ブログ
/
/
March 11, 2020

How Darktrace Antigena Email Caught A Fearware Email Attack

Darktrace effectively detects and neutralizes fearware attacks evading gateway security tools. Learn more about how Antigena Email outsmarts cyber-criminals.
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
Dan Fein
VP, Product
Default blog image
11
Mar 2020

The cyber-criminals behind email attacks are well-researched and highly responsive to human behaviors and emotions, often seeking to evoke a specific reaction by leveraging topical information and current news. It’s therefore no surprise that attackers have attempted to latch onto COVID-19 in their latest effort to convince users to open their emails and click on seemingly benign links.

The latest email trend involves attackers who claim to be from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, purporting to have emergency information about COVID-19. This is typical of a recent trend we’re calling ‘fearware’: cyber-criminals exploit a collective sense of fear and urgency, and coax users into clicking a malicious attachment or link. While the tactic is common, the actual campaigns contain terms and content that’s unique. There are a few patterns in the emails we’ve seen, but none reliably predictable enough to create hard and fast rules that will stop emails with new wording without causing false positives.

For example, looking for the presence of “CDC” in the email sender would easily fail when the emails begin to use new wording, like “WHO”. We’ve also seen a mismatch of links and their display text – with display text that reads “https://cdc.gov/[random-path]” while the actual link is a completely arbitrary URL. Looking for a pattern match on this would likely lead to false positives and would serve as a weak indicator at best.

The majority of these emails, especially the early ones, passed most of our customers’ existing defenses including Mimecast, Proofpoint, and Microsoft’s ATP, and were approved to be delivered directly to the end user’s inbox. Fortunately, these emails were immediately identified and actioned by Antigena Email, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology for the inbox.

Gateways: The Current Approach

Most organizations employ Secure Email Gateways (SEGs), like Mimecast or Proofpoint, which serve as an inline middleman between the email sender and the recipient’s email provider. SEGs have largely just become spam-detection engines, as these emails are obvious to spot when seen at scale. They can identify low-hanging fruit (i.e. emails easily detectable as malicious), but they fail to detect and respond when attacks become personalized or deviate even slightly from previously-seen attacks.

Figure 1: A high-level diagram depicting an Email Secure Gateway’s inline position.

SEGs tend to use lists of ‘known-bad’ IPs, domains, and file hashes to determine an email’s threat level – inherently failing to stop novel attacks when they use IPs, domains, or files which are new and have not yet been triaged or reported as malicious.

When advanced detection methods are used in gateway technologies, such as anomaly detection or machine learning, these are performed after the emails have been delivered, and require significant volumes of near-identical emails to trigger. The end result is very often to take an element from one of these emails and simply deny-list it.

When a SEG can’t make the determination on these factors, they may resort to a technique known as sandboxing, which creates an isolated environment for testing links and attachments seen in emails. Alternatively, they may turn to basic levels of anomaly detection that are inadequate due to their lack of context of data outside of emails. For sandboxing, most advanced threats now typically employ evasion techniques like an activation time that waits until a certain date before executing. When deployed, the sandboxing attempts see a harmless file, not recognizing the sleeping attack waiting within.

Figure 2: This email was registered only 2 hours prior to an email we processed.

Taking a sample COVID-19 email seen in a Darktrace customer’s environment, we saw a mix of domains used in what appears to be an attempt to avoid pattern detection. It would be improbable to have the domains used on a list of ‘known-bad’ domains anywhere at the time of the first email, as it was received a mere two hours after the domain was registered.

Figure 3: While other defenses failed to block these emails, Antigena Email immediately marked them as 100% unusual and held them back from delivery.

Antigena Email sits behind all other defenses, meaning we only see emails when those defenses fail to block a malicious email or deem an email is safe for delivery. In the above COVID-19 case, the first 5 emails were marked by MS ATP with a spam confidence score of 1, indicating Microsoft scanned the email and it was determined to be clean – so Microsoft took no action whatsoever.

The Cat and Mouse Game

Cyber-criminals are permanently in flux, quickly moving to outsmart security teams and bypass current defenses. Recognizing email as the easiest entry point into an organization, they are capitalizing on the inadequate detection of existing tools by mass-producing personalized emails through factory-style systems that machine-research, draft, and send with minimal human interaction.

Domains are cheap, proxies are cheap, and morphing files slightly to change the entire fingerprint of a file is easy – rendering any list of ‘known-bads’ as outdated within seconds.

