Blog
/
/
February 24, 2021

LockBit Ransomware Analysis: Compromised Credentials

Darktrace examines how a LockBit ransomware attack that took place over just four hours was caused by one compromised credential. Read more 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
24
Feb 2021

Lockbit ransomware found

LockBit ransomware was recently identified by Darktrace's Cyber AI during a trial with a retail company in the US. After an initial foothold was established via a compromised administrative credential, internal reconnaissance, lateral movement, and encryption of files occurred simultaneously, allowing the ransomware to steamroll through the digital system in just a few hours.

This incident serves as the latest reminder that ransomware campaigns now move through organizations at a speed that far outpaces human responders, demonstrating the need for machine-speed Autonomous Response to contain the threat before damage is done.

Lockbit ransomware defined

First discovered in 2019, LockBit is a relatively new family of ransomware that quickly exploits commonly available protocols and tools like SMB and PowerShell. It was originally known as ‘ABCD’ due the filename extension of the encrypted files, before it started using the current .lockbit extension. Since those early beginnings, it has evolved into one of the most calamitous strains of malware to date, asking for an average ransom of around $40,000 per organization.

As cyber-criminals level up the speed and scale of their attacks, ransomware remains a critical concern for organizations across every industry. In the past 12 months, Darktrace has observed an increase of over 20% in ransomware incidents across its customer base. Attackers are constantly developing new threat variants targeting exploits, utilizing off-the-shelf tools, and profiting from the burgeoning Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) business model.

How does LockBit work?

In a typical attack, a threat actor will spend days or weeks inside a system, manually screening for the best way to grind the victim’s business to a halt. This phase tends to expose multiple indicators of compromise such as command and control (C2) beaconing, which Darktrace AI identifies in real time.

LockBit, however, only requires the presence of a human for a number of hours, after which it propagates through a system and infects other hosts on its own, without the need for human oversight. Crucially, the malware performs reconnaissance and continues to spread during the encryption phase. This allows it to cause maximal damage faster than other manual approaches.

AI-powered defense is essential in fighting back against these machine-driven attacks, which have the capacity to spread at speed and scale, and often go undetected by signature-based security tools. Cyber AI augments human teams by not only detecting the subtle signs of a threat, but autonomously responding in seconds, quicker than any human can be expected to react.

Ransomware analysis: Breaking down a LockBit attack with AI

Figure 1: Timeline of attack on the infected host and the encryption host. The infected host was the device initially infected with LockBit, which then spread to the encryption host, the device which performed the encryption.

Initial compromise

The attack commenced when a cyber-criminal gained access to a single privileged credential – either through a brute-force attack on an externally facing device, as seen in previous LockBit ransomware attacks, or simply with a phishing email. With the use of this credential, the device was able to spread and encrypt files within hours of the initial infection.

Had the method of infiltration been via phishing attack, a route that has become increasingly popular in recent months, Darktrace/Email would have withheld the email and stripped the malicious payloads, and so prevented the attack from the outset.

Limiting permissions, the use of strong passwords, and multi-factor authentication (MFA), are critical in preventing the exploitation of standard network protocols in such attacks.

Internal reconnaissance

At 14:19 local time, the first of many WMI commands (ExecMethod) to multiple internal destinations was performed by an internal IP address over DCE-RPC. This series of commands occurred throughout the encryption process. Given these commands were unusual in the context of the normal ‘pattern of life’ for the organization, Darktrace DETECT alerted the security team to each of these connections.

Within three minutes, the device had started to write executable files over SMB to hidden shares on multiple destinations – many of which were the same. File writes to hidden shares are ordinarily restricted. However, the unauthorized use of an administrative credential granted these privileges. The executable files were written to the Windows / Temp directory. Filenames had a similar formatting: .*eck[0-9]?.exe

Darktrace identified each of these SMB writes as a potential threat, since such administrative activity was unexpected from the compromised device.

