Blog
/
/
March 14, 2021

Botnet and Remote Desktop Protocol Attacks

Understand the connection between botnet malware and RDP attacks, and how to safeguard your network from potential threats.
Written by
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
14
Mar 2021

What is Remote Desktop Protocol?

With the rise of the dynamic workforce, IT teams have been forced to rely on remote access more than ever before. There are now almost five million Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) servers exposed to the Internet – around two million more than before the pandemic. Remote desktops are an essential feature for the majority of companies and yet are often exploited by cyber-criminals. Events such as the Florida water plant incident, where an attacker attempted to manipulate the chemical concentration in the water supply of a whole city, show how fatal the consequences of such a cyber-threat can be.

Last month, Darktrace detected a server-side attack at a technology company in the APAC region. The hackers brute-forced an RDP server and attempted to spread throughout the organization. The early detection of this breach was crucial in stopping the cyber-criminals before they could create a botnet and use it to cause serious damage, potentially launching a ransomware or distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack.

How to make a botnet

All it takes is one vulnerable RDP server for a threat actor to gain an initial foothold into an organization and spread laterally to build their botnet army. A bot is simply an infected device which can be controlled by a malicious third party; once a network of these hosts has been accumulated, a hacker can perform a range of actions, including:

  • Exfiltration of user credentials and payment data
  • Uploading Trojan malware to the server, which opens a backdoor to the system while masquerading as legitimate software
  • Deploying ransomware, as seen last year in a Dharma attack
  • Renting out access to the company’s infrastructure to other threat actors
  • Mining cryptocurrency with the CPUs of zombie devices

In fact, there is little an attacker can’t do once they have gained remote access to these devices. ‍Botnet malware tends to contain self-updating functions that allow the owner to add or remove functionality. And because the attackers are using legitimate administrative RDP credentials, it is extremely difficult for traditional security tools to detect this malicious activity until it is far too late.

DDoS for hire: A cyber-criminal enterprise

The commerce of cyber-crime has boomed in recent years, further complicating matters. There are now subscription-based and rental models easily available on the Dark Web for a range of illegal activities from Ransomware-as-a-Service to private data auctions. As a result, it is becoming increasingly common for attackers to infect servers and sell the use of these bots online. DDoS for hire services offer access to botnets for as little as $20 per hour. In fact, some of these kits are even legal and market themselves as ‘IP stressers’ or ‘booters’, which can be used legitimately to test the resilience of a website, but are often exploited and used to take down sites and networks.

These developments have sparked a new wave in DDoS and botnet malware attacks as hackers capitalize on the added financial incentive to create botnets and rent them on the Dark Web. ‘Botnet builder’ tools help low-skilled attackers create bots by providing botnet malware and assisting with the initial infection. Sophisticated RDP attacks have blossomed as a result of these kits, which lower the skill-threshold of such attacks and thus make them widely accessible.

Automated RDP attack under the microscope

Figure 1: A timeline of the attack

An Internet-facing RDP server hosting an online games site was recently compromised at a technology company with around 500 devices on its network. The attacker used brute force to glean the correct password and gain remote access to the desktop. It was at this point that Darktrace’s Cyber AI began to detect unusual administrative RDP connections from rare external locations.

In many ways, this incident is typical of an RDP compromise. Credential brute-forcing is a common initial vector for server-side attacks, alongside credential stuffing and exploiting vulnerabilities. In this case, the threat actor likely planned to utilize the exposed server as a pivot point to infect other internal and external devices, possibly to create a botnet-for-hire or exfiltrate sensitive information.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst highlights unusual connections to internal IP addresses from an example breach device

Approximately 14 hours after this compromise, the attacker downloaded multiple files from rare domains. Over the next 18 hours the attacker made over 4.4 million internal and external connection attempts on port 445 using the vulnerable SMBv1 protocol. The majority of these attempts were SMB Session Failures using the credential “administrator”. The server engaged in successful SMB sessions with over 270 internal and external IP addresses.

Outgoing connections to rare but benign locations on ports normally used internally may not match a specific attack profile, meaning they are missed by signature-based security tools. However, despite a lack of threat intelligence on the multiple file download sources, Darktrace’s AI was able to observe the highly unusual nature of the activity, leading to high-confidence detections.

Figure 3: An example graph from Darktrace’s Threat Visualizer showing a large increase in the number of anomalous external connections

Botnet malware and automation

The speed of movement and lack of data exfiltration in this incident suggest that the attack was automated, likely with the help of botnet builder tools. The use of automation to accelerate and mask the breach could have led to severe consequences had Darktrace not alerted the security team in the initial stages.

Attacks against Internet-facing RDP servers remain one of the most common initial infection vectors. With the rise of automated scanning services and botnet malware tools, the ease of compromise has shot up. It is only matter of time before exposed servers are exploited. Furthermore, heavily automated attacks are constantly running and can spread rapidly across the organization. In such cases, it is vital for security teams to be made aware of malicious activity on devices as quickly as possible.

Darktrace’s AI not only pinpointed by itself that the infection had originated on a specific RDP server, it also detected every step of the attack in real time, despite a lack of clear existing signatures. Self-learning AI detects anomalous activity for users and devices across the digital environment and is therefore crucial in shutting down threats at machine speed. Moreover, the visibility provided by Darktrace DETECT greatly reduces the attack surface and identifies badly maintained shadow IT, providing an extra layer of security over the digital business.

Thanks to Darktrace analyst Tom McHale for his insights on the above threat find.

Darktrace model detections:

  • Compliance / Internet Facing RDP Server
  • Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Incoming RAR File
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
  • Experimental / Rare Endpoint with Young Certificate
  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Device / New User Agent and New IP
  • Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream
  • Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches
  • Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches
  • Compliance / External Windows Communications
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Device / Increased External Connectivity
  • Device / SMB Session Bruteforce
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual Activity from New Device
  • Device / Network Scan - Low Anomaly Score
  • Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints
  • Device / High Volume of Connections from Guest or New Device
  • Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
  • Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
  • Device / Suspicious Domain
  • Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

‍

Written by
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Network
•
March 26, 2026
Gernice Lee
Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Darktrace Recognized as the Only Visionary in the 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for CPS Protection Platforms
Mar 20, 2026
2
What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders
Feb 26, 2026
3
State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents
Mar 26, 2026
4
Beyond MFA: Detecting Adversary-in-the-Middle Attacks and Phishing with Darktrace
Dec 15, 2025
5
Darktrace Unites Human Behavior and Threat Detection Across Email, Slack, Teams, and Zoom
Mar 24, 2026

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Default blog imageDefault blog image

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
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

Continue reading
About the author
Gernice Lee
Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

Blog

/

AI

/

March 27, 2026

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

Default blog imageDefault blog image

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]

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI