Introduction

As part of proactive threat monitoring, Kaspersky’s Cyber Threat Intelligence team identified a malicious campaign involving C2 agents controlled by artificial intelligence. Confirmed victims of the campaign included organizations in the education sector in several countries across Africa and Latin America. CyberStrikeAI played a key role in the post-exploitation phase. This is an open-source framework in which an LLM orchestrator on the command-and-control server plans actions, selects tools, and generates commands, while an implant executes them on compromised hosts. Using CyberStrikeAI, the attackers progressed from reconnaissance to full domain compromise.

According to our data, this is one of the first public descriptions of a compromise involving an LLM in the wild. The campaign we discovered clearly illustrates how the role of AI in attackers’ arsenals is evolving: until recently, language models were used primarily during preparatory stages – for writing phishing emails, debugging code, or searching for vulnerabilities. Now, however, they are being embedded into the very core of the attack, automating actions at every stage: payload execution, persistence on the host, discovery, lateral movement, and, finally, data collection and exfiltration. Post-exploitation – the stage that traditionally required manual work by an experienced operator – plays a particularly significant role here.

A key feature of the scheme using the CyberStrikeAI framework is that the implant ceases to be a simple tool for executing the operator’s commands. Decisions are distributed across two levels: the operator defines the task in general terms, while the model determines how to execute it – specifically, which commands to send to the host and in what sequence. Thus, the strategic planning remains with the human, while the choice of technical steps is delegated to the model, and the implant executes the model’s decisions.

To understand how this scheme works in practice, let’s examine the chain of actions taken by the attackers, as reconstructed by our analysts during the incident investigation.

Timeline of the attack

Let’s examine the timeline of the attack using an example from one incident within the detected campaign.

The first phase follows a standard approach: a human operator gains access to the victim’s infrastructure via a compromised SQL Server (version 16.0.1000), then collects basic information about the host, deploys tools, and conducts network reconnaissance. All of this activity takes nearly a day, followed by a two-week pause.

The second phase is fundamentally different. The first step involves deploying the CyberStrikeAI C2 agent, which receives commands from a server-based LLM orchestrator. During the second phase, the agent performs the following:

• establishing persistence and conducting local reconnaissance within 2 minutes;
• conducting domain reconnaissance over the next 5 hours;
• after a brief pause of several days, moving on to the final stage – lateral movement via SMB and WMI, mass credential dumping on hosts, and database export – with the entire operation taking no more than one hour.

We’ll discuss these stages in more detail in the next section.

Technical details

CyberStrikeAI overview

CyberStrikeAI is an open-source, modular platform written in Go for automating penetration testing. Its key feature is combining LLM-based attack orchestration and a built-in C2 server with agents (beacons) within a single server process.

The entire “intelligent” layer is isolated on the control server. C2 functions (calling reconnaissance and exploitation utilities, managing webshell connections, assigning tasks to agents, and reading results) are available to the model as MCP tools. The implant is a classic C2 agent with no AI functionality – no API keys, no calls to AI service APIs, and no autonomous logic. It periodically polls the listener server via HTTP/S, TCP, or WebSocket, executes shell commands, and interacts with the file system. To the victim, this activity looks like a typical remote-control session, where a server-side LLM orchestrator queues tasks instead of a live operator. The LLM influences how decisions are made, but not how the corresponding commands are delivered to the host.

Although CyberStrikeAI is publicly available, specific instances of the framework can be linked to specific attackers or campaigns. Detection and attribution are possible based on the following artifacts:

• Control panel: Upon launch, a self-signed TLS certificate is generated, with the framework’s name appearing in the issuer and subject fields. The certificate is created in memory at each startup, so the not_before field effectively records the time the process was launched. Accordingly, as with Cobalt Strike, the chronology of restarts can be reconstructed from the scan history.
  

  CyberStrikeAI control panel’s self-signed TLS certificate

• Implant: The build metadata (go version -m) contains a path to the main package, which includes data pointing to the built-in CyberStrikeAI generator – a temporary directory with the build identifier. This path is identical for all payloads, making it a reliable signature. Additionally, the build info field contains version control system metadata, which can be used to compare samples against one another.
• Authentication: When communicating with the server, the implant sends an X-Implant-Token header with a fixed value in the HTTP request. The token is unique to each C2 server and is embedded into the malicious payload during the build phase; therefore, it serves as both a network indicator and a sign that the samples belong to the same server.

HTTP header parameters sent by the implant to the server

It should be noted that the implant version does not reflect the server version. The implant can operate for months while the operator updates the server-side components: listener configurations and keys are preserved during updates. In the incidents we detected, we observed the use of a single agent version throughout the entire incident. In such cases, the sample’s build date may indicate the earliest possible deployment date of the CyberStrikeAI infrastructure, but it still does not provide an estimate of the compromise duration.

Execution & Privilege Escalation

The first malicious commands on the victims’ systems in the campaign under investigation originated from the sqlservr.exe process, indicating the likely initial access vector and the context in which the attackers gained the ability to execute code. It is important to note that the commands marked as having been executed prior to agent installation were executed manually by the attacker specifically within the context of this process. At this stage, we are not yet dealing with automated implant activity, but rather with manual actions by the operator.

Before launching the agent on the machines, the attackers checked for its presence using a PowerShell script, from which we can deduce its default deployment paths: C:\Windows\Temp\, C:\Windows\, C:\ProgramData\, C:\Temp. At the same time, the attacker can disguise the agent’s name as that of a legitimate system process. In the example below, it mimics svchost.exe (svchosts.exe)

Checking for the presence of the CyberStrikeAI agent on the system

Delivery and execution of the CyberStrikeAI agent

Like most C2 agents for Windows, CyberStrikeAI uses PowerShell to execute its payload. When a request is received from the operator, the commands to be executed are additionally encoded in Base64 to bypass keyword-based detection.

Decoded form of the command:

When administrative privileges were available (for example, a domain administrator account), instead of executing commands directly, the agent on remote hosts often created scheduled tasks so that the malicious payload would run with SYSTEM privileges:

An alternative method that does not use schtasks utility is to create a task via the Schedule.Service COM object:

The payload (p1.ps1) from the example above is a reverse shell that connects to the server at 185.186.245[.]144:5501:

The p1.ps1 payload and similar scripts were distributed across the network using shared network administrative folders and the WMI protocol, which we will describe in more detail in the Lateral Movement section.

Stealth

In addition to encoding commands in Base64 and obfuscating SQL/LDAP queries – which we will describe in the Collection & Exfiltration and Discovery sections, respectively – the attackers split the malicious payload into multiple files. It is noteworthy that the scripts were transmitted in this manner even before the agent was installed – that is, at a stage where human intervention is typically required – yet they clearly bear the hallmarks of being generated by an LLM.

Below is a sequential record of several script fragments written to the file d3.b64.

Subsequently, the attackers used the certutil utility to decode the resulting file and executed it with the following command:

Once assembled and decoded, the script’s contents looked like this:

The script is a tool for decrypting DPAPI secrets from the file C:\ProgramData\dsn_line.txt. This file, in turn, is populated by the following command, which searches for a DSN string containing connection settings in the SQL Server Reporting Services configuration file rsreportserver.config and copies its contents to dsn_line.txt.

It is worth noting that some of the scripts delivered and executed as described above contain comments in Chinese (##  –  researcher’s comments).

Persistence

If the CyberStrikeAI implant was successfully delivered, the first step was to establish persistence on the target system. To do this, the agent created a scheduled task named SystemUpdate, which specified the path to the implant as the action to be performed:

Analysis of the framework’s source code revealed an alternative method of persistence: by adding a value to the registry key HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run, where the name of the created value matches the task name (SystemUpdate).

Agent persistence on Linux systems is also implemented in two ways – by adding the entry @reboot <path_to_beacon> & to the user’s crontab (in which case the process runs at system startup), or by adding the line (nohup <path_to_beacon> &>/dev/null &) to ~/.bashrc (in which case the agent starts when an interactive bash shell is opened).

It is worth noting that the choice of a specific persistence method is delegated to the LLM connected to CyberStrikeAI. However, thanks to the human-in-the-loop (HITL) mechanism, the operator retains full control over the process: commands generated by the model may require manual approval or correction before they are executed.

Discovery

Local Discovery

Before installing the agent on a compromised host, the attackers manually gathered basic system information using a fairly trivial set of commands:

The attackers also manually checked for internet access and obtained the external IP addresses of the compromised machines using the Chinese service dnslog[.]cn. The service generates a random third-level domain, after which the attackers attempt to resolve it on the compromised machine.

If the machine has internet access, the request succeeds, and the attackers obtain the external IP address of the compromised device on the service’s page.

For reconnaissance purposes, the agent generates a more complex script designed to map out a path for further privilege escalation by compromising SCCM or exploiting msiexec (the AlwaysInstallElevated key):

Additionally, to find ways to elevate privileges locally, the agent executed scripts to inventory services running under domain accounts and tasks running under the SYSTEM account:

During their activity, the attackers periodically checked for Microsoft Defender detections:

Remote Discovery

After gathering information about the compromised host, the attackers proceeded to conduct reconnaissance within the network. During the preparatory phase of the attack, they manually collected additional information about remote hosts using the net.exe utility.

