Blog

June 23, 2023

How Darktrace Quickly Foiled An Information Stealer

Jun 2023

Discover how Darktrace thwarted the CryptBot malware in just 2 seconds. Learn about this fast-moving threat and the defense strategies employed.

The recent trend of threat actors using information stealer malware, designed to gather and exfiltrate confidential data, shows no sign of slowing. With new or updated info-stealer strains appearing in the wild on a regular basis, it came as no surprise to see a surge in yet another prolific variant in late 2022, CryptBot.

What is CryptBot?

CryptBot is a Windows-based trojan malware that was first discovered in the wild in December 2019. It belongs to the prolific category of information stealers whose primary objective, as the name suggests, is to gather information from infected devices and send it to the threat actor.

ZeuS was reportedly the first info-stealer to be discovered, back in 2006. After its code was leaked, many other variants came to light and have been gaining popularity amongst cyber criminals [1] [2] [3]. Indeed, Inside the SOC has discussed multiple infections across its customer base associated with several types of stealers in the past months [4] [5] [6] [7].

The Darktrace Threat Research team investigated CryptBot infections on the digital environments of more than 40 different Darktrace customers between October 2022 and January 2023. Darktrace DETECT™ and its anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to successfully identify the unusual activity surrounding these info-stealer infections on customer networks. Meanwhile, Darktrace RESPOND™, when enabled in autonomous response mode, was able to quickly intervene and prevent the exfiltration of sensitive company data.

Why is info-stealer malware popular?

It comes as no surprise that info-stealers have “become one of the most discussed malware types on the cybercriminal underground in 2022”, according to Accenture’s Cyber Threat Intelligence team [10]. This is likely in part due to the fact that:

More sensitive data on devices

Due to the digitization of many aspects of our lives, such as banking and social interactions, a trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cost effective

Info-stealers provide a great return on investment (ROI) for threat actors looking to exfiltrate data without having to do the traditional internal reconnaissance and data transfer associated with data theft. Info-stealers are usually cheap to purchase and are available through Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) offerings, allowing less technical and resourceful threat actors in on the stealing action. This makes them a prevalent threat in the malware landscape.

How does CryptBot work?

The techniques employed by info-stealers to gather and exfiltrate data as well as the type of data targeted vary from malware to malware, but the data targeted typically includes login credentials for a variety of applications, financial information, cookies and global information about the infected computer [8]. Given its variety and sensitivity, threat actors can leverage the stolen data in several ways to make a profit. In the case of CryptBot, the data obtained is sold on forums or underground data marketplaces and can be later employed in higher profile attacks [9]. For example, stolen login information has previously been leveraged in credential-based attacks, which can successfully bypass authentication-based security measures, including multi-factor authentication (MFA).

CryptBot functionalities

Like many information stealers, CryptBot is designed to steal a variety of sensitive personal and financial information such as browser credentials, cookies and history information and social media accounts login information, as well as cryptocurrency wallets and stored credit card information [11]. General information (e.g., OS, installed applications) about the infected computer is also retrieved. Browsers targeted by CryptBot include Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. In early 2022, CryptBot’s code was revamped in order to streamline its data extraction capabilities and improve its overall efficiency, an update that coincided with a rise in the number of infections [11] [12].

Some of CryptBot's functionalities were removed and its exfiltration process was streamlined, which resulted in a leaner payload, around half its original size and a quicker infection process [11]. Some of the features removed included sandbox detection and evasion functionalities, the collection of desktop text files and screen captures, which were deemed unnecessary. At the same time, the code was improved in order to include new Chrome versions released after CryptBot’s first appearance in 2019. Finally, its exfiltration process was simplified: prior to its 2022 update, the malware saved stolen data in two separate folders before sending it to two separate command and control (C2) domains. Post update, the data is only saved in one location and sent to one C2 domain, which is hardcoded in the C2 transmission function of the code. This makes the infection process much more streamlined, taking only a few minutes from start to finish.

Aside from the update to its malware code, CryptBot regularly updates and refreshes its C2 domains and dropper websites, making it a highly fluctuating malware with constantly new indicators of compromise and distribution sites.

Even though CryptBot is less known than other info-stealers, it was reportedly infecting thousands of devices daily in the first months of 2020 [13] and its continued prevalence resulted in Google taking legal action against its distribution infrastructure at the end of April 2023 [14].

