December 15, 2023

How Darktrace Halted A DarkGate in MS Teams

Discover how Darktrace thwarted DarkGate malware in Microsoft Teams. Stay informed on the latest cybersecurity measures and protect your business.

Written by

Natalia Sánchez Rocafort

Cyber Security Analyst

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

Natalia Sánchez Rocafort

Cyber Security Analyst

Dec 2023

Securing Microsoft Teams and SharePoint

Given the prevalence of the Microsoft Teams and Microsoft SharePoint platforms in the workplace in recent years, it is essential that organizations stay vigilant to the threat posed by applications vital to hybrid and remote work and prioritize the security and cyber hygiene of these services. For just as the use of these platforms has increased exponentially with the rise of remote and hybrid working, so too has the malicious use of them to deliver malware to unassuming users.

Researchers across the threat landscape have begun to observe these legitimate services being leveraged by malicious actors as an initial access method. Microsoft Teams can easily be exploited to send targeted phishing messages to individuals within an organization, while appearing legitimate and safe. Although the exact contents of these messages may vary, the messages frequently use social engineering techniques to lure users to click on a SharePoint link embedded into the message. Interacting with the malicious link will then download a payload [1].

Darktrace observed one such malicious attempt to use Microsoft Teams and SharePoint in September 2023, when a device was observed downloading DarkGate, a commercial trojan that is known to deploy other strains of malware, also referred to as a commodity loader [2], after clicking on SharePoint link. Fortunately for the customer, Darktrace’s suite of products was perfectly poised to identify the initial signs of suspicious activity and Darktrace RESPOND™ was able to immediately halt the advancement of the attack.

DarkGate Attack Overview

On September 8, 2023, Darktrace DETECT™ observed around 30 internal devices on a customer network making unusual SSL connections to an external SharePoint site which contained the name of a person, 'XXXXXXXX-my.sharepoint[.]com' (107.136[.]8, 13.107.138[.]8). The organization did not have any employees who went by this name and prior to this activity, no internal devices had been seen contacting the endpoint.

At first glance, this initial attack vector would have appeared subtle and seemingly trustworthy to users. Malicious actors likely sent various users a phishing message via Microsoft Teams that contained the spoofed SharePoint link to the personalized SharePoint link ''XXXXXXXX-my.sharepoint[.]com'.

Figure 1: Advanced Search query showing a sudden spike in connections to ''XXXXXXXX -my.sharepoint[.]com'.

Darktrace observed around 10 devices downloading approximately 1 MB of data during their connections to the Sharepoint endpoint. Darktrace DETECT observed some of the devices making subsequent HTTP GET requests to a range of anomalous URIs. The devices utilized multiple user-agents for these connections, including ‘curl’, a command line tool that allows individuals to request and transfer data from a specific URL. The connections were made to the IP 5.188.87[.]58, an endpoint that has been flagged as an indicator of compromise (IoC) for DarkGate malware by multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources [3], commonly associated with HTTP GET requests:

GET request over port 2351 with the User-Agent header 'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Win32; WinHttp.WinHttpRequest.5)' and the target URI '/bfyxraav' to 5.188.87[.]58
GET request over port 2351 with the user-agent header 'curl' and the target URI '/' to 5.188.87[.]58
GET request over port 2351 with the user-agent header 'curl/8.0.1' and the target URI '/msibfyxraav' to 5.188.87[.]58

The HTTP GET requests made with the user-agent header 'curl' and the target URI '/' to 5.188.87[.]58 were responded to with a filename called 'Autoit3.exe'. The other requests received script files with names ending in '.au3, such as 'xkwtvq.au3', 'otxynh.au3', and 'dcthbq.au3'. DarkGate malware has been known to make use of legitimate AutoIt files, and typically runs multiple AutoIt scripts (‘.au3’) [4].

Following these unusual file downloads, the devices proceeded to make hundreds of HTTP POST requests to the target URI '/' using the user-agent header 'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Synapse)' to 5.188.87[.]58. The contents of these requests, along with the contents of the responses, appear to be heavily obfuscated.

Figure 2: Example of obfuscated response, as shown in a packet capture downloaded from Darktrace.

While Microsoft’s Safe Attachments and Safe Links settings were unable to detect this camouflaged malicious activity, Darktrace DETECT observed the unusual over-the-network connectivity that occurred. While Darktrace DETECT identified multiple internal devices engaging in this anomalous behavior throughout the course of the compromise, the activity observed on one device in particular best showcases the overall kill chain of this attack.

The device in question was observed using two different user agents (curl/8.0.1 and Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Win32; WinHttp.WinHttpRequest.5)) when connecting to the endpoint 5.188.87[.]58 and target URI ‘/bfyxraav’. Additionally, Darktrace DETECT recognized that it was unusual for this device to be making these HTTP connections via destination port 2351.