During the main phase, the agent used PowerShell’s built-in functionality to detect accessible hosts without relying on additional utilities (such as nmap or fscan):

Additionally, relevant LDAP queries to Active Directory objects helped build a network map:

Furthermore, the presence of the installed agent on remote hosts was verified using WMI:

Domain Discovery

The next step was to gather information about the victims’ domains. To this end, before installing the agent, the attackers used standard OS utilities:

However, later on, using the CyberStrikeAI implant, reconnaissance was carried out via generated PowerShell scripts:

In addition to basic domain information, the agent performed LDAP queries to gather information for Kerberoasting and AS-REP Roasting attacks:

Finally, the agent was used to check the domain for the presence of LAPS and Microsoft Azure:

To detect signs of Microsoft Azure usage within the infrastructure, the attackers also searched for the .azcopy directory – created by the AzCopy (Microsoft Azure Storage Copy) utility – in users’ home directories:

Credential Access

After successfully conducting reconnaissance and mapping the network, the attackers moved on to the next stage – dumping credentials. For this purpose, the agent used a classic set of LOLBINs and well-known third-party tools.

The agent dumped registry hives containing credentials using the reg.exe utility:

The agent dumped the lsass.exe process using the MiniDump function of the comsvcs.dll library. In doing so, the target process’s PID was used instead of its name to make static detection based on the command line more difficult:

After successfully compromising privileged domain accounts (specifically, the built-in domain administrator), the attackers also carried out DCSync and Golden Ticket attacks via the agent using a renamed version of the mimikatz utility:

Lateral Movement

To spread across the network using compromised accounts, the attackers employed utilities from the Impacket toolkit, specifically WMIExec, as indicated by the utility’s characteristic command line:

Once installed, the agent prefers to use standard OS mechanisms, such as shared network folders.

Another method the agent uses to remotely execute commands is the WMI protocol. In particular, the agent used it to distribute the aforementioned p1.ps1 reverse shell script. This involved using compromised user accounts with local administrator privileges on the target hosts:

A second method of lateral movement via WMI uses the Invoke-CimMethod cmdlet:

Command & Control

To deliver the aforementioned tools (malicious scripts, mimikatz, and the agent itself) to the initial nodes in the infection chain, the attackers used standard OS utilities:

After the agent is installed, it checks the availability of the C2 server’s ports. The implementation mechanisms here are virtually unlimited and depend on the “creativity” of the respective LLM agents connected to the server:

To download additional utilities, the CyberStrikeAI implant also used built-in utilities (LOLBINs). The tools could be hosted on the attackers’ own servers or downloaded directly from GitHub:

Collection & Exfiltration

The data collection phase deserves special attention. It demonstrates yet another capability of LLM orchestration – the automatic generation of SQL and LDAP queries tailored to a specific task.

In one incident during the campaign, the attackers deployed the CyberStrikeAI implant on an educational organization’s SQL server and collected information from the database via PowerShell. Here is an example of a command executed by the agent:

Normalized view of the executed script with comments:

Before accessing the data, the agent checked the privileges of the account under which it connected to the database:

In decoded form, the check looks as follows:

On network resources, file collection was preceded by a recursive directory scan to identify files of interest.

To interact with the file system, the implant provides a built-in interface that supports direct uploading and downloading of files. Files are transferred directly via the main encrypted communication channel with the C2 server (HTTP or TCP), and the data itself is encoded in Base64 and packaged into the agent’s standard JSON responses.

Another built-in capability of the implant is taking screenshots of the infected machine. As with other actions, the implant does not initiate this on its own: the command to capture the screen is issued by the LLM orchestrator, and the agent merely executes it and returns the result via the same control channel.

On Windows, the command for taking screenshots looks like this:

The Linux version looks like this:

In the incidents we detected, data collection was the final stage of the attack: the chain ended there, and we observed no further activity.

Attribution

The key artifact for attribution in this campaign is the implant’s build metadata. The attackers built the malicious payload inside a Git clone of the project, so the Go compiler embedded version control system information into the binary files – the hash and commit time, as well as the vcs.modified=true flag (analogous to the +dirty suffix) – indicating uncommitted local changes in the working copy. The combination of these fields forms a unique fingerprint for a specific build.

Based on this fingerprint, the samples are divided into two independent groups, in each of which the Windows implant and the Linux implant have completely identical build metadata. A match indicates that, within each group, both payloads were built from the same project working copy.

Identical build metadata for the Windows and Linux implant samples, indicating a shared build environment

However, these groups do not overlap with one another. They do not share a common C2 infrastructure, and different versions of CyberStrikeAI are deployed on the command-and-control servers. In other words, the build metadata reliably links the samples within each group but does not provide grounds for linking the two groups together.

Differences in CyberStrikeAI versions on the command-and-control servers

The available data does not allow us to link the activity to any known group of attackers, nor to state with certainty that the same operator is behind both campaigns. Two factors prevent this. First, the tool’s openness: CyberStrikeAI is publicly available, so different operators could have independently deployed it and assembled malicious payloads under similar conditions. Second, command generation by the model: the “signature” characteristic of a specific operator is largely shaped not by a human but by an LLM. On the one hand, this increases the diversity of commands: the same command, when generated multiple times, can look different. On the other hand, it strips them of their individual characteristics, which reduces the value of behavioral metrics for attribution.

However, the Chinese-language comments found in the attackers’ scripts and the use of Chinese services still suggest a connection between the activity and a Chinese-speaking operator. In addition, analysts noted the timing of the control servers’ restarts: since the self-signed TLS certificate is regenerated each time the process starts, its not_before field records the restart time, and most of these restarts occurred during business hours in the UTC+8 time zone.

The origin of the tool itself also indirectly points in the same direction: CyberStrikeAI was developed within the Chinese cybersecurity community and is well known there.

In summary

CyberStrikeAI is a telling – though not unique – example of a shift occurring within the class of C2 frameworks: the LLM orchestrator is no longer merely an add-on to reconnaissance but has become a control layer over post-exploitation. If HexStrike AI and similar tools cover the “find and break” phase, and Sliver/Mythic/Havoc cover the “establish a foothold and control” phase, CyberStrikeAI completes the kill chain: a single server-side process written in Go executes utilities via MCP, handles webshell connections, and assigns tasks to the implant, while the model analyzes the results and decides what to do next.

The key takeaway is that the introduction of AI into the attack chain does not yet present fundamentally new challenges for detection. All the “intelligent” work remains on the attacker’s side, while the compromised host is subjected to familiar actions: from reconnaissance via Kerberoasting and AS-REP Roasting to LSASS dumps, DCSync, and the Golden Ticket attacks. This is a typical, well-documented set of domain compromise techniques. The novelty of the attack lies not in the methods themselves, but in the speed and ease with which they were executed: AI orchestration has lowered the skill requirements for the operator, but has not taken the attack beyond what defenders already know and are capable of detecting. The timing is also telling: individual key phases of the activity (such as establishing a foothold, lateral movement, and obtaining credentials) took only a few hours, and the entire attack – from agent deployment to the compromise of domain administrators – was completed within 3–4 days.

However, the CyberStrikeAI architecture does not limit users to the scenario described. The same mechanisms allow for the on-demand assembly of more complex chains – including DPAPI secret extraction and attacks on SCCM and Azure IMDS – all of which are within reach of the same group of actors, with a relatively low skill barrier. As the models evolve, the gap between the complexity of orchestration and the level of techniques used will narrow, and the operator’s role will gradually shift from setting tasks to monitoring the model’s actions.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

It may seem that attacks using AI agents require the creation of fundamentally new detection rules. Indeed, to detect the activity of an LLM agent installed on a host within the infrastructure, it is necessary to create detection logic based on the specific characteristics of the agents. Detection rules for this activity can be found using Hunt Hub with the following filter.

However, in the case of the attack described, a different logic applies. The main difference lies in the architecture of the attack itself: the LLM agent was not located within the corporate network perimeter. It operated remotely via a C2 agent, orchestrating actions, and left no traces of its presence in the infrastructure (such as specific API requests to local LLMs or anomalous patterns of resource consumption by hosts).

The key difference between this activity and an attack by an experienced human operator lies largely in speed. Tactically, technically, and methodologically, AI, for the most part, uses exactly the same tools, utilities, and techniques as a human penetration tester. It does not write unique exploits from scratch, but rather combines known methods and dynamically adapts them to the situation, handling the tools’ errors on its own.

Since the actions performed by an AI agent on the network are indistinguishable from those of a human, classic, well-tuned correlation and behavioral analysis rules are sufficient to detect it. Here are a few examples of how Kaspersky Next EDR Expert successfully detects the attack described:

• To detect the execution of a malicious script via a remote scheduled task, you need to monitor the creation of the schtasks.exe process with the /s argument. EDR Expert detects this activity using the rules create_task_on_remote_host_using_standard_tool, scheduled_task_creation_as_system_via_schtasks, and scheduled_task_with_powershell_execution.
  
• During the attack, the adversary will need access to the victim’s credentials; in the described case, one way to obtain them was through a well-known technique that uses legitimate tools to dump LSASS, specifically by calling the MiniDump function from comsvcs.dll. The EDR Expert solution detects this activity using the rules dumping_memory_with_com_services_dll and suspicious_lsass_memory_access.
  
• A significant part of the attack chain is lateral movement, which helps the attacker navigate within the infrastructure and achieve their desired objectives. In the described case, the WinRM protocol is used to initiate connections directly from PowerShell. This is a standard technique that allows the attacker to execute commands on remote machines without using additional network tunnels. The EDR Expert solution detects this activity using the rules using_powershell_for_remote_execution_via_wmi and winrm_send_command.
  

Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) is used to detect malicious activity in network traffic. Communication between CyberStrikeAI agents and the command-and-control server occurs without accessing AI platforms such as ChatGPT or Claude. Instead, the agent’s C2 server is an infrastructure pre-configured by the attackers, just as in attacks that do not use AI agents. Analysis of decrypted network traffic using NDR-class solutions reveals characteristic communication patterns of CyberStrikeAI agent activity. When these patterns are detected, KATA generates an alert with the verdict Backdoor.CyberStrikeAI.HTTP.C&C.