How is CryptBot obtained?

CryptBot is primarily distributed through malicious websites offering free and illegally modified software (i.e., cracked software) for common commercial programs (e.g., Microsoft Windows and Office, Adobe Photoshop, Google Chrome, Nitro PDF Pro) and video games. From these ‘malvertising’ pages, the user is redirected through multiple sites to the actual payload dropper page [15]. This distribution method has seen a gain in popularity amongst info-stealers in recent months and is also used by other malware families such as Raccoon Stealer and Vidar [16] [17].

A same network of cracked software websites can be used to download different malware strains, which can result in multiple simultaneous infections. Additionally, these networks often use search engine optimization (SEO) in order to make adverts for their malware distributing sites appear at the top of the Google search results page, thus increasing the chances of the malicious payloads being downloaded.

Furthermore, CryptBot leverages Pay-Per-Install (PPI) services such as 360Installer and PrivateLoader, a downloader malware family used to deliver payloads of multiple malware families operated by different threat actors [18] [19] [20]. The use of this distribution method for CryptBot payloads appears to have stemmed from its 2022 update. According to Google, 161 active domains were associated with 360Installer, of which 90 were associated with malware delivery activities and 29 with the delivery of CryptBot malware specifically. Google further identified hundreds of domains used by CryptBot as C2 sites, all of which appear to be hosted on the .top top-level domain [21].

This simple yet effective distribution tactic, combined with the MaaS model and the lucrative prospects of selling the stolen data resulted in numerous infections. Indeed, CryptBot was estimated to have infected over 670,000 computers in 2022 [14]. Even though the distribution method chosen means that most of the infected devices are likely to be personal computers, bring your own device (BYOD) policies and users’ tendency to reuse passwords means that corporate environments are also at risk.

CryptBot Attack Overview

In some cases observed by Darktrace, after connecting to malvertising websites, devices were seen making encrypted SSL connections to file hosting services such as MediaFire or Mega, while in others devices were observed connecting to an endpoint associated with a content delivery network. This is likely the location from where the malware payload was downloaded alongside cracked software, which is executed by the unsuspecting user. As the user expects to run an executable file to install their desired software, the malware installation often happens without the user noticing.

Some of the malvertising sites observed by Darktrace on customer deployments were crackful[.]com, modcrack[.]net, windows-7-activator[.]com and office-activator[.]com. However, in many cases detected by Darktrace, CryptBot was propagated via websites offering trojanized KMSPico software (e.g., official-kmspico[.]com, kmspicoofficial[.]com). KMSPico is a popular Microsoft Windows and Office product activator that emulates a Windows Key Management Services (KMS) server to activate licenses fraudulently.

Once it has been downloaded and executed, CryptBot will search the system for confidential information and create a folder with a seemingly randomly generated name, matching the regex [a-zA-Z]{10}, to store the gathered sensitive data, ready for exfiltration.

Figure 1: Packet capture (PCAP) of an HTTP POST request showing the file with the stolen data being sent over the connection.

This data is then sent to the C2 domain via HTTP POST requests on port 80 to the URI /gate.php. As previously stated, CryptBot C2 infrastructure is changed frequently and many of the domains seen by Darktrace had been registered within the previous 30 days. The domain names detected appeared to have been generated by an algorithm, following the regex patterns [a-z]{6}[0-9]{2,3}.top or [a-z]{6}[0-9]{2,3}.cfd. In several cases, the C2 domain had not been flagged as malicious by other security vendors or had just one detection. This is likely because of the frequent changes in the C2 infrastructure operated by the threat actors behind CryptBot, with new malicious domains being created periodically to avoid detection. This makes signature-based security solutions much less efficient to detect and block connections to malicious domains. Additionally, the fact that the stolen data is sent over regular HTTP POST requests, which are used daily as part of a multitude of legitimate processes such as file uploads or web form submissions, allows the exfiltration connections to blend in with normal and legitimate traffic making it difficult to isolate and detect as malicious activity.

In this context, anomaly-based security detections such as Darktrace DETECT are the best way to pick out these anomalous connections amidst legitimate Internet traffic. In the case of CryptBot, two DETECT models were seen consistently breaching for CryptBot-related activity: ‘Device / Suspicious Domain’, breaching for connections to 100% rare C2 .top domains, and ‘Anomalous Connection / POST to PHP on New External Host’, breaching on the data exfiltration HTTP POST request.

