April 5, 2022

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Read about 2021's top four incidents and how Darktrace's advanced threat detection technology identified and mitigated vulnerabilities. Learn more.

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

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

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Apr 2022

By virtue of their exposure, Internet-facing systems (i.e., systems which have ports open/exposed to the wider Internet) are particularly susceptible to compromise. Attackers typically compromise Internet-facing systems by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in applications they run. During 2021, critical zero-day vulnerabilities in the following applications were publicly disclosed:

Microsoft Exchange
Confluence
GitLab
Log4j-using applications

Internet-facing systems running these applications were consequently heavily targeted by attackers. In this post, we will provide examples of compromises of these systems observed by Darktrace’s SOC team in 2021. As will become clear, successful exploitation of weaknesses in Internet-facing systems inevitably results in such systems doing things which they do not normally do. Rather than focusing on identifying attempts to exploit these weaknesses, Darktrace focuses on identifying the unusual behaviors which inevitably ensue. The purpose of this post is to highlight the effectiveness of this approach.

Exchange server compromise

In January, researchers from the cyber security company DEVCORE reported a series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyLogon’.^[1] ProxyLogon consists of a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26855) and a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-27065). Attackers were observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild from as early as January 6.^[2] In April, DEVCORE researchers reported another series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyShell’.^[3] ProxyShell consists of a pre-authentication path confusion vulnerability (CVE-2021-34473), a privilege elevation vulnerability (CVE-2021-34523), and a post-authentication RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-31207). Attackers were first observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild in August.^[4] In many cases, attackers exploited the ProxyShell and ProxyLogon vulnerabilities in order to create web shells on the targeted Exchange servers. The presence of these web shells provided attackers with the means to remotely execute commands on the compromised servers.

In early August 2021, by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerabilities, an attacker gained the rights to remotely execute PowerShell commands on an Internet-facing Exchange server within the network of a US-based transportation company. The attacker subsequently executed a number of PowerShell commands on the server. One of these commands caused the server to make a 28-minute-long SSL connection to a highly unusual external endpoint. Within a couple of hours, the attacker managed to strengthen their foothold within the network by installing AnyDesk and CobaltStrike on several internal devices. In mid-August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed Cobalt Strike to conduct network reconnaissance and to transfer terabytes of data to the cloud storage service, MEGA. At the end of August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed AnyDesk to execute Conti ransomware and to spread executable files and script files to further internal devices.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of ProxyShell immediately resulted in the Exchange Server making a long SSL connection to an unusual external endpoint. This connection caused the model Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint to breach. The subsequent reconnaissance, lateral movement, C2, external data transfer, and encryption behavior brought about by the attacker were also picked up by Darktrace’s models.

A non-exhaustive list of the models that breached as a result of the behavior brought about by the attacker:

Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint
Device / ICMP Address Scan
Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days
Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
Compliance / SMB Drive Write
Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB
Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Data Volume as Client or Server
Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares
Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
Anomalous File / Internal / Masqueraded Executable SMB Write
Device / SMB Lateral Movement
Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Confluence server compromise

Atlassian’s Confluence is an application which provides the means for building collaborative, virtual workspaces. In the era of remote working, the value of such an application is undeniable. The public disclosure of a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) in Confluence in August 2021 thus provided a prime opportunity for attackers to cause havoc. The vulnerability, which arises from the use of Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL) in Confluence’s tag system, provides attackers with the means to remotely execute code on vulnerable Confluence server by sending a crafted HTTP request containing a malicious parameter.^[5] Attackers were first observed exploiting this vulnerability towards the end of August, and in the majority of cases, attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable servers.^[6]

At the beginning of September 2021, an attacker was observed exploiting CVE-2021-26084 in order to install the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as a shell script, onto an Internet-facing Confluence server within the network of an EMEA-based television and broadcasting company. Within a couple of hours, the attacker installed files associated with the crypto-mining malware, Kinsing, onto the server. The Kinsing-infected server then immediately began to communicate over HTTP with the attacker’s C2 infrastructure. Around the time of this activity, the server was observed using the MinerGate crypto-mining protocol, indicating that the server had begun to mine cryptocurrency.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of CVE-2021-26084 immediately resulted in the Confluence server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with curl in this case) to a rare external IP. This behavior caused the models Device / New User Agent, Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname, and Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location to breach. The subsequent file downloads, C2 traffic and crypto-mining activity also resulted in several models breaching.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

Device / New User Agent
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

GitLab server compromise

GitLab is an application providing services ranging from project planning to source code management. Back in April 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-22205) in GitLab was publicly reported by a cyber security researcher via the bug bounty platform, HackerOne.^[7] The vulnerability, which arises from GitLab’s use of ExifTool for removing metadata from image files, ^[8] enables attackers to remotely execute code on vulnerable GitLab servers by uploading specially crafted image files.^[9] Attackers were first observed exploiting CVE-2021-22205 in the wild in June/July.^[10] A surge in exploitations of the vulnerability was observed at the end of October, with attackers exploiting the flaw in order to assemble botnets.^[11] Darktrace observed a significant number of cases in which attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable GitLab servers.