Alert regarding the detection of CyberStrikeAI communication with a C2 server

To detect post-exploitation activity, you can use not only IDS technology but also NAD (Network Anomaly Detection). It analyzes all traffic for suspicious indicators that do not correspond to a node’s typical network activity.

For example, actions performed by CyberStrikeAI during the Domain Discovery phase are detected by an NDR:NAD rule named “Scanning domain records via LDAP queries.”

NDR:NAD alert: reconnaissance via LDAP queries detected

You can learn more about NDR:NAD technology in our article on Securelist.

You can also visualize the connections between C2 addresses and files used by attackers in the Research Graph section of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal. This includes tracking the emergence of new CyberStrikeAI implants that communicate with malicious addresses.

Visualization via the Research Graph on the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal

In addition, the Threat Lookup service available on the portal allows you to determine whether malicious files belong to CyberStrikeAI using attribution mechanisms based on the executable file’s code.

Demonstration of attributing a malicious implant to the CyberStrikeAI framework

Kaspersky SIEM detects all stages of an attack by the CyberStrikeAI agent. The product repository contains over 100 rules for detecting the techniques discussed in this article; we will list the most critical ones below.

Execution of various commands from the sqlservr.exe process:

• R300_04_Windows shell started by a web application

Downloading and executing a payload via PowerShell:

• R110_03_PowerShell code downloaded and executed

Creating Windows scheduled tasks:

• R099_04_Suspicious arguments when running schtasks.exe
• R300_03_Windows shell started by the scheduler

Persisting via crontab or bashrc:

• R099_06_Suspicious cron job activity
• R405_02_UNIX shell configuration modification

Rules located at the KUMA Packages/SOC package/Configuration discovery path detect the collection of information about hosts, network settings, and domains using various reconnaissance tools. Rules that aggregate detections by reconnaissance tools:

• R224_14_Windows reconnaissance activity
• R224_09_System information discovery by running multiple utilities within a short period
• R224_04_System information discovery via standard Linux tools

Data collection for Kerberoasting and AS-REP Roasting:

• R034_01_Multiple TGS ticket requests (Kerberoasting)
• R452_18_AS-REP Roasting

Dumping registry hives containing credentials using the reg.exe utility:

• R230_02_Copying data containing credentials from the Windows registry

Dumping the lsass.exe process using the MiniDump function of the comsvcs.dll library:

• R233_04_Process memory dump via comsvcs.dll
• R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process

DCSync and Golden Ticket attacks using the renamed mimikatz utility:

• R073_DC Sync attack
• R450_41_Golden Ticket Attack
• R100_03_Traces of Mimikatz use via cmd

Lateral movement using WMIExec:

• R460_08_Lateral movement using WMIexec Impacket
• R460_09_Lateral movement using WMIExec and Impacket

For the rules to work, you must configure the SIEM system to receive the relevant events:

• Process launches (Windows security log – 4688, auditd – execve) and PowerShell commands (4104)
• User logins to the system (Windows security log – 4624, 4768, 4769)
• Various object manipulations (Windows security log – 4662, 4663, 4656; auditd – openat)
• Interaction with shared resources (Windows security log – 5145)

Indicators of compromise

File-based indicators:

Network indicators:

A modern organization protects its information systems with a whole suite of technologies that generate thousands of security alerts every day. Looking at these alerts in bulk, you’ll see that a significant share are false positives. Ideally, these alerts would be filtered out automatically so that analysts could focus on the ones that may point to a real incident. However, writing filters is a time-consuming task in itself. To create a correct filter, an analyst needs to:

• Review the logs
• Identify the source of the activity
• Define filtering boundaries
• Choose filtering criteria
• Write a rule
• Check that the filter is robust

This post looks at how filter creation itself can be automated to reduce analyst workload.

Filter validity criteria

In the context of security alerts, a filter is a combination of event field values that marks a detection as a false positive and not worth the analyst’s attention. Filters can be generated for any combination of event fields, but not every combination yields a valid filter. That’s why we need to define validity criteria: conditions showing that a specific filter actually removes noise and doesn’t suppress useful alerts.

Detection rules in security systems typically contain a set of conditions, and each of them can generate an alert. A specific event triggers a given fragment of a detection rule. The set of events that a given fragment responds to is what we’ll call its context. A good filter should cover the entire context where possible, without going beyond it. Filters that are too broad or too narrow are useless. For example, a filter based solely on PowerShell would exclude too many events, including some that deserve the analyst’s attention. Most of the filtered events would also be unrelated to the rule in question. A filter on a specific ID, on the other hand, would cover only one event, which may never recur.

Problems in filter generation

We can run into a number of problems when creating filters. First, events often contain an excessive number of fields (around 400 on average), and most of them aren’t needed for filtering. At the same time, generating and ranking combinations of these fields is also fairly resource-intensive. So, the first step is to discard the irrelevant fields and keep only those worth using in the filter. For example, out of 400 fields in an event, four may be enough for filtering.

Another problem is string normalization. Field values (for example, the path to the same application on different systems) can vary depending on system settings, user folder names, and so on. For a filter to account for all these variations, the strings must be normalized. For file paths, in particular, you can replace the drive letter and user folders with standard environment variables and convert all paths to a single case.

Finally, if a filter completely mirrors the query of a detection rule, it effectively disables that rule. To fix this, remove the event fields used in the detection rule from the filter. For example, if a rule triggers on a file path, there are two ways to filter out unwanted alerts:

• In the filter, use fields other than the file path.
• Use a part of the file path that the rule doesn’t use. For example, for the rule file_path: ".../something.exe", you can set up a filter that excludes events with the user/unique_files/ directory in the file path.

Filtering security alerts with an algorithm

Given the problems described above, automatically generating filters for security alerts should consist of the following steps:

1. An analyst receives a security alert that they assess as a false positive and uses the filter generator.
2. The generator takes the 400-field event from the alert, along with the rule that triggered on it, and determines the context.
3. The generator selects the fields that are relevant to the filter.
4. The generator normalizes the strings.
5. The generator builds different combinations of the selected fields. To do this, we applied the FP-Growth (frequent pattern growth) algorithm to the context determined earlier. FP Growth builds a tree of frequently occurring items (fields) from a dataset (in our case, the context) and discards items that aren’t frequent enough. This reduces the number of combinations to check, which lowers the cost of finding the most relevant ones.
6. The generator ranks the resulting combinations and offers the analyst the top three to choose from.

For example, consider an event described by the following JSON:

After generating and ranking the combinations, we got three filters based on file paths:

• processcmdline:("nodejs\\node.exe" AND "*****\\appdata\\roaming\\npm\/node_modules\/pi-coding-agent\/dist\/cli.js")

• file_path:"*****/.pi\\agent\\bin\\fd.exe"

• processcmdline: "programfiles\\nodejs\\node.exe"

The last filter turned out to be too broad, but the analyst marked the other two as valid.

Pros and cons of the algorithmic approach

The algorithmic approach to filter generation has several advantages. First, it’s simple and deterministic: the same alert always produces the same result. Second, it’s interpretable, meaning we can see why a given combination ranked near the top of the list and why a particular field didn’t make it into the list of candidate fields at all. Third, the stages of the process are independent of each other, so individual steps can be improved and tuned without the risk of breaking the algorithm elsewhere. Finally, it has no external dependencies or models, which makes it easy to deploy in any customer environment.

However, it also has drawbacks. The first is its dependence on context. If there’s no context for some reason — for example, the rule’s first-ever trigger — a filter can’t be created. The second problem is string normalization. There’s a high chance of running into atypical cases that the normalization rules don’t cover. Often such cases can’t be described correctly at all, because they contradict each other.

These problems can be solved with large language models (LLMs). When an LLM generates the filters, no context is needed, because the LLM doesn’t iterate over or rank combinations. The LLM also takes a more flexible approach to string normalization, including non-standard cases. That said, an LLM doesn’t have to be involved at every stage of the generation process. We decided to keep the algorithmic solution where it works well. For example, a simple algorithm selects suitable fields without errors, so we didn’t move this stage to the model.

Filter generation with an LLM

The LLM-based filter generation looks like this:

The input is still an alert containing an event with 400 fields, plus the rule that triggered on that event. Then an algorithm selects the most suitable fields for the filter. Next, the LLM processes the input — the event, the selected fields, and the detection rule — and generates three filter options along with an explanation for them. The explanation helps the analyst understand why these particular filters were suggested and make an informed choice.

Consider the following event in JSON format:

The LLM suggested three filter options that all contain the same command line fragment:

• file_path: "\\WindowsPowerShell\\powershell.exe" AND filecmdline: "Get-VM -Name kafka\*"

• filecmdline: "Get-VM -Name kafka\*"

• filecmdline: "kafka*"

As in the previous example, two of the three output filters were valid. The last one was too broad to be usable. The analyst chose the first filter with minor edits:

file_path: "powershell.exe" AND filecmdline: "Get-VM -Name kafka\*"

Pros and cons of generating filters with an LLM

Using an LLM solved the problems of purely algorithmic filter generation: dependence on context and errors in string normalization. However, the single-request approach had its own drawbacks. First, it had no output validation. The LLM returned filters as-is, with no syntax check and no way to correct errors. Second, unlike in the algorithmic version, all filter generation tasks were handled by a single system prompt. As a result, a minor fix in one place could break the logic in another.