As a result, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an autonomous investigation into the suspicious activity and was able to connect the unusual external connections together, viewing them as one beaconing incident as opposed to isolated series of connections.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst investigation summarizing the unusual repeated connections made to 5.188.87[.]58 via destination port 2351.

Darktrace then observed the device downloading the ‘Autoit3.exe’ file. Darktrace RESPOND took swift mitigative action by blocking similar connections to this endpoint, preventing the device from downloading any additional suspicious files.

Figure 4: Suspicious ‘Autoit3.exe’ downloaded by the source device from the malicious external endpoint.

Just one millisecond later, Darktrace observed the device making suspicious HTTP GET requests to URIs including ‘/msibfyxraav’. Darktrace recognized that the device had carried out several suspicious actions within a relatively short period of time, breaching multiple DETECT models, indicating that it may have been compromised. As a result, RESPOND took action against the offending device by preventing it from communicating externally [blocking all outbound connections] for a period of one hour, allowing the customer’s security team precious time to address the issue.

It should be noted that, at this point, had the customer subscribed to Darktrace’s Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) would have investigated these incidents in greater detail, and likely would have sent a notification directly to the customer to inform them of the suspicious activity.

Additionally, AI Analyst collated various distinct events and suggested that these stages were linked as part of an attack. This type of augmented understanding of events calculated at machine speed is extremely valuable since it likely would have taken a human analyst hours to link all the facets of the incident together.

Figure 5: AI Analyst investigation showcasing the use of the ‘curl’ user agent to connect to the target URI ‘/msibfyxraav’.

Figure 6: Darktrace RESPOND moved to mitigate any following connections by blocking all outgoing traffic for 1 hour.

Following this, an automated investigation was launched by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Darktrace is designed to coordinate with multiple third-party security tools, allowing for information on ongoing incidents to be seamlessly exchanged between Darktrace and other security tools. In this instance, Microsoft Defender identified a ‘low severity’ incident on the device, this automatically triggered a corresponding alert within DETECT, presented on the Darktrace Threat Visuallizer.

The described activity occurred within milliseconds. At each step of the attack, Darktrace RESPOND took action either by enforcing expected patterns of life [normality] on the affected device, blocking connections to suspicious endpoints for a specified amount of time, and/or blocking all outgoing traffic from the device. All the relevant activity was detected and promptly stopped for this device, and other compromised devices, thus containing the compromise and providing the security team invaluable remediation time.

Figure 7: Overview of the compromise activity, all of which took place within a matter of miliseconds.

Darktrace identified similar activity on other devices in this customer’s network, as well as across Darktrace’s fleet around the same time in early September.

On a different customer environment, Darktrace DETECT observed more than 25 ‘.au3’ files being downloaded; this activity can be seen in Figure 9.

Figure 8: High volume of file downloads following GET request and 'curl' commands.

Figure 9 provides more details of this activity, including the source and destination IP addresses (5.188.87[.]58), the destination port, the HTTP method used and the MIME/content-type of the file

Figure 9: Additional information of the anomalous connections.

A compromised server in another customer deployment was seen establishing unusual connections to the external IP address 80.66.88[.]145 – an endpoint that has been associated with DarkGate by OSINT sources [5]. This activity was identified by Darktrace/DETECT as a new connection for the device via an unusual destination port, 2840. As the device in question was a critical server, Darktrace DETECT treated it with suspicion and generated an ‘Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device’ model breach.

Figure 10: Model breach and model breach event log for suspicious connections to additional endpoint.

Conclusion

While Microsoft Teams and SharePoint are extremely prominent tools that are essential to the business operations of many organizations, they can also be used to compromise via living off the land, even at initial intrusion. Any Microsoft Teams user within a corporate setting could be targeted by a malicious actor, as such SharePoint links from unknown senders should always be treated with caution and should not automatically be considered as secure or legitimate, even when operating within legitimate Microsoft infrastructure.

Malicious actors can leverage these commonly used platforms as a means to carry out their cyber-attacks, therefore organizations must take appropriate measures to protect and secure their digital environments. As demonstrated here, threat actors can attempt to deploy malware, like DarkGate, by targeting users with spoofed Microsoft Teams messages. By masking malicious links as legitimate SharePoint links, these attempts can easily convince targets and bypass traditional security tools and even Microsoft’s own Safe Links and Safe Attachments security capabilities.