The WMI commands and executable file writes continued to be made to multiple destinations. In less than two hours, the ExecMethod command was delivered to a critical device – the ‘encryption host’ – shortly followed by an executable file write (eck3.exe) to its hidden c$ share.

LockBit’s script has the capability to check its current privileges and, if non-administrative, it attempts to bypass using Windows User Account Control (UAC). This particular host did provide the required privileges to the process. Once this device was infected, encryption began.

File encryption

Only one second after encryption had started, Darktrace alerted on the unusual file extension appendage in addition to the previous, high-fidelity alerts for earlier stages of the attack lifecycle.

A recovery file – ‘Restore-My-Files.txt’ – was identified by Darktrace one second after the first encryption event. 8,998 recovery files were written, one to each encrypted folder.

Figure 2: An example of Darktrace’s Threat Visualizer showcasing anomalous SMB connections, with model breaches represented by dots.

The encryption host was a critical device that regularly utilized SMB. Exploiting SMB is a popular tactic for cyber-criminals. Such tools are so frequently used that it is difficult for signature-based detection methods to identify quickly whether their activity is malicious or not. In this case, Darktrace’s ‘Unusual Activity’ score for the device was elevated within two seconds of the first encryption, indicating that the device was deviating from its usual pattern of behavior.

Throughout the encryption process, Darktrace also detected the device performing network reconnaissance, enumerating shares on 55 devices (via srvsvc) and scanning over 1,000 internal IP addresses on nine critical TCP ports.

During this time, ‘Patient Zero’ – the initially infected device – continued to write executable files to hidden file shares. LockBit was using the initial device to spread the malware across the digital estate, while the ‘encryption host’ performed reconnaissance and encrypted the files simultaneously.

Despite Cyber AI detecting the threat even before the encryption had begun, the security team did not have eyes on Darktrace at the time of the attack. The intrusion was thus allowed to continue and over 300,000 files were encrypted and appended with the .lockbit extension. Four servers and 15 desktop devices were affected, before the attack was stopped by the administrators.

The rise of ‘hit and run’ ransomware

While most ransomware resides inside an organization for days or weeks, LockBit’s self-governing nature allows the attacker to ‘hit and run’, deploying the ransomware with minimal interaction required after the initial intrusion. The ability to detect anomalous activity across the entire digital infrastructure in real time is therefore crucial in LockBit’s prevention.

WMI and SMB are relied upon by the vast majority of companies around the world, and yet they were utilized in this attack to propagate through the system and encrypt hundreds of thousands of files. The prevalence and volume of these connections make them near-impossible to monitor with humans or signature-based detection techniques alone.

Moreover, the uniqueness of every enterprise’s digital estate impedes signature-based detection from effectively alerting on internal connections and the volume of such connections. Darktrace, however, uses machine learning to understand the individual pattern of behavior for each device, in this case allowing it to highlight the unusual internal activity as it occurred.

The organization involved did not have Darktrace RESPOND – Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology – configured in active mode. If enabled, RESPOND would have surgically blocked the initial WMI operations and SMB drive writes that triggered the attack whilst allowing the critical network devices to continue standard operations. Even if the foothold had been established, RESPOND would have enforced the ‘pattern of life’ of the encryption host, preventing the cascade of encryption over SMB. This demonstrates the importance of meeting machine-speed attacks with autonomous cyber security, which reacts in real time to sophisticated threats when human security teams cannot.

LockBit has the ability to encrypt thousands of files in just seconds, even when targeting well-prepared organizations. This type of ransomware, with built-in worm-like functionality, is expected to become increasingly common over 2021. Such attacks can move at a speed which no human security team alone can match. Darktrace’s approach, which uses unsupervised machine learning, can respond in seconds to these rapid attacks and shut them down in their earliest stages.

Thanks to Darktrace analyst Isabel Finn for her insights on the above threat find.

Darktrace model detections:

  • Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Device / Network Scan – Low Anomaly Score
  • Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
  • Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity
  • Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

‍

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