Using multiple AI agents

To address the problems of generating filters with a single model and a single system prompt, we tried distributing the tasks across different LLM agents. In this version, we brought in agents as early as the stage of selecting relevant fields. The chain includes four agents in total:

• Selector: selects the relevant fields.
• Generator: generates filters.
• Validator: evaluates the generated filters. If the filters are found to be invalid, it returns the task to the generator. If the selected fields are found to be irrelevant, it starts a new field selection cycle. If the filters pass validation, or the limit on regeneration attempts is reached, the valid filters (or the best ones available) are passed to the analyst.
• Commentator: analyzes the output filters and explains which field values were used and why.

For the following JSON event, the agents produce three valid filters based on the file path.

The filters differ in the additional parameters that support the detection:

• file_path:"sysvol\\domain\\scripts\\logon.bat"

• file_path:"sysvol\\domain\\scripts\\logon.bat" AND file_md5:"0x7..6E"

• autorun_entry: "Group Policy\\State" AND file_path: "SYSVOL\\domain\\scripts\\logon.bat"

Pros and cons of the agent-based approach

LLM agents give us a system that can validate and correct filters. Its modular architecture also lets us tune and improve different stages of generation independently. However, this approach makes more LLM calls than the previous ones, so the system is slower. It also depends on access to a model, which may not be available in the organization’s isolated environment.

Evaluating the filter generation system

To evaluate how well the filter generation system works, we use two main metrics:

• Approval rate. For each security alert, the system suggests three filters. If the analyst selects at least one of them, we count the generation as successful. For example, in the case below, the approval rate is 2/3.
  
• False positive reduction rate (FP drop). This metric shows how much a filter helps reduce the number of false positives. It can only be measured over time, because we need to compare the number of false positive alerts received during a set period before and after the filter is deployed.

Below is a comparison of the three filter generation approaches by these metrics:

As the results show, LLMs significantly improve the efficiency of filter generation. At the same time, the LLM agentless and agent-based approaches perform almost identically. So we chose the simpler and faster option: an LLM with a single system prompt. As a result, we cut false positives by 99%, increased the number of filters generated per day by 28%, and made analysts’ alert handling 17% more efficient.

Takeaways

Practice has shown that filter generation can be automated effectively. We’ve looked at several options for automatically generating filters for false-positive security alerts: a purely algorithmic approach, an LLM-based approach, and an approach built on a group of LLM agents. All of them can generate valid filters and make the analyst’s work much easier, but each has its own pros and cons.

The algorithmic approach scored lower on the evaluation metrics, but in two-thirds of cases, it still produces filters that satisfy the analyst. It works especially well when there’s already a set of similar events to filter out, meaning enough context has accumulated. The algorithmic generator can also be deployed in any environment. Both standalone LLM and multi-agent LLM approaches show high accuracy, and their results differ only slightly, so the slower agent-based approach looks excessive at this stage. If an LLM is available, the best option appears to be a single model that handles several stages of the generation cycle.

AI systems are much harder to protect than traditional IT — whether from operator mistakes, malicious interference, or just plain unstable behavior. There are two main reasons for this. First, AI outputs are probabilistic, so the same prompt can give different answers each time you run it. Second, today’s LLMs can’t reliably tell commands apart from data. Despite the demonstrated security issues of AI systems that we’ve covered many times, it’s impossible to ignore the potential economic payoff of adopting them. That’s why many companies are moving beyond simple AI assistants to AI agents. These agents carry out tasks on their own and have direct access to the same tools as humans — from reading databases to changing settings in production processes. Our experts, in their new study, examine how to clearly define and minimize the resulting risks to keep potential problems to a minimum. The approach borrows and adapts the principles of Cyber Immunity and Security by Design.

The basic principles of Security by Design

All the principles of this discipline are universally applicable to the design of any computer system — AI agents included. What differs is how deeply each principle needs to be adapted and reworked for AI scenarios.

1. Security is a separate and important factor right from the design stage. Security goals and assumptions are set on day one and followed throughout every stage of development. For AI agents, these assumptions should include three key points: (i) the language model is treated as untrusted, (ii) external data of any kind is considered potentially malicious, and (iii) irreversible actions can’t be performed autonomously without mandatory human approval.
2. The system is designed on the assumption that it will be attacked.
3. The trusted computing base and attack surface are kept to a minimum. Agents get only the tools they actually need, limited permissions, and the smallest amount of context possible. Security policy enforcement is handled entirely by deterministic components: the policy monitor, the agent harness, and isolation mechanisms (sandboxes).
4. The principle of least privilege applies. Each agent has its own set of credentials and access privileges (identity), limited to the bare minimum it needs to do its job. If an agent temporarily needs elevated privileges, it gets them only after external approval, and they last exactly as long as the task that requires them.
5. Components are isolated. In agent-based systems, this is one of the most complex and multi-layered architecture problems. The agent harness should run in an isolated environment (sandbox or virtual machine), and agents should be kept as isolated from each other as possible. Data processing in trusted and untrusted contexts is also kept separate. For example, one agent reads a pull request and writes a draft of the code, while another reviews that work without ever seeing the potentially malicious text of the request.
6. Default deny is the rule. Security policies follow the rule: anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. This includes tool calls, interactions between agents, and network traffic.
7. Defense in depth is in place. Different measures should work at the same time and reinforce each other. Probabilistic defenses — like AI guardrails (a “firewall” for language models) or alignment (the model’s own sense of what’s acceptable and what isn’t) — can’t offer any formal security guarantees. Nevertheless, they make the system more secure overall and serve as a valuable source of telemetry.
8. The supply chain is protected. Some agents can install skills, libraries, and other software components on their own, so these abilities need strict rules. Either block them completely, or limit them to a closed, pre-approved list of specific versions of specific components. Systems built on cloud LLMs face an extra risk: model updates. One day, the same API request might be answered by a different language model with different security properties.

Pitfalls of AI security

The general principles of Security by Design are well known and look simple on paper. But applying them to AI systems is tricky because agents are incredibly flexible. For example, a security team might believe that an agent on a developer’s computer runs in a sandbox and can’t change anything outside it. But an attacker, or even the agent itself, can come up with dozens of ways around this seemingly solid protection: from running commands through a local MCP server that the sandbox doesn’t restrict, to reconfiguring another AI agent installed on the system. To make things even harder, the range of attack vectors is huge: from arbitrary fields in the agent’s configuration to innocent-looking text strings in a skill file.

One serious problem that designers often underestimate is user fatigue. A busy agent can throw up dozens of requests every minute, asking the user to confirm potentially dangerous actions. Within an hour, the person is clicking Approve on autopilot without reading what they’re approving. That’s why it’s important to carefully tune both how often these requests appear and how they’re worded. Nobody will read a request description that’s too long. And one that’s too short can hide the key details the user needs in order to make the right call.

Vulnerabilities in agents and related tools are a pressing problem — and it’s made worse by how quickly these categories of software evolve and receive updates. Industry-standard platforms and apps — such as LangGraph, MS Semantic Kernel, and Claude Code — have had critical vulnerabilities patched more than once. Architects should always consider swapping a large, do-it-all framework for a compact, stripped-down system that has only the features a specific agent actually needs.

On top of that, carefully implementing standard, long-established security measures in the available tools greatly reduces the damage if an agent is attacked or behaves unexpectedly. One example is a strict allowlist of domains that the web fetch tool can open when asked by the agent. But designers rarely account for the hidden problems and overhead associated with maintaining the list. As a result, it slowly goes out of date and leaves loopholes for attackers. The most striking example is the EchoLeak attack. Microsoft 365 Copilot had a properly implemented and fairly effective allowlist for accessing external sites, but attackers circumvented it through a feature in a secondary tool and the MS Teams domain.

Practical tips for architects and security teams

AI system architects and heads of engineering and security teams should build in agent security from the design stage. They should rely primarily on verifiable, deterministic mechanisms: isolating components, controlling interactions, and keeping the trusted computing base to a minimum.

Key architectural decisions include defining acceptable autonomy for the agents, limiting access to confidential data and dangerous combinations of capabilities, and using sandboxes, separate roles for different models, and access control gateways. Restrictions added as an afterthought reduce risks, but they’re no substitute for secure architecture.

At the organizational and operational levels, companies need to keep an inventory of their agents, coordinate the efforts of security and deployment teams, protect container environments, manage the supply chain (AIBOM), and integrate multi-layered defense.

Observability requires special attention. For AI systems, this should include logging the LLM’s requests, responses, and reasoning, as well as detailed telemetry from the hosts and cloud environments where the agent harness runs.

The hardest part of designing agents is balancing security, performance, and usefulness. To learn how to strike that balance with threat modeling and clearly defined security goals, read the full version of the study.

Finding a job these days is playing on hard mode. You send your resume to a company, and a couple of minutes later, an automated rejection lands in your inbox. And then it happens again. And again. Sound familiar?

In this post, we look at how recruiting platforms work from the HR side. We also show how to use AI safely as a copy editor so you can prepare a resume for recruiters without turning it into a lifeless pile of keywords. At the end, we share a ready-made prompt to help you improve your resume’s structure and content.

Protecting your data

Before you give your resume to a chatbot, remove all sensitive information: your name, phone number, home address, email, company names, and scans of documents. Any language model you chat with can sometimes memorize personal information contained in their training data. That means there’s always a chance the AI may accidentally “learn” to give your data to other users. On top of that, even the biggest services aren’t immune to glitches and leaks. For example, last year a researcher found a bug in Meta AI that let users gain access to other people’s conversations with the chatbot by changing their request ID.

The ability to read other people’s chats sometimes isn’t even a bug. For example, it recently came to light that Grok users who clicked the Share chat button to send a conversation to a friend or to themselves were also allowing search engines to index that conversation. As a result, thousands of conversations ended up in public view. These included personal data, requests to come up with complex passwords, complaints about health problems, trade secrets, and other information the chat owners clearly never meant to publish.