When the chain of events of an attack escalates within milliseconds, organizations must rely on AI-driven tools that can quickly identify and automatically respond to suspicious events without latency. As such, the value of Darktrace DETECT and Darktrace RESPOND cannot be overstated. Given the efficacy and efficiency of Darktrace’s detection and autonomous response capabilities, a more severe network compromise in the form of the DarkGate commodity loader was ultimately averted.

Credit to Natalia Sánchez Rocafort, Cyber Security Analyst, Zoe Tilsiter.

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Detections

[Model Breach: Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114039 ] (Enhanced Monitoring)· [Model Breach: Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114124 ] (Enhanced Monitoring)
[Model Breach: Device / New User Agent and New IP 62% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114030 ]
[Model Breach: Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port 46% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114031 ]
[Model Breach: Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname 62% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114032 ]
[Model Breach: Device / New User Agent 32% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114035 ]
[Model Breach: Device / Three Or More New User Agents 31% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114036 ]
[Model Breach: Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device 62% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/612173 ]
[Model Breach: Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location 61% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114037 ]
[Model Breach: Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port 61% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114042 ]
[Model Breach: Security Integration / Integration Ransomware Detected 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114049 ]
[Model Breach: Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare 62% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114059 ]
[Model Breach: Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint 30% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114067 ]
[Model Breach: Security Integration / C2 Activity and Integration Detection 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114069 ]
[Model Breach: Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location 55% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114077 ]
[Model Breach: Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score 66% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114260 ]
[Model Breach: Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection 59% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114293 ]
[Model Breach: Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection 33% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114462 ]
[Model Breach: Security Integration / Integration Ransomware Detected 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114109 ]· [Model Breach: Device / Three Or More New User Agents 31% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114118 ]· [Model Breach: Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port 46% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114113 ] · [Model Breach: Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname 62% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114114 ]· [Model Breach: Device / New User Agent 32% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114117 ]· [Model Breach: Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location 61% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114122 ]· [Model Breach: Security Integration / Low Severity Integration Detection 54% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114310 ]
[Model Breach: Security Integration / Integration Ransomware Detected 65% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114662 ]Darktrace/Respond Model Breaches
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Block 61% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114033 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena File then New Outbound Block 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114038 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114040 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114041 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Breach 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114043 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Ransomware Block 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114052 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Security Integration and Network Activity Block 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114070 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114071 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious Activity Block 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114072 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Block 53% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114079 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block 64% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114539 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Ransomware Block 66% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114667 ]
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious Activity Block 79% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114684 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Ransomware Block 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114110 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114111 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Breach 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114115 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block 87% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114116 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Block 61% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114121 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::External Threat::Antigena File then New Outbound Block 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114123 ]·
[Model Breach: Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block 100% –– Breach URI: /#modelbreach/114125 ]

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

5.188.87[.]58 - IP address - C2 endpoint

80.66.88[.]145 - IP address - C2 endpoint

/bfyxraav - URI - Possible C2 endpoint URI

/msibfyxraav - URI - Possible C2 endpoint URI

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Win32; WinHttp.WinHttpRequest.5) - User agent - Probable user agent leveraged

curl - User agent - Probable user agent leveraged

curl/8.0.1 - User agent - Probable user agent leveraged

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Synapse) - User agent - Probable user agent leveraged

Autoit3.exe - Filename - Exe file

CvUYLoTv.au3

eDVeqcCe.au3

FeLlcFRS.au3

FTEZlGhe.au3

HOrzcEWV.au3

rKlArXHH.au3

SjadeWUz.au3

ZgOLxJQy.au3

zSrxhagw.au3

ALOXitYE.au3

DKRcfZfV.au3

gQZVKzek.au3

JZrvmJXK.au3

kLECCtMw.au3

LEXCjXKl.au3

luqWdAzF.au3

mUBNrGpv.au3

OoCdHeJT.au3

PcEJXfIl.au3

ssElzrDV.au3

TcBwRRnp.au3

TFvAUIgu.au3

xkwtvq.au3

otxynh.au3

dcthbq.au3 - Filenames - Possible exe files delivered in response to curl/8.0.1 GET requests with Target URI '/msibfyxraav

f3a0a85fe2ea4a00b3710ef4833b07a5d766702b263fda88101e0cb804d8c699 - SHA256 file hash - Possible SHA256 hashes of 'Autoit3.exe' files

afa3feea5964846cd436b978faa7d31938e666288ffaa75d6ba75bfe6c12bf61 - SHA256 file hash - Possible SHA256 hashes of 'Autoit3.exe' files

63aeac3b007436fa8b7ea25298362330423b80a4cb9269fd2c3e6ab1b1289208 - SHA256 file hash - Possible SHA256 hashes of 'Autoit3.exe' files

ab6704e836a51555ec32d1ff009a79692fa2d11205f9b4962121bda88ba55486 - SHA256 file hash - Possible SHA256 hashes of 'Autoit3.exe' files

