June 19, 2023

Darktrace Detection of 3CX Supply Chain Attack

Explore how the 3CX supply chain compromise was uncovered, revealing key insights into the detection of sophisticated cyber threats.

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Jun 2023

Ever since the discovery of the SolarWinds hack that affected tens of thousands of organizations around the world in 2020, supply chain compromises have remained at the forefront of the minds of security teams and continue to pose a significant threat to their business operations.

Supply chain compromises can have far-reaching implications, from disrupting an organization’s daily operations, incurring huge financial and reputational damage, to affecting the critical infrastructure of entire countries. As such, it is essential for organizations to have effective security measures in place able to identify and halt these attacks at the earliest possible stage.

In March 2023 the 3CX Desktop application became the latest victim of a supply chain compromise dubbed as the “SmoothOperator” by SentinelOne. This application is used by over 600,000 companies worldwide and the customer list contains high-profile customers across a variety of industries [2]. The 3CX Desktop application is a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communication software for enterprises that allows for chats, video calls, and voice calls. [3] The 3CX installers for both Windows and macOS systems were affected by information stealing malware. Researchers were able to discern that threat actors also known as UNC 4736 related to financially motivated North Korean operators also known as AppleJeus were responsible for the supply chain compromise. Researchers have also linked it to another supply chain compromise that occurred prior on the Trading Technologies X_TRADER platform, making this the first known cascading software supply chain compromise used to distribute malware on a wide scale and still be able to align operator interests. [3] Customer reports following the compromise began to surface about the 3CX software being picked up as malicious by several cybersecurity vendors such as CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, and Palo Alto Networks. [6]

By leveraging integrations with other security vendors like CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, Darktrace DETECT™ was able to identify activity from the “SmoothOperator” across the customer base at multiple stages of the kill chain in March 2023. Darktrace RESPOND™ was then able to autonomously intervene against these emerging threats, preventing significant disruption to customer networks.

Background on the first known cascading supply chain attack

Initial Access

In April 2023, security researchers identified the initial target in this story was not the 3CX desktop application, rather, it was another software application called X_TRADER by Trading Technologies. [3] Trading Technologies is a provider that offers high-performance financial trading packages, allowing financial professionals to analyze and trade assets within the stock market more efficiently. Unfortunately, a compromise already existed in the supply chain for this organization. The X_TRADER installer, which had been retired in 2020, still had its code signing certificate set to expire in October 2022. This code signing certificate was exploited by attackers to digitally sign the malicious software. [3] It also inopportunely led to 3CX when an employee unknowingly downloaded a trojanized installer for the X_TRADER software from Trading Technologies prior to the certificate’s expiration. [4]. This compromise of 3CX via X_TRADER was the first case of a cascading supply chain attack reported on within the wider threat landscape.

Persistence and Privilege Escalation

Following these findings, researchers were able to identify the likely kill chain that occurred on Windows systems, beginning with the download of the 3CX DesktopApp installer that executed an executable (.exe) file before dropping two trojanized Data Link Libraries (DLLs) alongside a benign executable that was used to sideload malicious DLLs. These DLLs contained and used SIGFLIP and DAVESHELL; both publicly available projects. [3] In this case, the DLLs were used to decrypt using an RC4 key and load a payload into the memory of a compromised system. [3] SIGFLIP and DAVESHELL also extract and decrypt the modular backdoor named VEILEDSIGNAL, which also contains a command and control (C2) configuration. This malware allowed the North Korean threat operators to gain administrative control to the 3CX employee’s device. [3] This was followed by access to the employee’s corporate credentials, ultimately leading to access to 3CX systems. [4]

Lateral Movement and C2 activity

Security researchers were also able to identify other malware families that were mainly utilized in the supply chain attack to move laterally within the 3CX environment, and allow for C2 communication [3], these malware families are detailed below:

TaxHaul: when executed it decrypts shellcode payload, observed by Mandiant to persist via DLL search-order hijacking.
Coldcat: complex downloader, which also beacons to a C2 infrastructure.
PoolRat: collects system information and executes commands. This is the malware that was found to affect macOS systems.
IconicStealer: served as a third stage payload on 3CX systems to steal data or information.

Furthermore, it was also reported early on by Kaspersky that a backdoor named Gopuram, routinely used by the North Korean threat actors Lazarus and typically used against cryptocurrency companies, was also used as a second stage payload on a limited number of 3CX’s customers compromised systems. [5]

3CX detections observed by Darktrace

CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, two of the major detection platforms with which Darktrace partners through security integrations, initially revealed that their platforms had identified the campaign appeared to be targeting 3CXDesktopApp customers in March 2023.

At this time, Darktrace was also observing this activity and alerting customers to unusual behavior on their networks. [1][7] Darktrace DETECT identified activity related to the supply chain compromise primarily through host-level alerts associated with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne integrations, as well as model breaches related to lateral movement and C2 activity.

Some of the activity related to the 3CX supply chain compromise that Darktrace detected was observed solely via integration models picking up executable and Microsoft Software Installer (msi) file downloads for the 3CXDesktopApp, suggesting the compromise likely was stopped at the endpoint device.

Figure 1: CrowdStrike integration model breach identifying 3CXDesktopApp[.]exe as possible malware on March 30, 2023.

Figure 2: The above figure, showcases the Model Breach Event Log for the CrowdStrike integration model breach shown in Figure 1.

In another case highlighted in Figure 3 and 4, security platforms were associating 3CX as malicious. The device in these figures was observed downloading a 3CXDesktopApp executable followed by an msi file about an hour later. This pattern of activity correlates with the compromise process that had been on reported, where the “SmoothOperator” malware that affected 3CX systems was able to persist through DLL side-loading of malicious DLL files delivered with benign executable files, making it difficult for traditional security tools to detect. [2][3][7]

The activity in this case was detected by the DETECT integration model, ‘High Severity Integration Malware Detection’ and was later blocked by the Darktrace RESPOND/Network model, ‘Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block’ which applied the “Enforce Pattern of Life” action to intercept the malicious download that was taking place. Darktrace RESPOND uses AI to learn every devices normal pattern of life and act autonomously to enforce its normal activity. In this event, RESPOND would not only intercept the malicious download that was taking place on the device, but also not allow the device to significantly deviate from its normal pattern of activity.

Figure 3: The Model Breach Event log for the device displays the moment in which the SentinelOne integration model breached for the 3CXDesktopApp.exe file followed subsequently by the RESPOND model, ‘Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block’, on March 29, 2023.

Figure 4: Another ‘High Severity Integration Malware Detection’ breached for the same device in Figure 3 approximately one hour later because of the msi file, 3CXDesktopApp-18.12.416.msi, which also led to the Darktrace RESPOND model, ‘Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block’, on March 29, 2023.

In a separate case, Darktrace also detected a device performing unusual SMB drive writes for the file ‘3CXDesktopApp-18.10.461.msi’. This breached the DETECT model ‘SMB Drive Write’. This model detects when a device starts writing files to another internal device it does not usually communicate with via the SMB protocol using the admin$ or drive shares.

Figure 5: This Model Breach Event log highlights the moment Darktrace captured the msi application file for the 3CXDesktopApp being transferred internally on this customer’s network, this was picked up as new activity for the device on March 28, 2023.

In a couple of other cases observed by Darktrace, connections detected were made from affected devices to 3CX compromise related endpoints. In Figure 6, the device in question was detected connecting to the endpoint, journalide[.]org. This breached the model, ‘Suspicious Self-Signed SSL’, which looks for connections being made to an endpoint with a self-signed SSL certificate which is designed to look legitimate, as self-signed certificates are often used in malware communication.

Figure 6: Model Breach Event log for connections to the 3CX C2 related endpoint, journalide[.]org, these connections breached the model Suspicious Self-Signed SSL on April 24, 2023.

On another Darktrace customer environment, a 3CX C2 endpoint, pbxphonenetwork[.]com, had already been added to the Watched Domains list around the time reports of the 3CX application software being malicious had been reported. The Watched Domains list allows Darktrace to detect if any device on the network makes connections to these domains with more scrutiny and breach a model for further visibility of threats on the network. Activity in this case was detected and subsequently blocked by a Darktrace RESPOND action, “Block connections to 89.45.67[.]160 port 443 and pbxphonenetwork[.]com on port 443”, blocking the device from connecting to this 3CX C2 endpoints on the spot (see Figure 7). This activity subsequently breached the RESPOND model, ‘Antigena Watched Domain Block’.