So before you use any chatbot, first check its privacy policy, and then go to the settings to turn off all the features you don’t need. Most importantly, turn off training the AI on your requests. And remember the golden rule: don’t send an AI anything you wouldn’t be okay with seeing on the internet.

If you work with sensitive information all the time, the safest option is to run language models locally right on your own computer. We previously explained how to do this, using DeepSeek as an example. The same approach works with any other open-weight model.

Finally, don’t feed your personal data to chatbots from unknown developers that promise to write you a flawless resume. Often, these are just slick wrappers around popular models. And you probably won’t ever find out who actually gets access to your data, where it’s stored, or what happens to it next.

Malicious actors can use this information for follow-up attacks. For example, they can send fake interview invitations and attractive job postings that match your work experience and career interests a little too well. From there, the scam can go in many directions: a malicious file disguised as a job invitation, a link to a phishing page that steals your account, a request to install “corporate software” or to continue the chat in a messaging app, and so on.

When choosing an AI tool, ask yourself these questions:

• Does the service have a clear privacy policy?
• Does it say what happens to your file after you upload it — will it be stored or deleted?
• Does the service explain whether your data will be used to train AI?
• Who owns the service? Can you trust this company?
• Is the site protected with HTTPS?

Who reads your resume: a human or a robot?

Most large and mid-sized companies have long used an applicant tracking system (ATS). This is specialized software for HR teams (human resources specialists or, put simply, recruiters) that collects and sorts job applications.

A company having an ATS doesn’t mean their applicants are scored automatically. It’s a fairly old type of system that dates back to when artificial intelligence looked very different. Then, as AI tech evolved, some companies started building AI modules into their ATS. But how common this is varies a lot from country to country and market to market. According to a LinkedIn study, 37% of HR leaders surveyed worldwide use AI in hiring, but only 11% actively integrate AI tools into their HR platforms.

The takeaway: you can optimize your resume for AI, but you still need to write it for a human. Even if your resume clears the AI screening, an HR person will read it next — and flat, machine-sounding prose will only hurt their impression of you.

Keep in mind that instant rejections don’t come only from AI. In some ATS, recruiters can set up automatic rejection rules by hand. For example, these rules can rely on a candidate’s answers about education, work authorization, required experience, licenses and certifications, ability to work the required schedule, and so on. So take a moment to check that your resume contains up-to-date and complete information relevant to the vacancy.

How to write a resume that passes both AI and HR screening

Write the first draft yourself

It’s ok to turn to AI for help, but the resume has to have substance, and a real person with real work experience has to shine through.

Start by writing your resume yourself. It doesn’t have to be perfect, and it can have mistakes. Only then ask AI for a fresh pair of eyes. Here, AI shouldn’t act as your personal biographer. It should act as a copy editor that polishes the wording and structure.

Keep the formatting simple

Unless the employer asks for something specific, skip the photos, tables, complex graphics, and custom fonts. And definitely don’t try to design something fancy in a graphic editor. Any of these can make your document unreadable for an ATS. The gold standard is a plain PDF or DOCX file with headings, a standard font, clear sections, and bulleted lists.

Tailor your resume to each job

Copy the job description and ask a chatbot to work its key phrases into your resume. Don’t just sprinkle keywords around. Put them in context and back them up with examples from your experience. Remember: you should be able to prove every word in your resume.

Show what your effort achieved

Skip the generic phrases, personality labels, and bare lists of duties like “responsible”, “did data analysis”, or “prepared reports”. Both recruiters and AI look for specifics, ideally with numbers and timeframes. Show what you did your job for, not just what you did.

Stick to the action + tool + result formula: “Automated report generation with Python and cut preparation time by 80%”, “Launched a new pricing model and grew annual revenue from US$400 000 to US$600 000 in 12 months”, “Developed a corporate messaging app that more than a thousand employees use today”. Don’t overdo the numbers. If you don’t have exact figures, or they don’t apply, don’t make them up.

Put the most important things first

Start with a short paragraph of two to three sentences that covers the key points and contains a link to your portfolio. Use it to give a brief overview of your work experience, skills, and key achievements. If you’re new to the field, write about your education and career goals instead.

List your work experience in reverse chronological order so your latest career achievements are the first thing people see.

AI prompt

You’ve got the tips — now it’s time to ask AI for help. Here’s a prompt that works. We’ve tested it on several chatbots:

Review before sending

• Check for extraneous information: make sure your resume doesn’t include unnecessary personal data or information covered by an NDA.
• Check for readability: make sure your resume has the right headings, dates, and section order, and that the file is in DOCX or PDF format. Remove any complex graphics from the document.
• Check for accuracy: reread every statement and ask yourself, “Could I back this up in an interview?” Remember: AI doesn’t know all the details of your work and may exaggerate some of the wording.

More on how to use AI safely without compromising your privacy:

• Privacy settings in ChatGPT
• The pros and cons of AI-powered browsers
• How phishers and scammers use AI
• Hacking Black Friday: using LLMs to save on the “sale of the year”
• Would you entrust your vacation travel plans to AI?

Our analysis an AI-powered espionage campaign targeting government Linux infrastructure with custom malware, web shells, and advanced credential theft.

The post AI-Powered Espionage Campaign Targets Government Linux Infrastructure appeared first on Unit 42.

New research reveals that AI safety refusal lives in a thin neural layer, highlighting the critical need for external, multi-layered security.

The post Perturbation Probing: A New Diagnostic for the Fragility of LLM Safety appeared first on Unit 42.

Cybersecurity news increasingly focuses on attackers using AI for reconnaissance, vulnerability hunting, and writing scripts or malware. Against this backdrop, a less conventional category of attacks remains largely overlooked: threat actors leveraging AI tools that are already deployed within the target infrastructure.

AI agents designed for coding, as well as command-line tools — such as Claude Code CLI, Gemini CLI, Codex CLI, Amazon Q CLI, and the like — are particularly attractive targets. These agents can read and modify files, execute shell commands, install packages, and connect to external services. Developers frequently allow them to run in autonomous mode to avoid manually confirming every action. For an attacker, such an agent becomes a ready-made multitool that has the right privileges, access to critical data, and security clearances from the get-go. That said, other types of AI agents, such as automated financial workflow assistants, are equally vulnerable to exploitation.

Why trusted agents pose a threat

An AI agent differs from standard software in its broad access privileges, the wide array of ways it can be prompted to execute actions, and the difficulty of detecting its anomalous behavior. Enterprise security controls (EPP, EDR, XDR, SIEM) scan for malicious files, known command patterns, and suspicious action sequences. Even if a specific strain of malware hasn’t been seen before, its behavior often gives it away: bulk searches for documents, spawning PowerShell processes, accessing credential stores, or exfiltrating data to an external server from an unknown application will trigger a deluge of alerts in the SOC.

It’s much harder to apply that same detection logic to a legitimate, pre-installed AI agent. By design, these tools are capable of executing an extremely broad range of operations. Running scripts, reading configuration files (including secrets), moving documents, and installing dependencies can all be a part of their normal operation — especially on a developer’s machine.

When an attacker attempts to exploit this kind of AI system, they use natural language to convey their instructions to the agent. A request to hunt for passwords, API keys, or cryptocurrency wallets can be framed in thousands of ways, expressed in a variety of languages, or phrased indirectly. Furthermore, a malicious command can be hidden in any data stream the agent reads — including text fields in documents, file names, or even error logs, as shown in one of the examples below.

Integration between agents and third-party software further expands the attack surface. Agents are frequently connected to email, instant messaging apps, task management systems, knowledge bases, and MCP servers. As a result, a malicious instruction can originate from virtually any source whose data the agent processes automatically.

Below are several examples of attacks where threat actors leveraged AI agents to achieve their goals.

The Nx attack: a coding agent hunting for passwords

The most prominent and widespread example is the compromise of Nx npm packages in August 2025, dubbed s1ngularity. Attackers exploited a vulnerable GitHub Actions workflow, stole a package-publishing token, and released trojanized versions of several @nx packages that harvested developer secrets.

The malicious post-install script checked whether Claude Code, Gemini CLI, or Amazon Q CLI were installed on the victim’s machine. If any of these were detected, the agent was issued an instruction to scan for cryptocurrency wallets, ENV files, API keys, and other sensitive data. The agents were executed with auto-approval flags enabled, such as --dangerously-skip-permissions, --yolo, and --trust-all-tools.

The search results were then exfiltrated to public GitHub repositories created by the attackers. Over several waves of the attack, thousands of secrets belonging to hundreds of organizations were exposed.

Instead of developing a complex, custom harvesting tool, the attackers repurposed the victim’s own legitimate agent. It already could navigate the file system, understand file context, and identify high-value target data. However, post-incident analysis by security experts revealed drawbacks to this approach: the AI occasionally refused to carry out unethical tasks. Furthermore, the malware authors had to adjust their code so that it “waited” for the AI agent, which could take a considerable amount of time to process the task while generating significant intermediate output.

Communication via… error logs

The AgentJacking study was not a malicious attack, but it differed from one only in intent: its authors had no interest in stealing secrets. After developing the attack technique, the researchers tested it on a global scale and received callback responses from AI agents belonging to more than a hundred real-world companies — some of them major enterprises.

The attack targeted Sentry, a widely used telemetry service. Websites and mobile applications automatically transmit error reports to Sentry so developers can monitor issues without requiring active user reporting. These reports are accepted without authentication because errors often occur for anonymous visitors that the site or application knows nothing about.

The researchers configured their own MCP server within Sentry, allowing AI agents to analyze reports automatically. Next, they submitted a fake error message containing a data block formatted to match Sentry’s MCP server data structure. Embedded inside was an indirect prompt injection — an instruction to run “additional diagnostics” via a command like: npx @controlled-validation-package --diagnose.