References

1. https://www.truesec.com/hub/blog/darkgate-loader-delivered-via-teams

2. https://feedit.cz/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/YiR2022_onepager_ransomware_loaders.pdf

‍3. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/5.188.87[.]58

‍4. https://www.forescout.com/resources/darkgate-loader-malspam-campaign/

‍5. https://otx.alienvault.com/indicator/ip/80.66.88[.]145

執筆者

Natalia Sánchez Rocafort

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Natalia Sánchez Rocafort

Cyber Security Analyst

•

July 10, 2026

Angel Arribas Lopez

Associate Principal Cyber Analyst

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

July 20, 2026

スタジアム運営を任されるAI。セキュリティチームはこれをどう保護すべきか？

スタジアム運営に使われるAIをどう保護するべきか

主なポイント

AIはアクセス管理、群衆管理、チケット発行、設備管理、監視カメラ等、スタジアムの運営に重要な機能に導入されつつある。
シャドーAIやサードパーティAIの利用はスタジアムのセキュリティチームの目の届かないところでリスクを生み出している。
セキュリティチームはどのようなAIシステムが存在しているかだけでなく、それらが何にアクセスし、どのようなアクションを実行できるかを理解できなければならない。
イベントのレジリエンスにはAI、IT、OT、アイデンティティ、サードパーティ全体に渡る継続的監視と対応が必要。

現代のスタジアムは、他に類を見ないインフラです。以前にも書いたことがありますが、イベント開催日には、スタジアムに生命が吹き込まれ、グッズや食べ物の販売、交通のハブ、広大な通信インフラ、そしてフィールド上のさまざまな技術など、これらが連携した1つの巨大なエコシステムとして機能します。その規模と複雑性により、スタジアムはサイバーセキュリティにとって最も過酷な環境の1つとなっています。その運営に今、AIを導入することで私たちは新たな次元のリスクを負おうとしています。

スタジアム運営にAIを導入することの利点は明らかです。スタジアム運営者はAIを使うことにより、混雑したゲートからファンを安全に誘導し、売店の需要を予測し、生体認証システムを管理し、不審な動きを監視カメラで見つけ、また空調や換気を制御することができます。上手く使えば、イベントをより安全に、迅速に、より効率的にすることができます。

ただし、AIはセキュリティモデルも変化させます。

ダークトレースが最近発表したスポーツを取り巻く脅威状況についての調査では、プロスポーツ組織のサイバーセキュリティプロフェッショナルを対象に、自組織の運用範囲の中でサイバー侵害が最も重大な影響を及ぼすのはどこかという質問をしました。調査対象のプロフェッショナルの最も多い34%が指摘した分野は、スタジアムの運営でした。それと同時に、35%は自組織がすでにスタジアムの運営にAIを使用している、あるいは今後12か月間に導入の予定があると回答しています。

セキュリティチームはもはや、スタジアムを中心とした従来型のITシステムだけを保護しているのではありません。スタジアムの基盤となる重要機能を動かしている、AIシステムの保護も求められるようになっているのです。

承認済みAIとシャドーAIの違い

スタジアムのセキュリティチームが知っているAIと、そうでないAIの間には明確な違いがあります。

承認済みAIとは、審査およびテストされ、施設の運用環境に統合されたAIです。こうしたAIは、監視カメラのアナリティクス、アクセス管理、設備管理、チケット発行、ロジスティクス、放送オペレーション、海賊版対策などに使われているかもしれません。それらのAIには、明確なオーナーシップ、アクセス制御、ログ記録、ベンダーレビュー、データ保護規則などがあるはずです。それによってリスクがなくなるわけではありませんが、セキュリティチームは適切なガバナンスを整備できます。

シャドーAIはそれとは違います。シャドーAIとは、従業員、請負業者、サプライヤーによる承認されていないAIの利用です。多くの場合それは善良な意図で始まります。たとえば、作業をもっと早く進めたいと思う人がいるかもしれません。あるいは、ブリーフィングの原稿を作るためにスタッフが内部情報をパブリックAIにペーストする、開発者がチケット発行プログラムのデバッグのためにAIアシスタントを使用する、サプライヤーがAIスケジューリングツールを配送ルートに接続する、デザイナーがモックアップ作成のために未公開の会場設計図やスポンサーの資料をAIにアップロードするなどの事です。

これらの行動はいずれも、それを行っている人からすればセキュリティ上の判断のようには感じられません。しかし、これらの行為は機密性の高い運営データを、スタジアムが管理していない環境に送出し、隠れたリスクを生みます。