Figure 7: History log of the Darktrace RESPOND action applied to the device breaching the Darktrace RESPOND model, Antigena Watched Domain Block and applying the action, “Block connections to 89.45.67[.]160 port 443 and pbxphonenetwork[.]com on port 443” on March 31, 2023.

Darktrace Coverage

Utilizing integrations with Darktrace such as those with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, Darktrace was able to detect and respond to activity identified as malicious 3CX activity by CrowdStrike and SentinelOne as seen in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. This activity breached the following Darktrace DETECT models:

Integration / CrowdStrike Alert
Security Integration / High Severity Integration Malware Detection

Darktrace was also able to identify lateral movement activity such as in the case illustrated in Figure 5.

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Lastly, C2 beaconing activity from malicious endpoints associated with the 3CX compromise was also detected as seen in Figure 6, this activity breached the following Darktrace DETECT model:

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

For customers with Darktrace RESPOND configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace RESPOND models also breached to activity related to the 3CX supply chain compromise as seen in Figures 3, 4, and 7. Below are the models that breached and the following autonomous actions that were applied:

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block, “Enforce pattern of life”
Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Watched Domain Block, “Block connections to 89.45.67[.]160 port 443 and pbxphonenetwork[.]com on port 443”

Conclusion

The first known cascading supply chain compromise occurred inopportunely for 3CX but conveniently for UNC 4736 North Korean threat actors. This “SmoothOperator” compromise was detected by endpoint security platforms such as CrowdStrike who was at the cusp of this discovery when it became one of the first platforms to report on malicious activity related to the 3CX DesktopApp supply chain compromise.

Although still novel at the time and largely without reported indicators of compromise, Darktrace was able to capture and identify activity related to the 3CX compromise across its customer base, as well as respond autonomously to contain it. Darktrace was able to amplify security integrations with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne, and via anomaly-based model breaches, contribute unique insights by highlighting activity in varied parts of the 3CX supply chain compromise kill chain. The “SmoothOperator” supply chain attack proves that the Darktrace suite of products, including DETECT and RESPOND, can not only act autonomously to identify and respond to novel threats, but also work with security integrations to further amplify intervention and prevent cyber disruption on customer networks.

Credit to Nahisha Nobregas, SOC Analyst and Trent Kessler, SOC Analyst.

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Framework

Resource Development

T1588 Obtain Capabilities
T1588.004 Digital Certificates
T1608 Stage Capabilities
T1608.003 Install Digital Certificate

Initial Access

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1195 Supply Chain Compromise
T1195.002 Compromise Software Supply Chain

Persistence

T1574 Hijack Execution Flow
T1574.002 DLL Side-Loading

Privilege Escalation

T1055 Process Injection
T1574 Hijack Execution Flow
T1574.002 DLL Side-Loading

Command and Control

T1071 Application Layer Protocol
T1071.001 Web Protocols
T1071.004 DNS
T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer
T1573 Encrypted Channel

List of IOCs

C2 Hostnames

journalide[.]org
pbxphonenetwork[.]com

Likely C2 IP address

89.45.67[.]160

References

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

•

March 26, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

In today's threat landscape, blending in to normal activity is the key to success for attackers and the growing reliance on residential proxies shows a significant shift in how threat actors are attempting to bypass IP detection tools.

The increasing dependency on residential proxies has exposed how prevalent proxy services are and how reliant a diverse range of threat actors are on them. From cybercriminal groups to state‑sponsored actors, the need to bypass IP detection tools is fundamental to the success of these groups. One malware that has quietly become notorious for its ability to avoid anomaly detection is GhostSocks, a malware that turns compromised devices into residential proxies.

What is GhostSocks?

Originally marketed on the Russian underground forum xss[.]is as a Malware‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS), GhostSocks enables threat actors to turn compromised devices into residential proxies, leveraging the victim's internet bandwidth to route malicious traffic through it.

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

The malware offers the threat actor a “clean” IP address, making it look like it is coming from a household user. This enables the bypassing of geographic restrictions and IP detection tools, a perfect tool for avoiding anomaly detection. It wasn’t until 2024, when a partnership was announced with the infamous information stealer Lumma Stealer, that GhostSocks surged into widespread adoption and alluded to who may be the author of the proxy malware.