In deployments where Darktrace RESPOND was deployed, a RESPOND model breached within two seconds of the first HTTP POST request. If enabled in autonomous mode, RESPOND would block the data exfiltration connections, thus preventing the data safe from being sold in underground forums to other threat actors. In one of the cases investigated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team, DETECT was able to successfully identify and alert the customer about CryptBot-related malicious activity on a device that Darktrace had only begun to monitor one day before, showcasing how fast Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI learns every nuance of customer networks and the devices within it.

In most cases investigated by Darktrace, fewer than 5 minutes elapsed between the first connection to the endpoint offering free cracked software and the data being exfiltrated to the C2 domain. For example, in one of the attack chains observed in a university’s network, a device was seen connecting to the 100% rare endpoint official-kmspico[.]com at 16:53:47 (UTC).

Figure 2: Device Event Log showing SSL connections to the official-kmspico[.]com malvertising website.

One minute later, at 16:54:19 (UTC), the same device was seen connecting to two mega[.]co[.]nz subdomains and downloading around 13 MB of data from them. As mentioned previously, these connections likely represent the CryptBot payload and cracked software download.

Figure 3: Device Event Log showing SSL connections to mega[.]com endpoints following the connection to the malvertising site.

At 16:56:01 (UTC), Darktrace detected the device making a first HTTP POST request to the 100% rare endpoint, avomyj24[.]top, which has been associated with CryptBot’s C2 infrastructure [22]. This initial HTTP POST connection likely represents the transfer of confidential data to the attacker’s infrastructure.

Figure 4: Device Event Log showing HTTP connections made by the infected device to the C2 domain.

The full attack chain, from visiting the malvertising website to the malicious data egress, took less than three minutes to complete. In this circumstance, the machine-speed detection and response capabilities offered by Darktrace DETECT and RESPOND are paramount in order to stop CryptBot before it can successfully exfiltrates sensitive data. This is an incredibly quick infection timeline, with no lateral movement nor privilege escalation required to carry out the malware’s objective.

Figure 5: Device Event Log showing the DETECT and RESPOND models breached during the attack.

Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst incidents were also generated as a result of this activity, displaying all relevant information in one panel for easy review by customer security teams.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst event log showing the HTTP connections made by the breach device to the C2 endpoint.

Conclusion

CryptBot info-stealer is fast, efficient, and apt at evading detection given its small size and swift process of data gathering and exfiltration via legitimate channels. Its constantly changing C2 infrastructure further makes it difficult for traditional security tools that really on rules and signatures or known indicators of compromise (IoCs) to detect these infections.

In the face of such a threat, Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection allows it to recognize subtle deviations in a device’s pattern of behavior that may signal an evolving threat and instantly bring it to the attention of security teams. Darktrace DETECT is able to distinguish between benign activity and malicious behavior, even from newly monitored devices, while Darktrace RESPOND can move at machine-speed to prevent even the fastest moving threat actors from stealing confidential company data, as it demonstrated here by stopping CryptBot infections in as little as 2 seconds.

Credit to Alexandra Sentenac, Cyber Analyst, Roberto Romeu, Senior SOC Analyst

Darktrace Model Detections

AI Analyst Coverage

Possible HTTP Command and Control

DETECT Model Breaches

Device / Suspicious Domain
Anomalous Connection / POST to PHP on New External Host
Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
Compromise / Multiple SSL to Rare DGA Domains

List of IOCs

Indicator	Type	Description
luaigz34[.]top	Hostname	CryptBot C2 endpoint
watibt04[.]top	Hostname	CryptBot C2 endpoint
avolsq14[.]top	Hostname	CryptBot C2 endpoint

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Category	Technique	Tactic
INITIAL ACCESS	Drive-by Compromise - T1189	N/A
COMMAND AND CONTROL	Web Protocols - T1071.001	N/A
COMMAND AND CONTROL	Domain Generation Algorithm - T1568.002	N/A

References

[1] https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/threats/info-stealers

[2] https://cybelangel.com/what-are-infostealers/

[3] https://ke-la.com/information-stealers-a-new-landscape/

[4] https://darktrace.com/blog/vidar-info-stealer-malware-distributed-via-malvertising-on-google

[5] https://darktrace.com/blog/a-surge-of-vidar-network-based-details-of-a-prolific-info-stealer

