These incidents are not isolated cases of poisoned code. They reflect a structural shift toward abusing trusted automation and identity at ecosystem scale, where compromise propagates through systems designed for speed, not scrutiny. Ephemeral build runners, regardless of provider, represent high‑trust, low‑visibility execution zones.

The Axios compromise and the cascading Trivy campaign illustrate how quickly this abuse can move once attacker activity enters build and delivery workflows. This blog provides an overview of the latest supply chain and security tool incidents with Darktrace telemetry and defensive actions to improve organizations defensive cyber posture.

1. Why the Axios Compromise Scaled

On 31 March 2026, attackers hijacked the npm account of Axios’s lead maintainer, publishing malicious versions 1.14.1 and 0.30.4 that silently pulled in a malicious dependency, plain‑crypto‑[email protected]. Axios is a popular HTTP client for node.js and  processes 100 million weekly downloads and appears in around 80% of cloud and application environments, making this a high‑leverage breach [1].

The attack chain was simple yet effective:

  • A compromised maintainer account enabled legitimate‑looking malicious releases.
  • The poisoned dependency executed Remote Access Trojans (RATs) across Linux, macOS and Windows systems.
  • The malware beaconed to a remote command-and-control (C2) server every 60 seconds in a loop, awaiting further instructions.
  • The installer self‑cleaned by deleting malicious artifacts.

All of this matters because a single maintainer compromise was enough to project attacker access into thousands of trusted production environments without exploiting a single vulnerability.

A view from Darktrace

Multiple cases linked with the Axios compromise were identified across Darktrace’s customer base in March 2026, across both Darktrace / NETWORK and Darktrace / CLOUD deployments.

In one Darktrace / CLOUD deployment, an Azure Cloud Asset was observed establishing new external HTTP connectivity to the IP 142.11.206[.]73 on port 8000. Darktrace deemed this activity as highly anomalous for the device based on several factors, including the rarity of the endpoint across the network and the unusual combination of protocol and port for this asset. As a result, the triggering the "Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port" model was triggered in Darktrace / CLOUD. Detection was driven by environmental context rather than a known indicator at the time. Subsequent reporting later classified the destination as malicious in relation to the Axios supply‑chain compromise, reinforcing the gap that often exists between initial attacker activity and the availability of actionable intelligence. [5]

Additionally, shortly before this C2 connection, the device was observed communicating with various endpoints associated with the NPM package manager, further reinforcing the association with this attack.

Darktrace’s detection of the unusual external connection to 142.11[.]206[.]73 via port 8000.  
Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual external connection to 142.11[.]206[.]73 via port 8000.  

Within Axios cases observed within Darktrace / NETWORK customer environments, activity generally focused on the use of newly observed cURL user agents in outbound connections to the C2 URL sfrclak[.]com/6202033, alongside the download of malicious files.

In other cases, Darktrace / NETWORK customers with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration received alerts flagging newly observed system executables and process launches associated with C2 communication.

A Security Integration Alert from Microsoft Defender for Endpoint associated with the Axios supply chain attack.
Figure 2: A Security Integration Alert from Microsoft Defender for Endpoint associated with the Axios supply chain attack.

2. Why Trivy bypassed security tooling trust

Between late February and March 22, 2026, the threat group TeamPCP leveraged credentials from a previous incident to insert malicious artifacts across Trivy’s distribution ecosystem, including its CI automation, release binaries, Visual Studio Code extensions, and Docker container images [2].

While public reporting has emphasized GitHub Actions, Darktrace telemetry highlights attacker execution within CI/CD runner environments, including ephemeral build runners. These execution contexts are typically granted broad trust and limited visibility, allowing malicious activity within build automation to blend into expected operational workflows, regardless of provider.

