Blog
/
/
November 29, 2020

Darktrace Cyber Analyst Investigates Sodinokibi Ransomware

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst uncovers the intricate details of a Sodinokibi ransomware attack on a retail organization. Dive into this real-time incident.
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
29
Nov 2020

Sodinokibi is one of the most lucrative ransomware strains of 2020, with its creators, cyber-criminal gang REvil, recently claiming over $100 million in profits this year alone. The prevalent threat is known to wipe backup files, encrypt files on local shares and exfiltrate data.

Exfiltration before encryption is a technique being increasingly adopted by profit-seeking cyber-criminals, who can threaten to leak the stolen data should a target organization not comply with their demands. Sodinobiki also makes heavy use of code obfuscation and encryption techniques to evade detection by signature-based, anti-virus solutions.

Darktrace’s AI recently detected Sodinokibi targeting a retail organization in the US. Prior to this year, the company operated primarily face-to-face in physical stores, but have conducted the majority of their business in the digital realm since the onset of the pandemic.

Cyber AI Analyst automatically launched a full investigation into this incident in real time, as the attack was unfolding. The technology provided summary reports of the entire incident which the security team could immediately action for incident response. This blog explores its findings.

Sodinokibi timeline

Darktrace automatically investigated on the full scope of the Sodinokibi attack, with Cyber AI Analyst clearly identifying and summarising every stage of the attack lifecycle, which played out over the course of three weeks as below:

Figure 1: A timeline of the attack

Darktrace produced a large number of security-relevant anomalies associated with just three credentials, and displayed these along a common timeline shown below:

Figure 2: A timeline view of anomaly detections separated by users. Note the clusters of model breaches for the compromised credentials leading up to October 14.

While a human analyst might have been able to identify these unusual patterns and investigate what caused the clusters of anomalous activity, this process would have taken precious hours during a crisis. Cyber AI Analyst automatically performed the same analysis using supervised machine learning trained on Darktrace’s world-leading analysts, generating meaningful summaries of each stage of the event in real time, as the incident unfolded.

REvil ransomware attack

The following events occurred during a free trial period, and Darktrace was not being actively monitored. Its Autonomous Response technology, Darktrace Antigena, was installed in passive mode, and in the absence of automatic interference at an early stage, this compromise was allowed to unfold without interruption. However, with Darktrace’s AI learning normal ‘patterns of life’ for every device in the background, identifying anomalies, and launching an automated investigation into the attack, we are able to go back into the Threat Visualizer and see how the incident unfolded.

The attack began when the credentials of a highly privileged member of the retail organization’s IT team were compromised. REvil is known to make use of phishing emails, exploit kits, server vulnerabilities, and compromised MSP networks for initial intrusion.

In this case, the attacker used the IT credential to compromise a domain controller and exfiltrate data directly after initial reconnaissance. Darktrace’s AI detected the attacker logging into the domain controller via SMB, writing suspicious files and then deleting batch scripts and log files in the root directory to clear their tracks.

The domain controller then made connections to several rare external endpoints, and Darktrace witnessed a 28MB upload that was likely exfiltration of initial reconnaissance data. Four days later, the attacker connected to the same endpoint (sadstat[.]com) – likely a stager download for C2, which was then initiated via connections on port 443 later that same day.

A week on from the intial C2 connection, a SQL server was detected engaging in network scanning as the attacker sought to move laterally in search of sensitive and valuable data. Over the course of two weeks, Darktrace witnessed unusual internal RDP connections using administrative credentials, before data was uploaded to multiple cloud storage endpoints as well as an SSH server. PsExec was used to deploy the ransomware, resulting in file encryption.

The evasive nature of modern ransomware

REvil started with an inherent advantage in that they were armed with the credentials of a highly privileged IT admin. Nevertheless, they still made several attempts to evade traditional, signature-based tools, such as ‘Living off the Land’ – using common tools such PsExec, WMI, RDP to blend into to legitimate activity.

They leveraged frequently-used cloud storage solutions like Dropbox and pCloud for data transfer, and they conducted SSH on port 443, blending in with SSL connections on the same port. They used a newly-registered domain for C2 communication, meaning Open Source Intelligence Tools (OSINT) were blind to the threat.

Finally, the malware itself was evasive in that it made use of code obfuscation and encryption, and had no need for a system library or API imports. This is the basis for most modern ransomware attacks, and the reality is signature-based tools cannot keep up. Darktrace’s AI not only detected the anomalous activity associated with every stage of the attack, but generated fleshed-out summaries of each stage of the attack with Cyber AI Analyst.

Cyber AI Analyst: Real-time incident reporting

Between September 21 and October 12, Cyber AI Analyst created 15 incidents, investigating dozens of point detections and creating a coherent attack narrative.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Incident log of the first compromised DC. This incident tab details the connections to sadstat[.]com

Figure 4: The DC establishes C2 to the first GHOSTnet GmbH IP

Figure 5: This incident tab highlights the file encryption of files on network shares

Figure 6: Darktrace surfaces the IT admin account takeover

Figure 7: Example of a client type device involved in extensive administrative RDP and SMB activity, as well as data uploads to Dropbox (this upload to Dropbox occurs few seconds before file encryption begins)

REvil vs AI

This Sodinokibi ransomware attack slipped under the radar of a range of traditional tools deployed by the retail organization. However, despite the threat dwelling in the retail organization’s digital environment for over a month, and REvil using local tools to blend in to regular traffic, from Darktrace’s perspective these actions were noisy in comparison to the organization’s normal ‘pattern of life’, setting off a series of alerts and investigations.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to autonomously investigate nearly every attack phase of the ransomware. The technology works around the clock, without requiring training or time off, and can often reduce hours or days of incident response into just minutes, reducing time to triage by up to 92% and augmenting the capabilities of the human security team.

Thanks to Darktrace analyst Joel Lee for his insights on the above threat find.

Learn more about Cyber AI Analyst

Darktrace model detections:

  • Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent To New External Device
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
  • Anomalous Connection / High Volume of New or Uncommon Service Control
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session
  • Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Compliance / Possible Tor Usage
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches
  • Device / Network Scan
  • Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
  • Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution
  • Device / RDP Scan
  • Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
  • Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Connections
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