[6] https://darktrace.com/blog/laplas-clipper-defending-against-crypto-currency-thieves-with-detect-respond

[7] https://darktrace.com/blog/amadey-info-stealer-exploiting-n-day-vulnerabilities

[8] https://cybelangel.com/what-are-infostealers/

[9] https://webz.io/dwp/the-top-10-dark-web-marketplaces-in-2022/

[10] https://www.accenture.com/us-en/blogs/security/information-stealer-malware-on-dark-web

[11] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/revamped-cryptbot-malware-spread-by-pirated-software-sites/

[12] https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2022/03/threat-thursday-cryptbot-infostealer

[13] https://www.deepinstinct.com/blog/cryptbot-how-free-becomes-a-high-price-to-pay

[14] https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/continuing-our-work-to-hold-cybercriminal-ecosystems-accountable/

[15] https://asec.ahnlab.com/en/31802/

[16] https://darktrace.com/blog/the-last-of-its-kind-analysis-of-a-raccoon-stealer-v1-infection-part-1

[17] https://www.trendmicro.com/pt_br/research/21/c/websites-hosting-cracks-spread-malware-adware.html

[18] https://intel471.com/blog/privateloader-malware

[19] https://cyware.com/news/watch-out-pay-per-install-privateloader-malware-distribution-service-is-flourishing-888273be

[20] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/04/28/handout_google_cryptbot_complaint.pdf

[21] https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/google-wins-court-order-to-block-cryptbot-infrastructure-a-21905

[22] https://github.com/stamparm/maltrail/blob/master/trails/static/malware/cryptbot.txt

Newsletter

Enjoying the blog?

Thanks for signing up!

Look out for your first newsletter, coming soon.

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

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.

Author

Alexandra Sentenac

Cyber Analyst

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Share this article

Feb 10, 2025

Reimagining Your SOC: Overcoming Alert Fatigue with AI-Led Investigations

Jan 30, 2025

Preparing for 2025: Darktrace's Top 10 AI and Cybersecurity Predictions

Nov 3, 2024

CNAPP Alone Isn’t Enough: Focusing on CDR for Real-Time Cross Domain Protection

Feb 3, 2025

RansomHub Ransomware: Darktrace’s Investigation of the Newest Tool in ShadowSyndicate's Arsenal

Jan 14, 2025

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

Email

February 13, 2025

Why Darktrace / EMAIL excels against APTs

What are APTs?

An Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) describes an adversary with sophisticated levels of expertise and significant resources, with the ability to carry out targeted cyber campaigns. These campaigns may penetrate an organization and remain undetected for long periods, allowing attackers to gather intelligence or cause damage over time.

Over the last few decades, the term APT has evolved from being almost exclusively associated with nation-state actors to a broader definition that includes highly skilled, well-resourced threat groups. While still distinct from mass, opportunistic cybercrime or "spray and pray" attacks, APT now refers to the elite tier of adversaries, whether state-sponsored or not, who demonstrate advanced capabilities, persistence, and a clear strategic focus. This shift reflects the growing sophistication of cyber threats, where non-state actors can now rival nation-states in executing covert, methodical intrusions to achieve long-term objectives.

These attacks are resource-intensive for threat actors to execute, but the potential rewards—ranging from financial gain to sensitive data theft—can be significant. In 2020, Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks netted cybercriminals over $1.8 billion.¹

And recently, the advent of AI has helped to automate launching these attacks, lowering the barriers to entry and making it more efficient to orchestrate the kind of attack that might previously have taken weeks to create. Research shows that AI can do 90% of a threat actor’s work² – reducing time-to-target by automating tasks rapidly and avoiding errors in phishing communications. Email remains the most popular vector for initiating these sophisticated attacks, making it a critical battleground for cyber defense.

What makes APTs so successful?

The success of Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) lies in their precision, persistence, and ability to exploit human and technical vulnerabilities. These attacks are carefully tailored to specific targets, using techniques like social engineering and spear phishing to gain initial access.

Once inside, attackers move laterally through networks, often remaining undetected for months or even years, silently gathering intelligence or preparing for a decisive strike. Alternatively, they might linger inside an account within the M365 environment, which could be even more valuable in terms of gathering information – in 2023 the average time to identify a breach in 2023 was 204 days.³‍

The subtle and long-term outlook nature of APTs makes them highly effective, as traditional security measures often fail to identify the subtle signs of compromise.