承認済みAIスタックは、セキュリティチームから見えています。シャドーAIスタックは多くの場合そうではありません。

試合開催日に増幅するリスクと影響

通常のエンタープライズ環境であれば、不審なログイン、普段とは異なるデータ転送、予期しないサードパーティサービスへの接続をセキュリティチームが調査するための時間は数時間あるでしょう。スタジアムでは、インシデントが起こる可能性の高い瞬間は、チームに最も余力がなくインシデントが最も大きな影響を及ぼし得るタイミング、つまり試合開催日です。

群衆管理に使われているAIシステムが予期せぬ振る舞いをしたとき、その問題は単に技術上の問題ではありません。それは会場内の物理的な動きに影響を及ぼすかもしれません。

サプライヤーツールが運営データを承認されていないAIプラットフォームに送信すれば、それはデータガバナンスだけの問題ではありません。配送ルートやアクセス制限のスケジュール、スタッフ配備計画などが漏洩するかもしれません。

最も危険なシナリオは必ずしも派手な、劇的な攻撃とは限らず、外部ベンダーがソフトウェア更新でAI機能を追加した、あるいはスタッフのワークフローで未承認のツールが使用されているなど、誰も想定していなかった隠れた依存関係から発生することがあります。

イベントが始まると、これらの隠れたつながりが運営上のリスクになる可能性があります。

サプライチェーンはスタジアムのアタックサーフェス（攻撃対象領域）の一部

すべての大規模スポーツイベントは、さまざまなサプライチェーンとパートナーシップで構築されています。ケータリングサービスや輸送、放送システム、施設管理チームなど、あらゆるピースが必須であり、それぞれがセキュリティチャネルを作り出しています。サプライチェーン侵害のリスクはすでによく知られており私たちが目にしてきたいくつかの有名な侵害事例の原因となっています。マジソン・スクエア・ガーデンを所有するMSG Entertainment社のデータ侵害事例は3月に大きく報道されましたが、これはMSG Entertainment社のバックオフィスシステムで使用されていたOracleのE-Business Suiteから発生していました。また、2018年の平昌冬季オリンピックを標的としたOlympic Destroyer攻撃はこの大会のメインITサービスプロバイダーに対する侵害から始まったと言われています。そして、AIの導入によりこのリスクは増大しつつあります。

スタジアム自体は自社のAIシステムに厳しいルールを設けているかもしれませんが、ベンダーは別のツールを使っている場合があります。スタッフの配備や、配送のタイミング、在庫、顧客とのやり取りの管理にAIを使っている業者もあるでしょう。また、既に使用しているソフトウェアにAI機能が追加されていることに気が付いていないケースもあります。

スタジアムの運営でAIを保護する際の最も難しい問題の1つはこの点です。リスクはスタジアムが選択したツールから来るとは限らないのです。サプライヤーが選択したツールや、有効に設定されていることをサプライヤーが知らなかった機能からリスクが発生する可能性があります。

セキュリティチームは、ベンダーのアクセスを管理するのと同じようにベンダーのAIを扱う必要があります。サプライヤーが何に接続できるか、どのようなデータを見ることができるか、どのようなツールを使っているか、そしてこれらのツールがデータ露出や水平移動（ラテラルムーブメント）の新たな経路を作り出さないかを知る必要があるのです。

サードパーティAIツールがリスクを作り出すのに深いアクセス権は必要ありません。特定の情報が不適切なタイミングで露出するだけでリスクを招きます。

スタジアム運営におけるAIについてセキュリティチームが確認すべき4つの質問

AIがスタジアム運営の一部となるなかで、セキュリティチームは基本的な承認リストの先へ進む必要があります。次の4つの点を問う必要があります：

1. ‍ AIはどこで使われているか？

すぐに思いつくのは、コンピュータービジョン、アクセス管理、チケット発行、ロジスティクス、設備管理等のツールです。しかし、SaaSプラットフォーム、ベンダーツール、ブラウザ拡張、開発者ワークフロー、スマートビルディングシステム、コラボレーションツールにも見えにくい形でAIが含まれています。

2. AIは何にアクセスできるか？

そのAIはインシデントログ、スタジアム設計図、チケット発行データ、ビデオ映像、建物管理、ファン情報、認証情報、サプライヤーシステムを見ることができるでしょうか？それは情報を分析するだけでしょうか、それともアクションを実行することもできるでしょうか？

3. AIは何を実行できるか？

AIエージェントは単なる受動的ツールではありません。APIを呼び出す、記録を更新する、命令を生成する、ワークフローをトリガーする、あるいはユーザーやサービスアカウントの権限を持って行動できるものもあります。スタジアムにおいて、その違いはきわめて重要な意味を持ちます。アクションを提案するAIシステムと、アクションを実行できるAIの間には大きな違いがあります。