If error handling were delegated to an agent, it could take the instruction as legitimate and execute a command resulting in the automatic installation of a third-party package. In this experiment, the package merely contacted the researchers’ command-and-control server without exfiltrating any sensitive data. A genuine malicious package, however, could steal credentials, tamper with code, or establish persistence in the system. Identifying targets for such an attack is equally straightforward: an organization’s use of Sentry is easily detectable by analyzing website code or checking the strings in mobile application binaries.

Notably, according to the study’s authors, Sentry acknowledged the issue but stopped short of implementing comprehensive fixes, opting instead to block only the specific variant of the malicious query routed through the MCP. Screenshots included in the study reveal that a Sentry employee described the system as “technically not defensible” against the attack.

Stealing financial data via MCP

Abusing unsecured MCP servers — as seen in the Sentry case — is just one way to attack this protocol. Introduced just a year ago, and already dubbed “USB for AI agents”, the Model Context Protocol standard was adopted rapidly without robust built-in security controls. As a result, attacks targeting MCP are bound to proliferate — a trend Microsoft recently warned about.

Threats can lie hidden even within the description of an MCP tool before the agent ever uses it. Agents parse tool descriptions to determine when to call the tool and what data to supply. If an MCP server provider stealthily alters a description — adding an instruction that demands collection of additional data — the agent may execute it as part of its standard workflow.

Microsoft highlights a scenario involving a financial agent that verifies vendor banking details via an external MCP service. Following a malicious update to the tool’s description, the agent begins appending unpaid-invoice data to its responses. The user sees a normal response, while confidential financial data is quietly exfiltrated to the server owner. Individually, each operation appears authorized: the agent operates under the employee’s permissions, queries an approved service, and uses a standard interface. Yet a data breach still occurs.

It remains unclear from Microsoft’s ambiguous phrasing whether this example is purely hypothetical or based on an investigation into a live incident. However, the fact that the post originated from Microsoft Incident Response points to the latter.

Prompt injections have already gone mainstream

In 2026, Unit 42 researchers identified widespread attempts to covertly embed instructions designed for AI systems across numerous public websites. Many of these instructions aim to force models to reveal system prompts, approve sites and posts during ad placement reviews, or boost phishing pages through SEO manipulation.

Similarly, an analysis of Common Crawl data by Google recorded a surge in such material: between November 2025 and February 2026, the share of malicious injections increased by 32%.

That said, confirmed cases of successful compromise using these techniques remain scarce. The presence of an injection on a webpage does not guarantee that an agent ever actually executed the command. Nevertheless, threat actors have clearly begun optimizing web content for an era when it will be read not just — and perhaps not primarily — by humans.

How to defend against agent-based attacks

The key takeaway for cybersecurity teams and all AI users alike is simple: an AI agent should never be considered trusted merely because it has been officially approved for enterprise use.

Organizations must:

• Maintain an inventory of agents, MCP servers, and the various tools available for them. Use allowlists to restrict agent tools, and package installations to components explicitly vetted and approved by information security. Allowlists must specify exact package versions.
• Monitor version changes to MCP tools and other dependencies. Re-evaluate updates before adding them to the approved inventory.
• Apply the principle of least privilege. Grant agents only the specific permissions needed for a given task, and only for the duration of that task.
• Enforce human-in-the-loop approval for package installations, script executions, file sends, and other high-risk actions.
• Run agents in isolated environments with limited access to developer workstations.
• Disable dangerous auto-approval modes.
• Restrict outbound network connections, and permit data transmission only for approved services.
• Store secrets in centralized, secure vaults, using short-lived tokens and rotating them regularly.
• Forward prompt logs, tool calls, shell commands, and agent network traffic into SIEM and XDR systems. For these tools to be effective, they require deep operational context regarding agent activity alongside specialized rule sets tailored to AI data processing pipelines.

Explore Unit 42's perspectives on AI's impact on cybersecurity, including key updates since the 2026 Incident Response Report.

The post AI, Automation and Attacks: Unpacking the Unit 42 2026 Global Incident Response Report appeared first on Unit 42.

Unchecked AI in the workplace quickly becomes a massive loophole for data leaks and security breaches. All too often, employees drop sensitive company data into public chatbots, or install rogue AI assistants on their own — in the process handing over way too much access. In a previous post, we broke down the different types of risky AI systems, and later shared some tips on how to turn off the built-in AI features on major tech platforms. Today let’s take a look at practical ways to block or restrict the unauthorized “helpers” employees might be using — from ChatGPT and Grammarly, to meeting bots like Fireflies and Read AI.

How to detect and restrict ChatGPT

ChatGPT is the biggest culprit when it comes to unauthorized AI use worldwide. A quick word of warning, though: an outright ban only sends users hunting for sketchy third-party sites or messaging app chatbots that hook into the same service. That’s why it’s always a good idea to offer an approved alternative before pulling the plug.

Detecting it: keep an eye on the NGFW or web filter for traffic heading to chat.openai.com, chatgpt.com, oaistatic.com, oaiusercontent.com, or cdn.oaistatic.com. It’s also smart to use EDR/EPP tools to scan browser histories, installed apps, and browser extensions across corporate devices.

Locking it down: use the firewall or web filter to block the entire AI Services category, and set up DNS to reroute traffic away from those OpenAI domains. Browser policies can also be used to ban ChatGPT-powered extensions. Better yet, block all extensions not on a pre-approved allowlist. Finally, use application controls and EPP solutions to stop users from installing the official desktop app (ChatGPT.exe or com.openai.chat).

How to detect and restrict Claude and Claude Code

Detecting it: use the NGFW or web filter to track traffic going to claude.ai, anthropic.com, *.anthropic.com, and api.anthropic.com. EDR/EPP or application control tools can also be used to scan employee computers for the desktop app (claude.exe).

Locking it down: drop a blanket block on the AI Services category through the NGFW or web filter, and tweak DNS settings to reroute traffic away from the aforementioned Anthropic domains. Next, use browser policies to shut down Claude-powered extensions. Finally, use application controls and the EPP platform to prevent users from installing the desktop app.

How to detect and restrict Perplexity AI

Detecting it: keep tabs on the NGFW or web filter to flag any traffic heading to *.perplexity.ai or pplx.ai.

Locking it down: just like the others, add the AI Services category to the NGFW or web filter blocklist, and use DNS routing to redirect traffic away from those domains.

Configure the browser to block third-party extensions from being installed. If Firefox is used in the organization, be aware that recent versions come with Perplexity built in. Luckily, these AI features can be turned-off company-wide using enterprise policies — specifically, by setting SidebarChatbot = blocked. The full list of tweaks can be found in the Firefox documentation.

How to detect and restrict DeepSeek

Detecting it: keep an eye on the NGFW or web filter for traffic hitting deepseek.com, chat.deepseek.com, api.deepseek.com, or platform.deepseek.com. For better precision, analyze the SNI (server name identification) in TLS connection requests. For mobile devices, look out for the official app (com.deepseek.chat).

Locking it down: blocklist the AI Services category on the NGFW or web filter, and reroute traffic to DeepSeek’s domains via DNS settings. Use browser policies to block third-party extensions, and lean on MDM/EMM tools to restrict the mobile app.

How to detect and restrict Mistral, xAI Grok, and Character.ai

The playbook for these tools is exactly the same as DeepSeek, so here’s the quick list of domains to watch for and block: chat.mistral.ai, mistral.ai, console.mistral.ai, grok.com, x.ai, api.x.ai, character.ai, beta.character.ai, and c.ai.

A quick word of warning on Grok: because Grok is baked into X, blocking this specific AI access point means blocking the entire social media platform.

How to detect and restrict Slack AI

Detecting it: in the Slack workspace admin dashboard, look under Analytics → Slack AI usage. If an enterprise plan is used, the detailed Slack logs can be searched for any events starting with the ai_ prefix.

Blocking it with policies: in the organization’s Slack settings, click through the Workspace settings → Roles & permissions → Feature access, and change the permission to “no one”. Slack has a step-by-step guide in their help center.

Locking it down: shutting this down at the network level is tricky; it can be pulled off with a finely tuned CASB solution in place. Also, don’t forget the importance of blocking rogue integrations and keeping external AI services from tapping into Slack data in the first place. We covered how to lock this down using OAuth controls in a previous post.

How to detect and restrict Zoom AI Companion

Detecting it: if a corporate Zoom subscription is in use, just head to Admin Center → Reports → AI Companion usage. Detecting Zoom’s AI when employees join external meetings or use free accounts is a lot tougher, but email filters can be set up to flag incoming AI-generated meeting notes by scanning for subject lines or text containing “Meeting summary” or “Meeting assets”.

Blocking it with policies: for the company’s own Zoom subscription, go to the Admin Portal → Account Management → Account Settings → Meeting → AI Companion and toggle it OFF for everyone.

Locking it down: unfortunately, AI Companion is baked into Zoom’s DNA, so the only real option is blocking Zoom altogether.

How to detect and restrict Grammarly

What looks like an innocent spellchecker is actually one of the biggest culprits for workplace data leaks.

Detecting it: check the NGFW or web filter logs for traffic hitting grammarly.com, *.grammarly.com, and gnar.grammarly.com. EDR and MDM/EMM tools can also be used to hunt down the standalone desktop apps (Grammarly Desktop.exe and the macOS version), as well as the Grammarly browser extension.

Locking it down: use firewalls to block those domains at the network level, and EPP to stop employees from installing the desktop app, browser extensions, or the Grammarly add-ins for Microsoft Word and Excel.