This was a coordinated multi‑phase attack:

  • 75 of 76  of trivy-action tags and all setup‑trivy tags were force‑pushed to deliver a malicious payload.
  • A malicious binary (v0.69.4) was distributed across all major distribution channels.
  • Developer machines were compromised, receiving a persistent backdoor and a self-propagating worm.
  • Secrets were exfiltrated at scale, including SSH keys, Kuberenetes tokens, database passwords, and cloud credentials across Amazon Web Service (AWS), Azure, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Within Darktrace’s customer base, an AWS EC2 instance monitored by Darktrace / CLOUD  appeared to have been impacted by the Trivy attack. On March 19, the device was seen connecting to the attacker-controlled C2 server scan[.]aquasecurtiy[.]org (45.148.10[.]212), triggering the model 'Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server’ in Darktrace / CLOUD.

Despite this limited historical context, Darktrace assessed this activity as suspicious due to the rarity of the destination endpoint across the wider deployment. This resulted in the triggering of a model alert and the generation of a Cyber AI Analyst incident to further analyze and correlate the attack activity.

TeamPCP’s continued abused of GitHub Actions against security and IT tooling has also been observed more recently in Darktrace’s customer base. On April 22, an AWS asset was seen connecting to the C2 endpoint audit.checkmarx[.]cx (94.154.172[.]43). The timing of this activity suggests a potential link to a malicious Bitwarden package distributed by the threat actor, which was only available for a short timeframe on April 22. [4][3]

Figure 3: A model alert flagging unusual external connectivity from the AWS asset, as seen in Darktrace / CLOUD .

While the Trivy activity originated within build automation, the underlying failure mode mirrors later intrusions observed via management tooling. In both cases, attackers leveraged platforms designed for scale and trust to execute actions that blended into normal operational noise until downstream effects became visible.

Quest KACE: Legacy Risk, Real Impact

The Quest KACE System Management Appliance (SMA) incident reinforces that software risk is not confined to development pipelines alone. High‑trust infrastructure and management platforms are increasingly leveraged by adversaries when left unpatched or exposed to the internet.

Throughout March 2026, attackers exploited CVE 2025-32975 to authentication on outdated, internet-facing KACE appliances, gaining administrative control and pushing remote payloads into enterprise environments. Organizations still running pre-patch versions effectively handed adversaries a turnkey foothold, reaffirming a simple strategic truth: legacy management systems are now part of the supply-chain threat surface, and treating them as “low-risk utilities” is no longer defensible [3].

Within the Darktrace customer base, a potential case was identified in mid-March involving an internet-facing server that exhibited the use of a new user agent alongside unusual file downloads and unexpected external connectivity. Darktrace identified the device downloading file downloads from "216.126.225[.]156/x", "216.126.225[.]156/ct.py" and "216.126.225[.]156/n", using the user agents, "curl/8.5.0" & "Python-urllib/3.9".

The timeframe and IoCs observed point towards likely exploitation of CVE‑2025‑32975. As with earlier incidents, the activity became visible through deviations in expected system behavior rather than through advance knowledge of exploitation or attacker infrastructure. The delay between observed exploitation and its addition to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalogue underscores a recurring failure: retrospective validation cannot keep pace with adversaries operating at automation speed.

The strategic pattern: Ecosystem‑scale adversaries

The Axios and Trivy compromises are not anomalies; they are signals of a structural shift in the threat landscape. In this post-trust era, the compromise of a single maintainer, repository token, or CI/CD tag can produce large-scale blast radiuses with downstream victims numbering in the thousands. Attackers are no longer just exploiting vulnerabilities; they are exploiting infrastructure privileges, developer trust relationships, and automated build systems that the industry has generally under secured.

Supply‑chain compromise should now be treated as an assumed breach scenario, not a specialized threat class, particularly across build, integration, and management infrastructure. Organizations must operate under the assumption that compromise will occur within trusted software and automation layers, not solely at the network edge or user endpoint. Defenders should therefore expect compromise to emerge from trusted automation layers before it is labelled, validated, or widely understood.