How Darktrace’s approach is designed to catch the most advanced threats

Luckily for our customers, Darktrace’s AI approach is uniquely equipped to detect and neutralize APTs. Unlike the majority of email security solutions that rely on static rules and signatures, or that train their AI on previous known-bad attack patterns, Darktrace leverages Self-Learning AI that baselines normal patterns of behavior within an organization, to immediately detect unusual activity that may signal an APT in progress.

But in the modern era of email threats, no email security solution can guarantee 100% effectiveness. Because attackers operate with great sophistication, carefully adapting their tactics to evade detection – whether by altering attachments, leveraging compromised accounts, or moving laterally across an organization – a siloed security approach risks missing these subtle, multi-domain threats. That’s why a robust defense-in-depth strategy is essential to mitigate APTs.

Real-world threat finds: Darktrace / EMAIL in action

Let’s take a look at some real-world scenarios where Darktrace / EMAIL stopped tactics associated with APT campaigns in their tracks – from adversary-in-the-middle attacks to suspicious lateral movement.

1: How Darktrace disrupted an adversary-in-the-middle attack by identifying abnormal login redirects and blocking credential exfiltration

In October 2024, Darktrace detected an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) attack targeting a Darktrace customer. The attack began with a phishing email from a seemingly legitimate Dropbox address, which contained multiple link payloads inviting the recipient to access a file. Other solutions would have struggled to catch this attack, as the initial AitM attack was launched through delivering a malicious URL through a trusted vendor or service. Once compromised, the threat actor could have laid low on the target account, gathering reconnaissance, without detection from the email security solution.

Darktrace / EMAIL identified the abnormal login redirects and flagged the suspicious activity. Darktrace / IDENTITY then detected unusual login patterns and blocked credential exfiltration attempts, effectively disrupting the attack and preventing the adversary from gaining unauthorized access. Read more.

Figure 1: Overview of the malicious email in the Darktrace / EMAIL console, highlighting Dropbox associated content/link payloads

2: How Darktrace stopped lateral movement to block NTLM hash theft

In early 2024, Darktrace detected an attack by the TA577 threat group, which aimed to steal NTLM hashes to gain unauthorized access to systems. The attack began with phishing emails containing ZIP files that connected to malicious infrastructure.

A traditional email security solution would have likely missed this attack by focusing too heavily on analyzing the zip file payloads or relying on reputation analysis to understand whether the infrastructure was registered as bad before this activity was a recognized IoC.

Because it correlates activity across domains, Darktrace identified unusual lateral movement within the network and promptly blocked the attempts to steal NTLM hashes, effectively preventing the attackers from accessing sensitive credentials and securing the network. Read more.

Figure 2: A summary of anomaly indicators seen for a campaign email sent by TA577, as detected by Darktrace / EMAIL

3: How Darktrace prevented the WarmCookie backdoor deployment embedded in phishing emails

In mid-2024, Darktrace identified a phishing campaign targeting organizations with emails impersonating recruitment firms. These emails contained malicious links that, when clicked, deployed the WarmCookie backdoor.

These emails are difficult to detect, as they use social engineering tactics to manipulate users into engaging with emails and following the embedded malicious links – but if a security solution is not analysing content and context, these could be allowed through.

In several observed cases across customer environments, Darktrace detected and blocked the suspicious behavior associated with WarmCookie that had already managed to evade customers’ native email security. By using behavioral analysis to correlate anomalous activity across the digital estate, Darktrace was able to identify the backdoor malware strain and notify customers. Read more.

Conclusion

These threat examples highlight a key principle of the Darktrace approach – that a backwards-facing approach grounded in threat intelligence will always be one step behind.

Most threat actors operate in campaigns, carefully crafting attacks and testing them across multiple targets. Once a campaign is identified, good defenders and traditional security solutions quickly update their defenses with new threat intelligence, rules, and signatures. However, APTs have the resources to rapidly adapt – spinning up new infrastructure, modifying payloads and altering their attack footprint to evade detection.

This is where Darktrace / EMAIL excels. Only by analyzing each user, message and interaction can an email security solution hope to catch the types of highly-sophisticated attacks that have the potential to cause major reputational and financial damage. Darktrace / EMAIL ensures that even the most subtle threats are detected and blocked with autonomous response, before causing impact – helping organizations remain one step ahead of increasingly adaptive threat actors.