How to detect and restrict meeting assistants: Fireflies, Read.ai, Tactiq, Fathom, and Granola

This massive category of third-party SaaS tools records and analyzes meetings — creating a massive risk for data leaks. The trickiest part? Outside clients or vendors can bring these bots into a meeting just as easily as employees can.

Detecting them: run an audit on calendar invites, and look for bot participants using email domains like @fireflies.ai, @read.ai, @tactiq.io, @fathom.video, or @granola.ai. Zoom, Teams, or Google Meet logs can also be used to review external participants who joined past calls.

Locking them down: since it’s impossible to control what outsiders do, blocking these bots comes down to tightening meeting rules. The best moves are: blocking users from granting OAuth permissions for bots to join calls, restricting employees from inviting unapproved external participants, or locking down meeting recording access for external users. That last option is usually the least painful way to keep bots out without disrupting business.

How to detect and restrict AI code editors: Cursor, Windsurf, and the like

Detecting them: use EDR/EPP tools to scan for executables like cursor.exe or windsurf.exe. It’s also worth monitoring network traffic heading to cursor.com and windsurf.com, as well as traffic hitting various AI model API providers. Keep in mind that there’s a pretty extensive list of API hosts to monitor here, since these editors aren’t tied to just one specific AI vendor.

Blocking them with policies: these apps can be prevented from being installed by setting up filters based on the developer’s digital signature certificate. Alternatively, a strict application allowlist can be employed where only pre-approved software is allowed to run.

Locking them down: rely on the EPP/EDR platform to actively detect and block these applications from running.

How to detect and restrict local AI tools: Ollama, LM Studio, and GPT4All

On one hand, this category carries fewer data leak risks because the AI models run completely locally on the user’s machine. On the other hand, it opens up a whole new can of worms: these apps themselves aren’t always highly secure, and can become targets for cyberattacks. Plus, it still means that employees can misuse models or process data in unauthorized ways.

Detecting them: EDR/EPP tools are the best line of defense here. They should be used to flag known local AI files and processes like ollama.exe, ollama serve, lmstudio.exe, LM Studio.app, jan.exe, or gpt4all.exe. From a network perspective, it’s worth scanning for open ports on local devices — typically port 1234 for Ollama and LM Studio, or port 8080 for WebUIs (using an additional fingerprint check of the server response). Another massive red flag is the presence of large files (often several gigabytes) containing language model weights. Look out for extensions like .gguf, .bin, or sometimes .safetensors.

Locking them down: use EPP/EDR platforms or windows AppLocker to block these applications by name, or switch to an application allowlist.

How to detect and restrict autonomous agents: OpenClaw, NemoClaw, and NanoClaw

This is easily one of the most dangerous categories of AI tools out there. These agents mix high-level independence with access to untrusted data, making them a massive security headache.

Detecting them: use EPP/EDR tools to sniff out active processes like openclaw, nanoclaw, nemoclaw, or clawdbot. Also keep an eye out for devices running Node.js that suddenly start launching Bash or Python scripts. Another dead giveaway is the appearance of system folders like ~/openclaw, ~/nanoclaw, ~/.claw*, or ~/clawhub. At the network level, monitor connections to the AI model APIs we mentioned earlier, as well as traffic hitting servers like openclaw.ai, nanoclaw.dev, or clawhub.*.

Locking them down: the safest bet is to use strict application allowlisting (only allowing approved software to run), or to specifically ban the known agent apps listed above. On top of that, consider blocking non-developers from installing Node.js and Docker, neither of which they need on their computers anyway.

Lately, software developers have been baking AI features straight into everyday work tools, operating systems, and browsers. In some cases, they’re genuinely handy. However, their presence introduces specific risks, which means plenty of companies are hesitant to give employees access to these tools. In a previous post, we categorized these unwanted AI systems, looked at how to spot them at the network and endpoint levels, and covered the ultimate universal kill switch: managing OAuth access across major corporate platforms. In this deep dive, we’re getting tactical: breaking down how to disable or restrict the AI built into popular platforms.

A quick heads-up: major software vendors occasionally change the names of their AI settings and tweak how they function. If any of the options mentioned below are missing or aren’t working as expected, a quick web search for the setting’s name will usually point you to its new location or branding.

How to turn off Microsoft 365 Copilot

Detection: you can check actual Copilot usage in the logs by going to Microsoft 365 admin →  Copilot usage report.

Disabling via policies: in the Microsoft 365Admin Center, go to Settings →  Integrated Apps, find Copilot in the Available Apps list, and select Block. More granular configuration policies are available under Customization →  Policy Management. The Policies page here contains over two thousand entries, so you’ll want to filter them by the keyword “Copilot” (detailed guide). Given that Copilot is a paid add-on for Office, another way to block it — and save money by doing so — is to simply avoid assigning users SKUs that include Copilot.

We recommend separately blocking Copilot Chat, which is available in Teams, Edge, Outlook, and several other services. Yes, it’s not Copilot itself. And yes, it has to be blocked separately by following this guide.

Additional layer of protection: you can block the domains copilot.cloud.microsoft and m365.cloud.microsoft/chat at the web filter or NGFW level. However, Microsoft explicitly advises against this, warning that it could break other Microsoft 365 features.

How to turn off Windows Copilot

Beyond the Office version of Copilot, you also need to manage its consumer-facing cousin.

Detection: look through your NGFW or other network logs for traffic hitting copilot.microsoft.com, bing.com/chat, or edgeservices.bing.com.
Disabling via policies: in Windows Group Policy, navigate to Computer Config →  Admin Templates →  Windows Components →  Windows Copilot. In Microsoft 365 Group Policy, go to Admin center →  Block consumer Copilot for organizational accounts.

Additional layer of protection: block the Copilot.exe executable from running entirely.

How to turn off the Copilot sidebar in Edge

Detection: look through your NGFW or other network logs for traffic hitting copilot.microsoft.com, bing.com/chat, or edgeservices.bing.com.

Blocking: configure the following MS Edge Group Policies: HubsSidebarEnabled = false, EdgeShoppingAssistantEnabled = false, CopilotPageContext = Disabled (false), CopilotNewTabPageEnabled = false, Microsoft365CopilotChatIconEnabled = false, GenAILocalFoundationalModelSettings = 1 (note that disabling this unexpectedly requires a 1 instead of a 0).

Second layer of protection: block the domains copilot.cloud.microsoft and m365.cloud.microsoft/chat at the web filter or NGFW level. However, Microsoft explicitly advises against this, warning that it could break other features.

How to turn off the Gemini Assistant in Google Workspace

Detection: check the Workspace Admin Console (admin.google.com), Gemini usage report section.

Blocking via policies: in the Admin Console, navigate to Apps →  Additional Google services → > Gemini app, and set it to OFF. Then, go to Manage Workspace smart feature settings →  Smart features in Google Workspace, and set it to OFF.

Second layer of protection: block network traffic to the domains gemini.google.com, bard.google.com, and aistudio.google.com.

How to turn off Gemini in Google Chrome

Detection: check your Chrome Enterprise reports (Chrome management →  Reports), or look through network traffic logs for connections to the previously mentioned domains.

Blocking via policies: in your Chrome Enterprise policies, configure the following settings: GenAILocalFoundationalModelSettings = 0, HelpMeWriteSettings = 2 (disabled), TabOrganizerSettings = 2, CreateThemesSettings = 2, DevToolsGenAiSettings = 2.

Additional layer of protection: block network traffic to the domains gemini.google.com, bard.google.com, and aistudio.google.com. Additionally, block unauthorized Chrome/Chromium installations (those outside your policy management) with the help of host-based application control tools like EPP/EDR or AppLocker.

How to turn off Apple Intelligence

Detection: on your NGFW and web filters, traffic hitting apple-relay.apple.com and *.apple-cloudkit.com is a clear indicator that Apple Intelligence is active.

Blocking via policies: any managed Apple device allows you to disable individual AI features, though there isn’t a master switch you can flip to shut down “all AI”. In your MDM profile, you need to set the following keys to false (disabled): allowWritingTools, allowMailSummary, allowGenmoji, allowImagePlayground, allowImageWand, allowPersonalizedHandwritingResults, allowExternalIntelligenceIntegrations, allowExternalIntelligenceIntegrationsSignIn, allowNotesTranscription, and allowNotesTranscriptionSummary. Here is a brief configuration example:

<dict>
<key>PayloadType</key>
<string>com.apple.applicationaccess</string>
<key>allowWritingTools</key>
<false/>
<key>allowMailSummary</key>
<false/>
</dict>

Despite Apple’s shift toward declarative device management, these AI features still need to be managed through traditional MDM payload settings.

Second layer of protection: block network traffic to the hosts mentioned above — though the obvious downside for mobile devices is that this won’t work once they leave the corporate network.

What are the next steps for security leaders in this new age of frontier AI? We answer the top 10 questions customers are asking.

The post Frontier AI and the Future of Defense: Your Top Questions Answered appeared first on Unit 42.

Unit 42 research on multi-agent AI systems on Amazon Bedrock reveals new attack surfaces and prompt injection risks. Learn how to secure your AI applications.

The post When an Attacker Meets a Group of Agents: Navigating Amazon Bedrock's Multi-Agent Applications appeared first on Unit 42.

Unit 42 uncovers a "double agent" flaw in Google Cloud's Vertex AI, demonstrating how overprivileged AI agents can compromise cloud environments.

The post Double Agents: Exposing Security Blind Spots in GCP Vertex AI appeared first on Unit 42.