The future of supply‑chain defense lies in continuous behavioral visibility, autonomous detection across developer and build environments, and real‑time anomaly identification.

As AI increasingly shapes software development and security operations, defenders must assume adversaries will also operate with AI in the loop. The defensive edge will come not from predicting specific compromises, but from continuously interrogating behavior across environments humans can no longer feasibly monitor at scale.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISCO), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References:

1)         https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/hackers-hijack-axios-npm-package/

2)         https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/trivy-hack-spreads-infostealer-via.html

3)         https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/hackers-exploit-cve-2025-32975-cvss-100.html

4)         https://www.endorlabs.com/learn/shai-hulud-the-third-coming----inside-the-bitwarden-cli-2026-4-0-supply-chain-attack

5)         https://socket.dev/blog/axios-npm-package-compromised?trk=public_post_comment-text

IoCs

- 142.11.206[.]73 – IP Address – Axios supply chain C2

- sfrclak[.]com – Hostname – Axios supply chain C2

- hxxp://sfrclak[.]com:8000/6202033 - URI – Axios supply chain payload

- 45.148.10[.]212 – IP Address – Trivy supply chain C2

- scan.aquasecurtiy[.]org – Hostname - Trivy supply chain C2

- 94.154.172[.]43 – IP Address - Checkmarx/Bitwarden supply chain C2

- audit.checkmarx[.]cx – Hostname - Checkmarx/Bitwarder supply chain C2

- 216.126.225[.]156 – IP Address – Quest KACE exploitation C2

- 216.126.225[.]156/32 - URI – Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/ct.py - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/n - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 216.126.225[.]156/x - URI - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- e1ec76a0e1f48901566d53828c34b5dc – MD5 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- d3beab2e2252a13d5689e9911c2b2b2fc3a41086 – SHA1 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- ab6677fcbbb1ff4a22cc3e7355e1c36768ba30bbf5cce36f4ec7ae99f850e6c5 – SHA256 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- 83b7a106a5e810a1781e62b278909396 – MD5 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- deb4b5841eea43cb8c5777ee33ee09bf294a670d – SHA1 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

- b1b2f1e36dcaa36bc587fda1ddc3cbb8e04c3df5f1e3f1341c9d2ec0b0b0ffaf – SHA256 - Possible Quest KACE exploitation payload

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Pattern of Life Block

Device / New User Agent

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Anomalous File / New User Agent Followed By Numeric File Download

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Jones
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

/

Email

/

May 5, 2026

How email-delivered prompt injection attacks can target enterprise AI – and why it matters

Default blog imageDefault blog image

What are email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

As organizations rapidly adopt AI assistants to improve productivity, a new class of cyber risk is emerging alongside them: email-delivered AI prompt injection. Unlike traditional attacks that target software vulnerabilities or rely on social engineering, this is the act of embedding malicious or manipulative instructions into content that an AI system will process as part of its normal workflow. Because modern AI tools are designed to ingest and reason over large volumes of data, including emails, documents, and chat histories, they can unintentionally treat hidden attacker-controlled text as legitimate input.  

At Darktrace, our analysis has shown an increase of 90% in the number of customer deployments showing signals associated with potential prompt injection attempts since we began monitoring for this type of activity in late 2025. While it is not always possible to definitively attribute each instance, internal scoring systems designed to identify characteristics consistent with prompt injection have recorded a growing number of high-confidence matches. The upward trend suggests that attackers are actively experimenting with these techniques.

Recent examples of prompt injection attacks

Two early examples of this evolving threat are HashJack and ShadowLeak, which illustrate prompt injection in practice.

HashJack is a novel prompt injection technique discovered in November 2025 that exploits AI-powered web browsers and agentic AI browser assistants. By hiding malicious instructions within the URL fragment (after the # symbol) of a legitimate, trusted website, attackers can trick AI web assistants into performing malicious actions – potentially inserting phishing links, fake contact details, or misleading guidance directly into what appears to be a trusted AI-generated output.