Written in GoLang, GhostSocks utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy protocol, creating a SOCKS5 connection on infected devices. It uses a relay‑based C2 implementation, where an intermediary server sits in between the real command-and-control (C2) server and the infected device.

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

To further increase evasion, the Ghostsocks malware wraps its SOCKS5 tunnels in TLS encryption, allowing its malicious traffic to blend into normal network traffic.

Early variants of GhostSocks do not implement a persistence mechanism; however, later versions achieve persistence via registry run keys, ensuring sustained proxy operational time [1].

While proxying is its primary purpose, GhostSocks also incorporates backdoor functionality, enabling malicious actors to run arbitrary commands and download and deploy additional malicious payloads. This was evident with the well‑known ransomware group Black Basta, which reportedly used GhostSocks as a way of maintaining long‑term access to victims’ networks [1].

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Darktrace observed a steady increase in GhostSocks activity across its customer base from late 2025, with its Threat Research team identifying multiple incidents involving the malware. In one notable case from December 2025, Darktrace detected GhostSocks operating alongside Lumma Stealer, reinforcing that the partnership between Lumma and GhostSocks remains active despite recent attempts to disrupt Lumma’s infrastructure.

Darktrace’s first detection of GhostSocks‑related activity came when a device on the network of a customer in the education sector began making connections to an endpoint with a suspicious self‑signed certificate that had never been seen on the network before.

The endpoint in question, 159.89.46[.]92 with the hostname retreaw[.]click, has been flagged by multiple open‑source intelligence (OSINT) sources as being associated with Lumma Stealer’s C2 infrastructure [2], indicating its likely role in the delivery of malicious payloads.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious SSL connections to retreaw[.]click, indicating an attempted link to Lumma C2 infrastructure.

Less than two minutes later, Darktrace observed the same device downloading the executable (.exe) file “Renewable.exe” from the IP 86.54.24[.]29, which Darktrace recognized as 100% rare for this network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device downloading the unusual executable file “Renewable.exe”.

Both the file MD5 hash and the executable itself have been identified by multiple OSINT vendors as being associated with the GhostSocks malware [3], with the executable likely the backdoor component of the GhostSocks malware, facilitating the distribution of additional malicious payloads [4].

Following this detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability recommended a blocking action for the device in an early attempt to stop the malicious file download. In this instance, Darktrace was configured in Human Confirmation Mode, meaning the customer’s security team was required to manually apply any mitigative response actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled at the time of the attack, the connections to 86.54.24[.]29 would have been blocked, rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its C2 infrastructure and halting any further malicious communication.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability suggesting blocking the suspicious connections to the unusual endpoint from which the malicious executable was downloaded.

As the attack was able to progress, two days later the device was detected downloading additional payloads from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site (23.106.58[.]48), including “Setup.exe”, “,.exe”, and “/vp6c63yoz.exe”.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a malicious payload being downloaded from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site.

Once again, Darktrace recognized the anomalous nature of these downloads and suggested that a “group pattern of life” be enforced on the offending device in an attempt to contain the activity. By enforcing a pattern of life on a device, Darktrace restricts its activity to connections and behaviors similar to those performed by peer devices within the same group, while still allowing it to carry out its expected activity, effectively preventing deviations indicative of compromise while minimizing disruption. As mentioned earlier, these mitigative actions required manual implementation, so the activity was able to continue. Darktrace proceeded to suggest further actions to contain subsequent malicious downloads, including an attempt to block all outbound traffic to stop the attack from progressing.

Figure 5: An overview of download activity and the Autonomous Response actions recommended by Darktrace to block the downloads.

Around the same time, a third executable download was detected, this time from the hostname hxxp[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront.net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe, along with the file “udppump.exe”.While GhostSocks may have been present only to facilitate the delivery of additional payloads, there is no indication that these CloudFront endpoints or files are functionally linked to GhostSocks. Rather, the evidence points to broader malicious file‑download activity.

Shortly after the multiple executable files had been downloaded, Darktrace observed the device initiating a series of repeated successful connections to several rare external endpoints, behavior consistent with early-stage C2 beaconing activity.