Cyber AI: The New Approach

A new approach is required that relies on business context and an inside-out understanding of a corporation, rather than analyzing emails in isolation.

An Immune System Approach

Darktrace’s core technology uses AI to detect unusual patterns of behavior in the enterprise. The AI is able to do this successfully by following the human immune system’s core principles: develop an innate sense of ‘self’, and use that understanding to detect abnormal activity indicative of a threat.

In order to identify threats across the entire enterprise, the AI is able to understand normal patterns of behavior beyond just the network. This is crucial when working towards a goal of full business understanding. There’s a clear connection between activity in, for example, a SaaS application and a corresponding network event, or an event in the cloud and a corresponding event elsewhere within the business.

There’s an explicit relationship between what people do on their computers and the emails they send and receive. Having the context that a user has just visited a website before they receive an email from the same domain lends credibility to that email: it’s very common to visit a website, subscribe to a mailing list, and then receive an email within a few minutes. On the contrary, receiving an email from a brand-new sender, containing a link that nobody in the organization has ever been to, lends support to the fact that the link is likely no good and that perhaps the email should be removed from the user’s inbox.

Enterprise-Wide Context

Darktrace’s Antigena Email extends this interplay of data sources to the inbox, providing unique detection capabilities by leveraging full business context to inform email decisions.

The design of Antigena Email provides a fundamental shift in email security – from where the tool sits to how it understands and processes data. Unlike SEGs, which sit inline and process emails only as they first pass through and never again, Antigena Email sits passively, ingesting data that is journaled to it. The technology doesn’t need to wait until a domain is fingerprinted or sandboxed, or until it is associated with a campaign that has a famous name and all the buzz.

Antigena Email extends its unique position of not sitting inline to email re-assessment, processing emails millions of times instead of just once, enabling actions to be taken well after delivery. A seemingly benign email with popular links may become more interesting over time if there’s an event within the enterprise that was determined to have originated via an email, perhaps when a trusted site becomes compromised. While Antigena Network will mitigate the new threat on the network, Antigena Email will neutralize the emails that contain links associated with those found in the original email.

Figure 4: Antigena Email sits passively off email providers, continuously re-assessing and issuing updated actions as new data is introduced.

When an email first arrives, Antigena Email extracts its raw metadata, processes it multiple times at machine speed, and then many millions of times subsequently as new evidence is introduced (typically based on events seen throughout the business). The system corroborates what it is seeing with what it has previously understood to be normal throughout the corporate environment. For example, when domains are extracted from envelope information or links in the email body, they’re compared against the popularity of the domain on the company’s network.

Figure 5: The link above was determined to be 100% rare for the enterprise.

Dissecting the above COVID-19 linked email, we can extract some of the data made available in the Antigena Email user interface to see why Darktrace thought the email was so unusual. The domain in the ‘From’ address is rare, which is supplemental contextual information derived from data across the customer’s entire digital environment, not limited to just email but including network data as well. The emails’ KCE, KCD, and RCE indicate that it was the first time the sender had been seen in any email: there had been no correspondence with the sender in any way, and the email address had never been seen in the body of any email.

Figure 6: KCE, KCD, and RCE scores indicate no sender history with the organization.

Correlating the above, Antigena Email deemed these emails 100% anomalous to the business and immediately removed them from the recipients’ inboxes. The platform did this for the very first email, and every email thereafter – not a single COVID-19-based email got by Antigena Email.

Conclusion

Cyber AI does not distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’; rather whether an event is likely to belong or not. The technology looks only to compare data with the learnt patterns of activity in the environment, incorporating the new email (alongside its own scoring of the email) into its understanding of day-to-day context for the organization.

By asking questions like “Does this email appear to belong?” or “Is there an existing relationship between the sender and recipient?”, the AI can accurately discern the threat posed by a given email, and incorporate these findings into future modelling. A model cannot be trained to think just because the corporation received a higher volume of emails from a specific sender, these emails are all of a sudden considered normal for the environment. By weighing human interaction with the emails or domains to make decisions on math-modeling reincorporation, Cyber AI avoids this assumption, unless there’s legitimate correspondence from within the corporation back out to the sender.

The inbox has traditionally been the easiest point of entry into an organization. But the fundamental differences in approach offered by Cyber AI drastically increase Antigena Email’s detection capability when compared with gateway tools. Customers with and without email gateways in place have therefore seen a noticeable curbing of their email problem. In the continuous cat-and-mouse game with their adversaries, security teams augmenting their defenses with Cyber AI are finally regaining the advantage.

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
Dan Fein
VP, Product

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