On October 29, an attacker successfully exploited CVE-2021-22205 on an Internet-facing GitLab server within the network of a UK-based education provider. The organization was trialing Darktrace when this incident occurred. The attacker installed several executable files and shell scripts onto the server by exploiting the vulnerability. The attacker communicated with the compromised server (using unusual ports) for several days, before making the server transfer large volumes of data externally and download the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as the botnet malware, Mirai. The server was consequently observed making connections to the crypto-mining pool, C3Pool.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the vulnerability in GitLab immediately resulted in the server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Wget in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname and Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location breached as a result of this behavior. The attacker’s subsequent activity on the server over the next few days resulted in frequent model breaches.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the attacker’s activity on the server:

Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
Anomalous File / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New IPs
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device
Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
Compliance / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
Compromise / Monero Mining
Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download

Log4j server compromise

On December 9 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (dubbed ‘Log4Shell’) in version 2 of Apache’s Log4j was publicly disclosed by researchers at LunaSec.^[12] As a logging library present in potentially millions of Java applications,^[13] Log4j constitutes an obscured, yet ubiquitous feature of the digital world. The vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228), which arises from Log4j’s Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) Lookup feature, enables an attacker to make a vulnerable server download and execute a malicious Java class file. To exploit the vulnerability, all the attacker must do is submit a specially crafted JNDI lookup request to the server. The fact that Log4j is present in so many applications and that the exploitation of this vulnerability is so simple, Log4Shell has been dubbed the ‘most critical vulnerability of the last decade’.^[14] Attackers have been exploiting Log4Shell in the wild since at least December 1.^[15] Since then, attackers have been observed exploiting the vulnerability to install crypto-mining tools, Cobalt Strike, and RATs onto vulnerable servers.^[16]

On December 10, one day after the public disclosure of Log4Shell, an attacker successfully exploited the vulnerability on a vulnerable Internet-facing server within the network of a US-based architecture company. By exploiting the vulnerability, the attacker managed to get the server to download and execute a Java class file named ‘Exploit69ogQNSQYz.class’. Executing the code in this file caused the server to download a shell script file and a file related to the Kinsing crypto-mining malware. The Kinsing-infected server then went on to communicate over HTTP with a C2 server. Since the customer was using the Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, they were immediately alerted to this activity, and the server was subsequently quarantined, preventing crypto-mining activity from taking place.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the zero-day vulnerability immediately resulted in the vulnerable server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Java in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device and Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname breached as a result of this behavior. The device’s subsequent file downloads and C2 activity caused several Darktrace models to breach.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Round-up

It is inevitable that attackers will attempt to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in applications running on Internet-facing devices. Whilst identifying these attempts is useful, the fact that attackers regularly exploit new zero-days makes the task of identifying attempts to exploit them akin to a game of whack-a-mole. Whilst it is uncertain which zero-day vulnerability attackers will exploit next, what is certain is that their exploitation of it will bring about unusual behavior. No matter the vulnerability, whether it be a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, Confluence, GitLab, or Log4j, Darktrace will identify the unusual behaviors which inevitably result from its exploitation. By identifying unusual behaviors displayed by Internet-facing devices, Darktrace thus makes it almost impossible for attackers to successfully exploit zero-day vulnerabilities without being detected.

For Darktrace customers who want to find out more about detecting potential compromises of internet-facing devices, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

Thanks to Andy Lawrence for his contributions.

Footnotes

1. https://devco.re/blog/2021/08/06/a-new-attack-surface-on-MS-exchange-part-1-ProxyLogon/

2. https://www.volexity.com/blog/2021/03/02/active-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-zero-day-vulnerabilities/

3. https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2021/8/17/from-pwn2own-2021-a-new-attack-surface-on-microsoft-exchange-proxyshell

4. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/12/proxyshell-more-widespread-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-servers/

5. https://www.kaspersky.co.uk/blog/confluence-server-cve-2021-26084/23376/

6. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/atlassian-confluence-flaw-actively-exploited-to-install-cryptominers/

7. https://hackerone.com/reports/1154542

8. https://security.humanativaspa.it/gitlab-ce-cve-2021-22205-in-the-wild/

9.https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2021/04/14/security-release-gitlab-13-10-3-released/

10. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/11/01/gitlab-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-cve-2021-22205-exploited-in-the-wild/

11. https://www.hackmageddon.com/2021/12/16/1-15-november-2021-cyber-attacks-timeline/

12. https://www.lunasec.io/docs/blog/log4j-zero-day/

13. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3644472/apache-log4j-vulnerability-actively-exploited-impacting-millions-of-java-based-apps.html

14. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/10/software-flaw-most-critical-vulnerability-log-4-shell

15. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/12/15/the-everypersons-guide-to-log4shell-cve-2021-44228/

16. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/12/11/guidance-for-preventing-detecting-and-hunting-for-cve-2021-44228-log4j-2-exploitation/

執筆者

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Inside the SOC

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

•

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: Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Exchange server compromise

Confluence server compromise

GitLab server compromise

Log4j server compromise

Round-up

Footnotes

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

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？

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

AIインフラがアタックサーフェスの一部に

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