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of additional malicious file downloads from malicious CloudFront endpoints.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst carried out its own autonomous investigation, piecing together seemingly separate events into one wider incident encompassing the first suspicious downloads beginning on December 4, the unusual connectivity to many suspicious IPs that followed, and the successful beaconing activity observed two days later. By analyzing these events in real-time and viewing them as part of the bigger picture, Cyber AI Analyst was able to construct an in‑depth breakdown of the attack to aid the customer’s investigation and remediation efforts.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the sequence of events on the compromised device, highlighting its extensive connectivity to rare endpoints, the related malicious file‑download activity, and finally the emergence of C2 beaconing behavior.

Conclusion

The versatility offered by GhostSocks is far from new, but its ability to convert compromised devices into residential proxy nodes, while enabling long‑term, covert network access—illustrates how threat actors continue to maximise the value of their victims’ infrastructure. Its growing popularity, coupled with its ongoing partnership with Lumma, demonstrates that infrastructure takedowns alone are insufficient; as long as threat actors remain committed to maintaining anonymity and can rapidly rebuild their ecosystems, related malware activity is likely to persist in some form.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Gernice Lee (Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead – APJ)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References

1. https://bloo.io/research/malware/ghostsocks

2. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/retreaw.click/community

3. https://synthient.com/blog/ghostsocks-from-initial-access-to-residential-proxy

4. https://www.joesandbox.com/analysis/1810568/0/html

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/fab6525bf6e77249b74736cb74501a9491109dc7950688b3ae898354eb920413

Darktrace Model Detections

Real-time Detection Models

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Compromise / Possible Fast Flux C2 Activity

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Autonomous Response Models

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

Resource Development – T1588 - Malware

Initial Access - T1189 - Drive-by Compromise

Persistence – T1112 – Modify Registry

Command and Control – T1071 – Application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1095 – Non-application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1071 – Web Protocols

Command and Control – T1571 – Non-Standard Port

Command and Control – T1102 – One-Way Communication

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

86.54.24[.]29 - IP - Likely GhostSocks C2

http[://]86.54.24[.]29/Renewable[.]exe - Hostname - GhostSocks Distribution Endpoint

http[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront[.]net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe - CDN - Payload Distribution Endpoint

www.lbfs[.]site - Hostname - Likely C2 Endpoint

retreaw[.]click - Hostname - Lumma C2 Endpoint

alltipi[.]com - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

w2.bruggebogeyed[.]site - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

9b90c62299d4bed2e0752e2e1fc777ac50308534 - SHA1 file hash – Likely GhostSocks payload

3d9d7a7905e46a3e39a45405cb010c1baa735f9e - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

10f928e00a1ed0181992a1e4771673566a02f4e3 - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

About the author

Gernice Lee

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

Blog

AI

March 26, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

The findings in this blog are taken from Darktrace's annual State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2026.

AI is already embedded in day-to-day enterprise activity, with 78% of participants in one recent survey reporting that their organizations are using generative AI in at least one business function. Generative AI now acts as an always-on assistant, researcher, creator, and coach across an expanding array of departments and functions. Autonomous agents are performing multi-step operational workflows from end to end. AI features have been layered on top of every SaaS application. And vibe coding is making it possible for employees without deep technical expertise to build their own AI-powered automations.

According to Gartner, more than 80% of enterprises will have deployed GenAI models, applications, or APIs in production environments by the end of this year, up from less than 5% in 2023. Companies report a 130% increase in spending on AI over the same period, with 72% of business leaders using AI tools at least weekly. The outsized efficiency and productivity gains that were once a future vision are quickly becoming everyday reality.

AI is currently driving business growth and innovation, and organizations risk falling behind peers if they don’t keep up with the pace of adoption, but it is also quietly expanding the enterprise attack surface. The modern CISO is challenged to both enable innovation and protect the business from these emerging threats.

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

AI agents are playing growing roles in enterprise production environments. In many cases, these agents act with broad permissions across multiple software systems and platforms. This means they’re granted far-reaching access – to sensitive data, business-critical applications, tokens and APIs, and IT and security tools. With this access comes risk for security leaders – 92% are concerned about the use of AI agents across the workforce and their impact on security.

These agents must be governed as identities, with least-privilege access and ongoing monitoring. They can’t be thought of as invisible aspects of the application estate. Understanding how AI agents behave, and how to manage their permissions, control their behavior, and limit their data access will be a top security priority throughout 2026.