4. 何が正常な状態か？

セキュリティアーキテクチャとしては、静的なルールだけでは不十分となるでしょう。AIの使用状況は急激に変化します：既存のプラットフォーム内にAIツールが出現し、ベンダーがAIを使った新しいサービスを追加し、多忙をきわめたスタッフはAIを使った回避策を見つけるかもしれません。セキュリティチームは、何かが変化したときにそれを発見できるよう、人、アイデンティティ、デバイス、ネットワーク、クラウドサービス、サプライヤー、AIツールのすべてにわたって正常な振る舞いを理解している必要があります。

このことは、わずかな異常が重大な意味をもつかもしれない、イベント開催中の環境において特に重要です。未承認のAIサービスへの接続は、ある状況では無害かもしれませんが別の文脈では深刻なものとなる可能性があります。そしてAIエージェントによるアクションの実行は、午前3時にセットアップを行っている状況では予期されたものかもしれませんが、試合開催中にそのアクションが発生した場合、疑わしいものかもしれません。あるアクティビティを意味のあるセキュリティ情報にするのはコンテキストです。また、迅速な対応を可能にするのもコンテキストであると言えます。組織内のAIベースセキュリティシステムが、アクションを実行する必要があることを知るためのリアルタイムのコンテキストを構築できれば、マシンスピードで脅威に対応できます。

AIはスタジアムの安全に貢献できる、ただしAIが安全であることが条件

AIにはスタジアム運営に貢献できる役割があります。観客の混雑をより早期に検知し、ボトルネックを解消し、施設をより効率的に管理し、ファン体験を向上させ、プレッシャーのかかる状況下でイベント運営チームをサポートすることができます。

問題への答えはすべてのAIの導入のペースを落とすことではありません。それが解決策ではありません。答えは、AIを可視化し、管理し、試合日の運営の一部となる前に安全にすることです。

スタジアムの運営チームやイベント主催者にとって、これはAIの使用を会場とサプライヤーエコシステム全体にわたってマッピングすることを意味します。また、各AIシステムが何にアクセスでき、どのようなアクションを実行できるかを理解することです。スタッフの判断で回避策を探すのに任せるのではなく、彼らのニーズを満たす承認済みのツールを提供することも重要です。ベンダーとの契約や監査にAIの利用について明記することも必要です。さらに、わかりやすい主なシステムだけではなく、環境全体で動作を監視することも大事です。スタジアムから見えないものを安全にすることはできません。

AIが、スタジアム内の人の移動、アクセスの制御、設備の管理、サプライヤーのサポート、メディアの権利保護の一部となるとき、それはもはや追加機能ではなく、イベントインフラの一部となるのです。

イベントインフラは、スタジアムのゲートが開く前に入念に準備され、安全でシームレスかつ信頼性の高いイベント体験を実現するのに必要な、オペレーショナルレジリエンスによって維持されなければなりません。

Darktraceはスタジアム運営のためのAIをどう保護できるか

ダークトレースは、10年以上にわたり構築してきたビヘイビアAIの専門技術を、複雑で曖昧な環境で機能するように設計された、組織全体をカバーするプラットフォームで提供しています。2022 FIFAワールドカップカタール大会からF1グランプリまで、Darktraceは世界のさまざまな会場や米国中のスタジアムにおいて運営を支える統合された大規模なITおよびOT環境を保護しています。

他のサイバーセキュリティ技術は、過去の攻撃に基づいて新しい攻撃を予測しようとします。しかし問題は、AIが人間のように動作することです。あらゆるアクションが新たな情報をもたらし、それによってAIの動作は変化するため、予測不可能です。過去に見られた攻撃の戦術はもはや方程式の小さな部分に過ぎません。その結果多くのベンダーは実証されていない技術を買収し、改修することによりAIの保護を行おうとしています。  

ダークトレースのアプローチは他とは根本的に異なります。ダークトレースの適応型AIは、人とAIの振る舞いを学習し続けることにより組織についての理解を構築するため、動作の逸脱が起こった時にそれを検知し自律的に対応することが可能です。ダークトレースの提供するビヘイビアベースの防御プラットフォームは、新たなワークフロー、エージェント、アプリケーションの導入に対応して組織内のAI、人、インフラを保護することにより、大規模なAI変革を可能にします。

AIによって変化する組織の潜在力。Darktraceは組織が自信を持って前へ進むのに役立ちます。ダークトレースはスタジアムインフラ内の人とテクノロジーを保護するセキュリティチームに対し、新たなテクノロジーの導入を保護するのに必要な理解、可視性、自律的アクションを提供し、AI時代を構築するための変革を後押しします。

[related-resource]

About the author

Karim Benslimane

VP, Field CISO

Blog

AI

July 15, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Three shifts have reshaped what it means to defend an enterprise securely.