A significant proportion of cyberincidents are linked to supply chain attacks, and this proportion is constantly growing. Over the past year, we have seen a wide variety of methods used in such attacks, ranging from creation of malicious but seemingly legitimate open-source libraries or delayed attacks in such seemingly legitimate libraries, to the simplest yet most effective method: compromising the accounts of popular library owners to subsequently release malicious versions of their libraries. Such libraries are used by developers everywhere and are included in many solutions and services. The consequences of an attack can vary widely, ranging from delivering malware to a developer’s device to compromising an entire infrastructure if the malicious library has made its way into the code of a service or product.

This is exactly what happened in March 2026, when attackers injected malicious code into the popular Python library LiteLLM, which serves as a multifunctional gateway for a large set of AI agents. The attackers released two trojanized versions of LiteLLM that delivered malicious scripts to the victim’s system. Both versions made their way into the PyPI repository for Python. A technical analysis revealed that the attackers’ primary targets were servers storing confidential data related to AWS, Kubernetes, NPM, etc., as well as various databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, etc.). In the latter case, the attackers were primarily interested in database configurations. In addition, the malware’s logic included functionality for stealing confidential data from crypto wallets and techniques for establishing a foothold in the Kubernetes cluster.

Repository compromise

The compromise affected the package distribution channel via PyPI: on March 24, 2026, malicious LiteLLM versions litellm==1.82.7 and litellm==1.82.8 were uploaded to the registry. It was specifically the package’s distribution contents that were compromised: in version 1.82.7, the malicious code was embedded in proxy_server.py, and in 1.82.8, the file litellm_init.pth was added.

Technical analysis

Both versions of the library contained the same malicious code, but its execution was implemented differently. In version 1.82.7, it was executed only when the proxy functionality was imported, while in 1.82.8, a .pth file was added that was able to execute the code every time the interpreter started.

Example of the malicious code in proxy_server.py

The malicious code in the proxy_server.py and litellm_init.pth files contained Python code encoded in Base64. After execution, the infected script saved this code alongside itself as a p.py file and immediately executed it.

The p.py script launched the main payload – another script, also encoded in Base64 – without saving it to disk. At the same time, it wrote the output of this payload to a file in the directory from which it was launched. Before being written, the output was encrypted using the AES-256-CBC algorithm with a random key generated in the code, which was saved to the session.key file. The key file was also encrypted – using a pre-initialized public RSA key.

The encrypted key and the output were combined into a tpcp.tar.gz archive and sent to the attackers’ remote server.

What exactly happened within the malicious payload whose output was sent to the C2 server? After it was launched, a recursive scan of the working directories on the victim’s system (/root, /app/, /var/www, etc.) began. In each directory, the script scanned the contents of files, which it output to the stdout buffer, from where it was then saved to the aforementioned file as the result. Next, the script collected system information and also saved it to the file. After that, it proceeded to search for sensitive data. It was interested in the following data located on servers and within the infrastructures of various services:

• SSH keys
• GIT accounts
• .env files
• AWS, Kubernetes, email service, database, and WireGuard configurations
• files related to Helm, Terraform, and CI
• TLS keys and certificates

A notable feature of this malware is that it does not limit itself to stealing files and configurations from the disk but also attempts to extract runtime secrets from the cloud infrastructure.

The code above uses the addresses 169.254.169.254 and 169.254.170.2. The first corresponds to the AWS Instance Metadata Service (IMDS), through which an EC2 instance (a virtual server in AWS, a machine running in the cloud) can retrieve metadata and temporary IAM role credentials (an AWS account with a set of permissions that a service or application can use to obtain temporary credentials for calls to the AWS API). The second is used in Amazon ECS to issue temporary credentials to a container during execution. Thus, the malicious script targets not only static secrets but also those issued by the cloud that can grant direct access to AWS resources at the time of infection.

Additionally, the script searches for crypto wallet configurations, as well as webhooks associated with Slack and Discord messengers. The latter indicates that the attackers are interested not only in infrastructure secrets and accounts, but also in communication channels within the development team.

In the next stage, the malware moves from data collection to establishing a foothold in the Kubernetes cluster infrastructure: if it has sufficient access, it configures a privileged pod (the smallest execution unit in Kubernetes, containing one or more containers) by enabling the securityContext.privileged=true option and mounts the node’s root filesystem via hostPath. This allows it to escape the container and perform actions at the node level.

Next, the malware executes another stage of infection: it saves a Base64-encoded script disguised as a legitimate system component to the Kubernetes node’s disk at the path /root/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py, and registers it via systemd. After launching, the script waits for an initial delay of 300 seconds, then begins periodically contacting the C2 node checkmarx[.]zone/raw, retrieving a link to the next payload from there. If the received value differs from the state previously saved in /tmp/.pg_state, the script downloads a new file to /tmp/pglog, makes it executable, and runs it in the background. At this stage, the attackers gain a foothold in the system and are capable of regularly delivering updated payloads without the need for re-injection. Since the malicious payload is written not to the container’s temporary file directory but directly to the Kubernetes cluster node, the attackers will retain access to the infrastructure even after the container has terminated.

A similar scenario is used for local persistence: in the absence of Kubernetes, the sysmon.py script is deployed in the user’s directory at ~/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py and is also registered as a service via systemd.

OpenVSX version of the malware

While analyzing files communicating with the C2 server, we discovered malicious versions of two common Checkmarx software extensions: ast-results 2.53.0 and cx-dev-assist 1.7.0. Checkmarx is used for application security assessment. These trojanized extensions contained malicious code that delivered the NodeJS version of the malware described above.

This version is downloaded from checkmarx[.]zone/static/checkmarx-util-1.0.4.tgz using NodeJS package installation utilities and is named checkmarx-util. Its key difference from the Python version is that it does not attempt to elevate privileges to the Kubernetes node level and does not create a privileged pod for persistence. Instead, it implements local persistence within the current environment. This means that the NodeJS variant persists only where it is already running.

Additionally, the list of folders to search for and steal secrets from is significantly smaller in this version than in the Python variant.

Checkmarx extensions are used to scan code and infrastructure configurations, so their compromise is quite dangerous: an attacker gains access not only to project files but also to a significant portion of the development environment, tokens, and local configurations.

Victimology

While assessing the attack’s impact, we saw victims all over the world. Most infection attempts occurred in Russia, China, Brazil, the Netherlands, and UAE.

Conclusion

As the technical analysis shows, the malicious scripts found in the LiteLLM versions are dangerous not only because they steal files containing sensitive data, but also because they target multiple critical infrastructure components simultaneously: the local system, cloud runtime secrets, the Kubernetes cluster, and even cryptographic keys. Such a broad scope of data collection allows an attacker to quickly move from compromising a single system and Python environment to seizing service accounts, secrets, and entire infrastructures.

Prevention and protection

To protect against infections of this kind, we recommend using a specialized solution for monitoring open-source components. Kaspersky provides real-time data feeds on compromised packages and libraries, which can be used to secure the supply chain and protect development projects from such threats.

Home security solutions, such as Kaspersky Premium, help ensure the security of personal devices by providing multi-layered protection that prevents and neutralizes infection threats. Additionally, our solution can restore the device’s functionality in the event of a malware infection.

To protect corporate devices, we recommend using a complex solution such as Kaspersky NEXT, which allows you to build a flexible and effective security system. The products in this line provide threat visibility and real-time protection, as well as EDR and XDR capabilities for threat investigation and response.

At the time of writing, the compromised versions of LiteLLM had already been removed from PyPI and OpenVSX. If you have used them, and as a proactive response to the threat, we recommend taking the following measures on your systems and infrastructure:

• Perform a full system scan using a reliable security solution.
• Rotate all potentially compromised credentials: API keys, environment variables, SSH keys, Kubernetes service account tokens, and other secrets.
• Check hosts and clusters for signs of compromise: the presence of ~/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py files and suspicious pods in Kubernetes.
• Clear the cache and conduct an inventory of PyPI modules: check for malicious ones and roll back to clean versions.
• Check for indicators of compromise (files on the system or network signs).

Indicators of Compromise:

URLs
models[.]litellm[.]cloud
checkmarx[.]zone

Infected packages
85ED77A21B88CAE721F369FA6B7BBBA3
2E3A4412A7A487B32C5715167C755D08
0FCCC8E3A03896F45726203074AE225D

Scripts
F5560871F6002982A6A2CC0B3EE739F7
CDE4951BEE7E28AC8A29D33D34A41AE5
05BACBE163EF0393C2416CBD05E45E74

Unit 42 research reveals AI judges are vulnerable to stealthy prompt injection. Benign formatting symbols can bypass security controls.

The post Auditing the Gatekeepers: Fuzzing "AI Judges" to Bypass Security Controls appeared first on Unit 42.

Uncover real-world indirect prompt injection attacks and learn how adversaries weaponize hidden web content to exploit LLMs for high-impact fraud.

The post Fooling AI Agents: Web-Based Indirect Prompt Injection Observed in the Wild appeared first on Unit 42.

We discuss a novel AI-augmented attack method where malicious webpages use LLM services to generate dynamic code in real-time within a browser.

The post The Next Frontier of Runtime Assembly Attacks: Leveraging LLMs to Generate Phishing JavaScript in Real Time appeared first on Unit 42.

Model Context Protocol connects LLM apps to external data sources or tools. We examine its security implications through various attack vectors.

The post New Prompt Injection Attack Vectors Through MCP Sampling appeared first on Unit 42.

The line between research tool and threat creation engine is thin. We examine the capabilities of WormGPT 4 and KawaiiGPT, two malicious LLMs.

The post The Dual-Use Dilemma of AI: Malicious LLMs appeared first on Unit 42.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a proposed open standard that provides a two-way connection for AI-LLM applications to interact directly with external data sources. It is developed by Anthropic and aims to simplify AI integrations by reducing the need for custom code for each new system.

The post Model Context Protocol (MCP) appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..