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

Prompts are how users – both human and agentic – interact with AI systems, and they’re where natural language gets translated into model behavior. Natural language is infinite in its potential combinations and permutations, making this aspect of the attack surface open-ended and far more complex than traditional CVEs. With carefully crafted prompts, bad actors may be able to coax models into disclosing sensitive data, bypassing guardrails, or initiating undesirable actions.

Among security leaders, the biggest worries about AI usage in their environments all involve ways that systems might be manipulated to bypass traditional controls.

61% are most concerned about the exposure of sensitive data
56% are most concerned about potential data security and policy violations
51% are most concerned about the misuse or abuse of AI tools

The more employees rely on AI in their day-to-day workflows, the more critical it becomes for security teams to understand how prompt behavior determines model behavior – and where that behavior could go wrong.

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

AI adoption opens new security risks that blur the boundaries between traditional security disciplines. A single malicious interaction with an AI model could involve identity misuse, sensitive data exposure, application logic abuse, and supply chain risk – all within a single workflow. Protecting this dynamic and rapidly evolving attack surface requires an approach that spans identity security, cloud security, application security, data security, software development security, and more.

The task for security leaders is to implement the tools, policies, and frameworks to mitigate these novel, expansive, and cross-disciplinary risks.

However, within most enterprises, AI policy creation remains in its infancy. Just 37% of security leaders report that their organization has a formal AI policy, representing a small but worrisome decrease from last year. Conversations about AI abound: in 52% of organizations, there’s discussion about an AI policy. Still, talk is cheap, and leaders will need to take action if they’re to successfully enable secure AI innovation.

To govern and protect their AI systems, organizations must take a multi-pronged approach. This requires building out policies, but it also demands that they are able to:

Monitor the prompts driving GenAI assistants and agents in real time. Organizations must be able to inspect prompts, sessions, and responses across enterprise GenAI tools, low- and high-code environments, and SaaS and SASE so that they can detect clever conversational prompt attacks and malicious chaining.
Secure all business AI agent identities. Security teams need to identify all the agents acting within their environment and supply chain, map their connections and interactions via MCP and services like Amazon S3, and audit their behavior across the cloud, SaaS environments, and on the network and endpoint devices.
Maintain centralized, comprehensive visibility. Understanding intent, assessing risks, and enforcing policies all require that security teams have a single view that spans AI interactions across the entire business.
Discover and control shadow AI. Teams need to be able to identify unsanctioned AI activities, distinguish the misuse of legitimate tools from their appropriate use, and apply policies to protect data, while guiding users towards approved solutions.

Scaling AI safely and responsibly

The approach that most cybersecurity vendors have taken – using historical patterns to predict future threats – doesn’t work well for AI systems. Because AI changes its behavior in response to the information it encounters while taking action, previous patterns don’t indicate what it will do next. Looking at past attacks can’t tell you how complex models will behave in your individual business.

Securing AI requires interpreting ambiguous interactions, uncovering subtleties that reveal intent within extended conversations, understanding how access accumulates over time, and recognizing when behavior – both human and machine – begins to drift towards areas of risk. To do this, you need to understand what “normal” looks like in each unique organization: how users, systems, applications, and AI agents behave, how they communicate, and how data flows between them.

Darktrace has spent more than a decade designing AI-powered solutions that can understand and adapt to evolving behavior in complex environments. This technology learns directly from the environment it protects, identifying malicious actions that deviate from normal operations, so that it can stop AI-related threats on the very first encounter.

As AI adoption reshapes enterprise operations, humans and machines will collaborate more and more often. This collaboration might dramatically expand the attack surface, but it also has the potential to be a force multiplier for defenders.

‍

Explore the full State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 report for deeper insights into how security leaders are responding to AI-driven risks.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Darktrace Detection of 3CX Supply Chain Attack

Darktrace Detection of 3CX Supply Chain Attack

Background on the first known cascading supply chain attack

Initial Access

Persistence and Privilege Escalation

Lateral Movement and C2 activity

3CX detections observed by Darktrace

Darktrace Coverage

Conclusion

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Framework

List of IOCs

References

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

When Reality Diverges from the Playbook: Darktrace Identifies Encryption in a World Leaks Ransomware Attack

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

What is GhostSocks?

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Detections

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

AI

March 26, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

Scaling AI safely and responsibly