First, exploitation often begins before defenders have a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifier, a security advisory, or an entry in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Secondly, the trust boundary has moved beyond the network edge into identities, tokens, APIs, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) workflows.

Third, an increasing share of business activity is executed through automation, integrations, and AI agent-like systems that can act faster than teams can verify intent.

If your security model still relies on detecting known bad artefacts, triaging isolated alerts, and waiting for confirmation before acting, you are already behind the threat.

This is not a failure of security teams; it’s a failure of the operating model to keep pace with how the environment has changed.

A SOC built around alerts and signatures assumes that malicious activity will eventually surface as an event. In real incidents, however, the decisive evidence is rarely a single event. Instead, it is a chain of individually explainable actions that only appears malicious once you connect the dots across identity, non-human identity, cloud, email, SaaS, operational technology (OT), and network telemetry.

The defenders succeeding today observe behaviors, link them into sequences, understand what those sequences mean, and contain impact before the full story unfolds. That is the operating model the current threat environment demands.

Exploitation before disclosure

The first shift is the straightforward: the time to exploit has dropped to nearly zero.

In one example, Darktrace observed a sequence of subtle but strategically significant anomalies within a customer environment that later aligned with exploitation of CVE‑2025‑0994 in Trimble Cityworks by likely Chinese-nexus threat actors. Behavioral indicators were visible at least 18 days before public disclosure, with related anomalies emerging 40 to 50 days earlier during the intrusion window.

This case illustrates a familiar pattern: clusters of weak‑signal anomalies combing to form an actionable picture of intrusion long before a CVE is published. Such activity reflects long‑horizon, option‑preserving operator models often associated with mature state‑linked activity.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of malicious exploitation of CVE 2025-0994, later tied to Chinese-nexus threat actors targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the US, weeks before public disclosure.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, Darktrace has continued to observe the value of anomaly-based detections across a range of incidents.

CVE	CVE Public Disclosure Date	Darktrace Detection Date	Days Between Detection of Exploitation and CVE Public Disclosure
CVE 2025 0994 (Trimble City Works)	2025-02-06	2025-01-19	18 Days
CVE 2025-24183 (Apache)	2025-03-10	2025-02-18	20 days
CVE 2025-10035 (Fortra GoAnywhere)	2025-09-18	2025-09-11	7 days

Identity is the real control plane

The second shift is that identity has replaced perimeter as the primary control plane. As Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026 illustrated, identity remains the main challenge in defending against modern intrusions. A clear example is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) case published by Darktrace in December 2025. A phishing email led to the compromise of an Office 365 account. Session hijacking bypassed multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the compromised account was used for follow-on phishing and persistence activities including the creation of malicious email rules.

Every step in that sequence mattered. A successful login alone does not prove legitimacy. An inbox rule, on its own, may not appear catastrophic. Mail activity, viewed in isolation, may seem operationally normal. But the behavioral chain tells a different story: credential theft, token abuse, persistence, and onward compromise through a trusted identity.

This is why the question is no longer “Did the user authenticate successfully”. The more important question is, “Does this identity action make sense right now, in this context, given what came before it?” The AiTM case shows how identity can be compromised. In practice, however, attacks rarely remained confined to identity alone.

In another Darktrace case, a compromised SaaS account triggered activity across the email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. Viewed in isolation, none of these events were decisive. Together, however, they formed a behavioral sequence that revealed the intrusion, with the full attack story automatically correlated and surfaced to defenders by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the incident, including other users who connected to the suspicious redirect link after outbound phishing emails were sent.

AI accelerates the threat

The third shift is the one many teams still underestimate: trusted tooling, integrations, and AI agent-like systems can create actions that appear legitimate but are strategically dangerous.

The shift becomes clearer when examining how governments are now framing AI risk. In 2026, guidance published by CISA, UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Five Eyes partners warned that agentic systems expand attack surfaces, accumulate privilege, and can behave in ways that are difficult to predict or explain [1]. The advice is simple: assume unexpected behavior and design controls around it.

The real risk is not AI usage. It is unknown autonomy: systems with credentials, data access, and action paths that can execute workflow steps without sufficient behavioral validation, traceability, or human oversight. Darktrace’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) risk analysis provides a useful framework for understanding this challenge. Over-privileged agents, content injection, and tool abuse become high-consequence risks when connected systems can dynamically retrieve data, execute actions, and communicate externally.

Whether security teams like it or not, AI is already in the enterprise. It will help drive innovation, but it will also be abused, whether accidentally or maliciously. In each of the cases below, AI either scaled the attacker, built the tooling, or existed within the environment as something to exploit or misuse.

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

In one campaign targeting Mexican government entities, a single operator used commercial AI platforms to generate exploits, automate reconnaissance, and process large volumes of data, compressing work that would traditionally have required an entire team into a single workflow [2].

Darktrace is also observing this trend further down the stack. In one case, Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, where an attacker used a Large Language Model (LLM) to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale.

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com] ‍

2. AI as an Attack Surface

Attempted AI exploitation is now appearing within customer environments. In one case involving an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was seemingly used as a stepping stone to access additional AI services. When that attempt failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining.

What is clear is that the AI layer has already become an asset worth probing, exploiting, and pivoting through. It is also clear that defenders benefit from rapidly understanding how these activities connect. In this case, Cyber AI Analyst automatically pieced together the intrusion, while Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted to the customer, enabling the activity to be contained before it could progress further.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst's investigation into a compromised LLM proxy that was abused for cryptomining activity.

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

This does not require a cinematic vision of “rogue AI.” The Salesloft incident provides a more grounded example, where AI and automation operate with legitimate access but served malicious intent. In that case, attackers abused compromised OAuth tokens associated with the Drift AI chat agent to export significant volumes of data from Salesforce environments.

The activity resembled legitimate API usage and relied on trusted SaaS integrations rather than malware or other obvious signs of intrusion. That is precisely the challenge. Traditional security controls are good at detecting forced entry, but far less effective when a trusted application integration behaves in a way that is technically permitted yet operationally harmful.

In these scenarios, the security challenge shifts from validating access to validating behavior.

This is what that looks like in practice: AI-linked identities executing legitimate actions that require behavioral validation rather than access validation.

Figure 4: Darktrace / SECURE AI highlights anomalous activity across AI identities, surfacing critical behavior that requires validation and containment.

Early observations from Darktrace / SECURE AI deployments reinforce this reality. Across Darktrace's observed fleet, AI service connections per deployment increased 13% during the first half of 2026, reaching over 16 million connections overall. The typical organisation now interacts with seven different AI providers, evidence that AI is no longer operating at the edges of the enterprise. It is increasingly woven into day-to-day business activity.

The most common risks are not compromised models or advanced AI attacks. Instead, they stem from employees and business functions exposing sensitive information through entirely legitimate-looking interactions. Darktrace has observed repeated submission of personally identifiable information (PII), tax information, identification documents, and medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread use of unsanctioned (shadow) AI services and growing AI activity from mobile devices.

For defenders, the challenge is increasingly one of context: understanding when legitimate business use crosses into material risk, while preserving privacy and user trust.

Conclusion

Across all three shifts, the pattern is the same: behavior precedes understanding. Security teams are not losing because adversaries have become invisible. An increasingly outdated security model assumes that malicious activity will reveal itself cleanly and early. It no longer does.

In 2026 and beyond, defenders win by understanding behavioral sequences, continuously validating trust, and acting before certainty becomes hindsight. That is security after signatures. That is security in the AI era.

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

[1] https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services

[2]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-26/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-ai-to-steal-mexican-government-data

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

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

デモを予約

Check out this article by Darktrace: How Darktrace Halted A DarkGate in MS Teams

How Darktrace Halted A DarkGate in MS Teams

Securing Microsoft Teams and SharePoint

DarkGate Attack Overview

Conclusion

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Detections

List of IoCs

References

AIインフラがアタックサーフェスの一部に

スタジアム運営を任されるAI。セキュリティチームはこれをどう保護すべきか？

ブログをお楽しみ頂けましたか？

More in this series

From VPS to Phishing: How Darktrace Uncovered SaaS Hijacks through Virtual Infrastructure Abuse

Defending the Cloud: Stopping Cyber Threats in Azure and AWS with Darktrace

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

Blog

AI

July 20, 2026

スタジアム運営を任されるAI。セキュリティチームはこれをどう保護すべきか？

スタジアム運営に使われるAIをどう保護するべきか

承認済みAIとシャドーAIの違い

試合開催日に増幅するリスクと影響

サプライチェーンはスタジアムのアタックサーフェス（攻撃対象領域）の一部

スタジアム運営におけるAIについてセキュリティチームが確認すべき4つの質問

AIはスタジアムの安全に貢献できる、ただしAIが安全であることが条件

Darktraceはスタジアム運営のためのAIをどう保護できるか

Blog

AI

July 15, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Exploitation before disclosure

Identity is the real control plane

AI accelerates the threat

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

2. AI as an Attack Surface

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

Conclusion

References