ShadowLeak is a prompt injection method to exfiltrate PII identified in September 2025. This was a flaw in ChatGPT (now patched by OpenAI) which worked via an agent connected to email. If attackers sent the target an email containing a hidden prompt, the agent was tricked into leaking sensitive information to the attacker with no user action or visible UI.

What’s the risk of email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

Enterprise AI assistants often have complete visibility across emails, documents, and internal platforms. This means an attacker does not need to compromise credentials or move laterally through an environment. If successful, they can influence the AI to retrieve relevant information seamlessly, without the labor of compromise and privilege escalation.

The first risk is data exfiltration. In a prompt injection scenario, malicious instructions may be embedded within an ordinary email. As in the ShadowLeak attack, when AI processes that content as part of a legitimate task, it may interpret the hidden text as an instruction. This could result in the AI disclosing sensitive data, summarizing confidential communications, or exposing internal context that would otherwise require significant effort to obtain.

The second risk is agentic workflow poisoning. As AI systems take on more active roles, prompt injection can influence how they behave over time. An attacker could embed instructions that persist across interactions, such as causing the AI to include malicious links in responses or redirect users to untrusted resources. In this way, the attacker inserts themselves into the workflow, effectively acting as a man-in-the-middle within the AI system.

Why can’t other solutions catch email-delivered prompt injection attacks?

AI prompt injection challenges many of the assumptions that traditional email security is built on. It does not fit the usual patterns of phishing, where the goal is to trick a user into clicking a link or opening an attachment.  

Most security solutions are designed to detect signals associated with user engagement: suspicious links, unusual attachments, or social engineering cues. Prompt injection avoids these indicators entirely, meaning there are fewer obvious red flags.

In this case, the intention is actually the opposite of user solicitation. The objective is simply for the email to be delivered and remain in the inbox, appearing benign and unremarkable. The malicious element is not something the recipient is expected to engage with, or even notice.

Detection is further complicated by the nature of the prompts themselves. Unlike known malware signatures or consistent phishing patterns, injected prompts can vary widely in structure and wording. This makes simple pattern-matching approaches, such as regex, unreliable. A broad rule set risks generating large numbers of false positives, while a narrow one is unlikely to capture the diversity of possible injections.

How does Darktrace catch these types of attacks?

The Darktrace approach to email security more generally is to look beyond individual indicators and assess context, which also applies here.  

For example, our prompt density score identifies clusters of prompt-like language within an email rather than just single occurrences. Instead of treating the presence of a phrase as a blocking signal, the focus is on whether there is an unusual concentration of these patterns in a way that suggests injection. Additional weighting can be applied where there are signs of obfuscation. For example, text that is hidden from the user – such as white font or font size zero – but still readable by AI systems can indicate an attempt to conceal malicious prompts.

This is combined with broader behavioral signals. The same communication context used to detect other threats remains relevant, such as whether the content is unusual for the recipient or deviates from normal patterns.

Ask your email provider about email-delivered AI prompt injection

Prompt injection targets not just employees, but the AI systems they rely on, so security approaches need to account for both.

Though there are clear indications of emerging activity, it remains to be seen how popular prompt injection will be with attackers going forward. Still, considering the potential impact of this attack type, it’s worth checking if this risk has been considered by your email security provider.

Questions to ask your email security provider

  • What safeguards are in place to prevent emails from influencing AI‑driven workflows over time?
  • How do you assess email content that’s benign for a human reader, but may carry hidden instructions intended for AI systems?
  • If an email contains no links, no attachments, and no social engineering cues, what signals would your platform use to identify malicious intent?

Visit the Darktrace / EMAIL product hub to discover how we detect and respond to advanced communication threats.  

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

Continue reading
About the author
Kiri Addison
Senior Director of Product
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI