ブログ
/
AI
/
November 3, 2024

AI and Cybersecurity: Predictions for 2025

Discover the role of AI in shaping cybersecurity predictions for 2025 and how organizations can prepare for emerging threats.
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
03
Nov 2024

Introduction: AI cybersecurity predictions for 2025

Each year, Darktrace's AI and cybersecurity experts reflect on the events of the past 12 months and predict the trends we expect to shape the cybersecurity landscape in the year ahead. In 2024, we predicted that the global elections, fast-moving AI innovations, and increasingly cloud-based IT environments would be key factors shaping the cyber threat landscape.

Looking ahead to 2025, we expect the total addressable market of cybercrime to expand as attackers add more tactics to their toolkits. Threat actors will continue to take advantage of the volatile geopolitical environment and cybersecurity challenges will increasingly move to new frontiers like space. When it comes to AI, we anticipate the innovation in AI agents in 2024 to pave the way for the rise of multi-agent systems in 2025, creating new challenges and opportunities for cybersecurity professionals and attackers alike.

Here are ten trends to watch for in 2025:

1. The overall Total Addressable Market (TAM) of cybercrime gets bigger

Cybercrime is a global business, and an increasingly lucrative one, scaling through the adoption of AI and cybercrime-as-a-service. Annual revenue from cybercrime is already estimated to be over $8 trillion, which we’ve found is almost 5x greater than the revenue of the Magnificent Seven stocks. There are a few key factors driving this growth.

The ongoing growth of devices and systems means that existing malware families will continue to be successful. As of October 2024, it’s estimated that more than 5.52 billion people (~67%) have access to the internet and sources estimate 18.8 billion connected devices will be online by the end of 2024. The increasing adoption of AI is poised to drive even more interconnected systems as well as new data centers and infrastructure globally.

At the same time, more sophisticated capabilities are available for low-level attackers – we’ve already seen the trickle-down economic benefits of living off the land, edge infrastructure exploitation, and identity-focused exploitation. The availability of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) and Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) make more advanced tactics the norm. The subscription income that these groups can generate enables more adversarial innovation, so attacks are getting faster and more effective with even bigger financial ramifications.

While there has also been an increasing trend in the last year of improved cross-border law enforcement, the efficacy of these efforts remains to be seen as cybercriminal gangs are also getting more resilient and professionalized. They are building better back-up systems and infrastructure as well as more multi-national networks and supply chains.

2. Security teams need to prepare for the rise of AI agents and multi-agent systems

Throughout 2024, we’ve seen major announcements about advancements in AI agents from the likes of OpenAI, Microsoft, Salesforce, and more. In 2025, we’ll see increasing innovation in and adoption of AI agents as well as the emergence of multi-agent systems (or “agent swarms”), where groups of autonomous agents work together to tackle complex tasks.

The rise of AI agents and multi-agent systems will introduce new challenges in cybersecurity, including new attack vectors and vulnerabilities. Security teams need to think about how to protect these systems to prevent data poisoning, prompt injection, or social engineering attacks.

One benefit of multi-agent systems is that agents can autonomously communicate, collaborate, and interact. However without clear and distinct boundaries and explicit permissions, this can also pose a major data privacy risk and avenue for manipulation. These issues cannot be addressed by traditional application testing alone. We must ensure these systems are secure by design, where robust protective mechanisms and data guardrails are built into the foundations.

3. Threat actors will be the earliest adopters of AI agents and multi-agent systems

We’ve already seen how quickly threat actors have been able to adopt generative AI for tasks like email phishing and reconnaissance. The next frontier for threat actors will be AI agents and multi-agent systems that are specialized in autonomous tasks like surveillance, initial access brokering, privilege escalation, vulnerability exploitation, data summarization for smart exfiltration, and more. Because they have no concern for safe, secure, accurate, and responsible use, adversaries will adopt these systems faster than cyber defenders.

We could also start to see use cases emerge for multi-agent systems in cyber defense – with potential for early use cases in incident response, application testing, and vulnerability discovery. On the whole, security teams will be slower to adopt these systems than adversaries because of the need to put in place proper security guardrails and build trust over time.

4. There is heightened supply chain risk for Large Language Models (LLMs)

Training LLMs requires a lot of data, and many experts have warned that world is running out of quality data for that training. As a result, there will be an increasing reliance on synthetic data, which can introduce new issues of accuracy and efficacy. Moreover, data supply chain risks will be an Achilles heel for organizations, with the potential interjection of vulnerabilities through the data and machine learning providers that they rely on. Poisoning one data set could have huge trickle-down impacts across many different systems. Data security will be paramount in 2025.

5. The race to identify software vulnerabilities intensifies

The time it takes for threat actors to exploit newly published CVEs is getting shorter, giving defenders an even smaller window to apply patches and remediations. A 2024 report from Cloudflare found that threat actors quickly weaponized proof of concept exploits in attacks as quickly as 22 minutes after the exploits were made public.

At the same time, 2024 also saw the first reports from researchers across academia and the tech industry using AI for vulnerability discovery in real-world code. With threat actors getting faster at exploiting vulnerabilities, defenders will need to use AI to identify vulnerabilities in their software stack and to help identify and prioritize remediations and patches.

6. Insider threat risks will force organizations to evolve zero trust strategies

In 2025, an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation and the intensity of the AI race will make insider threats an even bigger risk for businesses, forcing organizations to expand zero-trust strategies. The traditional zero-trust model provides protection from external threats to an organization’s network by requiring continuous verification of the devices and users attempting to access critical business systems, services, and information from multiple sources. However, as we have seen in the more recent Jack Teixeira case, malicious insiders can still do significant damage to an organization within their approved and authenticated boundary.

To circumvent the remaining security gaps in a zero-trust architecture and mitigate increasing risk of insider threats, organizations will need to integrate a behavioral understanding dimension to their zero-trust approaches. The zero-trust best practice of “never trust, always verify” needs to evolve to become “never trust, always verify, and continuously monitor.”

7. Identity remains an expensive problem for businesses

2024 saw some of the biggest and costliest attacks – all because the attacker had access to compromised credentials. Essentially, they had the key to the front door. Businesses still struggle with identity and access management (IAM), and it’s getting more complex now that we’re in the middle of a massive Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) migration driven by increasing rates of AI and cloud use across businesses.

This challenge is going to be exacerbated in 2025 by a few global and business factors. First, there is an increasing push for digital identities, such as the rollout of the EU Digital Identity Framework that is underway, which could introduce additional attack vectors. As they scale, businesses are turning more and more to centralized identity and access solutions with decentralized infrastructure and relying on SaaS and application-native security.

8. Increasing vulnerabilities at the edge

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations had to stand-up remote access solutions quickly – in a matter of days or weeks – without the high level of due diligence that they require to be fully secured. In 2025, we expect to see continued fall-out as these quickly spun-up solutions start to present genuine vulnerability to businesses. We’ve already seen this start to play out in 2024 with the mass-exploitation of internet-edge devices like firewalls and VPN gateway products.

By July 2024, Darktrace’s threat research team observed that the most widely exploited edge infrastructure devices were those related to Ivanti Connect Secure, JetBrains TeamCity, FortiClient Enterprise Management Server, and Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS. Across the industry, we’ve already seen many zero days and vulnerabilities exploiting these internet-connected devices, which provide inroads into the network and store/cache credentials and passwords of other users that are highly valuable for threat actors.

9. Hacking Operational Technology (OT) gets easier

Hacking OT is notoriously complex – causing damage requires an intimate knowledge of the specific systems being targeted and historically was the reserve of nation states. But as OT has become more reliant and integrated with IT systems, attackers have stumbled on ways to cause disruption without having to rely on the sophisticated attack-craft normally associated with nation-state groups. That’s why some of the most disruptive attacks of the last year have come from hacktivist and financially-motivated criminal gangs – such as the hijacking of internet-exposed Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) by anti-Israel hacking groups and ransomware attacks resulting in the cancellation of hospital operations.  

In 2025, we expect to see an increase in cyber-physical disruption caused by threat groups motivated by political ideology or financial gain, bringing the OT threat landscape closer in complexity and scale to that of the IT landscape. The sectors most at risk are those with a strong reliance on IoT sensors, including healthcare, transportation, and manufacturing sectors.

10. Securing space infrastructure and systems becomes a critical imperative

The global space industry is growing at an incredibly fast pace, and 2025 is on track to be another record-breaking year for spaceflight with major missions and test flights planned by NASA, ESA, CNSA as well as the expected launch of the first commercial space station from Vast and programs from Blue Origin, Amazon and more. Research from Analysis Mason suggests that 38,000 additional satellites will be built and launched by 2033 and the global space industry revenue will reach $1.7 trillion by 2032. Space has also been identified as a focus area for the incoming US administration.

In 2025, we expect to see new levels of tension emerge as private and public infrastructure increasingly intersect in space, shining a light on the lack of agreed upon cyber norms and the increasing challenge of protecting complex and remote space systems against modern cyber threats.  Historically focused on securing earth-bound networks and environments, the space industry will face challenges as post-orbit threats rise, with satellites moving up the target list.

The EU’s NIS2 Directive now recognizes the space sector as an essential entity that is subject to its most strict cybersecurity requirements. Will other jurisdictions follow suit? We expect global debates about cyber vulnerabilities in space to come to the forefront as we become more reliant on space-based technology.

Conclusion: Preparing for the future

Whatever 2025 brings, Darktrace is committed to providing robust cybersecurity leadership and solutions to enterprises around the world. Our team of subject matter experts will continue to monitor emerging threat trends, advising both our customers and our product development teams.

And for day-to-day security, our multi-layered AI cybersecurity platform can protect against all types of threats, whether they are known, unknown, entirely novel, or powered by AI. It accomplishes this by learning what is normal for your unique organization, therefore identifying unusual and suspicious behavior at machine speed, regardless of existing rules and signatures. In this way, organizations with Darktrace can be ready for any developments in the cybersecurity threat landscape that the new year may bring.

Discover more about Darktrace's predictions on the AI and cybersecurity landscape for 2025 by watching the full recorded webinar 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
The Darktrace Community

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

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

/

AI

/

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
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