Download the Darktrace / EMAIL Solution Brief

Discover the most advanced cloud-native AI email security solution to protect your domain and brand while preventing phishing, novel social engineering, business email compromise, account takeover, and data loss.

Gain up to 13 days of earlier threat detection and maximize ROI on your current email security
Experience 20-25% more threat blocking power with Darktrace / EMAIL
Stop the 58% of threats bypassing traditional email security

‍

References

[1] FBI Internet Crime Report 2020

[2] https://www.optiv.com/insights/discover/blog/future-security-automation-how-ai-machine-learning-and-automation-are

[3] IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023

‍

About the author

Carlos Gray

Product Manager

Blog

Compliance

February 11, 2025

NIS2 Compliance: Interpreting 'State-of-the-Art' for Organisations

NIS2 Background

17 October 2024 marked the deadline for European Union (EU) Member States to implement the NIS2 Directive into national law. The Directive aims to enhance the EU’s cybersecurity posture by establishing a high common level of cybersecurity for critical infrastructure and services. It builds on its predecessor, the 2018 NIS Directive, by expanding the number of sectors in scope, enforcing greater reporting requirements and encouraging Member States to ensure regulated organisations adopt ‘state-of-the-art' security measures to protect their networks, OT and IT systems.

The challenge of NIS2 & 'state-of-the-art'

Preamble (51) - "Member States should encourage the use of any innovative technology, including artificial intelligence, the use of which could improve the detection and prevention of cyberattacks, enabling resources to be diverted towards cyberattacks more effectively."

Article 21 - calls on Member States to ensure that essential and important entities “take appropriate and proportionate” cyber security measures, and that they do so by “taking into account the state-of-the-art and, where applicable, relevant European and international standards, as well as the cost of implementation.”

Regulartory expectations and ambiguity of NIS2

While organisations in scope can rely on technical guidance provided by ENISA¹ , the EU’s agency for cybersecurity, or individual guidelines provided by Member States or Public-Private Partnerships where they have been published,² the mention of ‘state-of-the-art' remains up to interpretation in most Member States. The use of the phrase implies that cybersecurity measures must evolve continuously to keep pace with emerging threats and technological advancements without specifying what ‘state-of-the-art’ actually means for a given context and risk.³

This ambiguity makes it difficult for organisations to determine what constitutes compliance at any given time and could lead to potential inconsistencies in implementation and enforcement. Moreover, the rapid pace of technological change means that what is considered "state-of-the-art" today will become outdated, further complicating compliance efforts.

However, this is not unique to NIS regulation. As EU scholars have noted, while “state-of-the-art" is widely referred to in legal text relating to technology, there is no standardised legal definition of what it actually constitutes.⁴

Defining state-of-the-art cybersecurity

In this blog, we outline technical considerations for state-of-the-art cybersecurity. We draw from expertise within our own business and in academia as well as guidelines and security standards set by national agencies, such as Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) or Spain’s National Security Framework (ENS), to put forward five criteria to define state-of-the-art cybersecurity.

The five core criteria include:

Continuous monitoring
Incident correlation
Detection of anomalous activity
Autonomous response
Proactive cyber resilience

These principles build on long-standing security considerations, such as business continuity, vulnerability management and basic security hygiene practices.

Although these considerations are written in the context of the NIS2 Directive, they are likely to also be relevant for other jurisdictions. We hope these criteria help organisations understand how to best meet their responsibilities under the NIS2 Directive and assist Competent Authorities in defining compliance expectations for the organisations they regulate.

Ultimately, adopting state-of-the-art cyber defences is crucial for ensuring that organisations are equipped with the best tools to combat new and fast-growing threats. Leading technical authorities, such as the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), recognise that adoption of AI-powered cyber defences will offset the increased volume and impact of AI on cyber threats.⁵

State of the art cybersecurity in the context of NIS2

1. Continuous monitoring

Continuous monitoring is required to protect an increasingly complex attack surface from attackers.

First, organisations' attack surfaces have expanded following the widespread adoption of hybrid or cloud infrastructures and the increased adoption of connected Internet of Things (IoT) devices.⁶ This exponential growth creates a complex digital environment for organisations, making it difficult for security teams to track all internet-facing assets and identify potential vulnerabilities.

Second, with the significant increase in the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks, organisations face a greater need to detect security threats and non-compliance issues in real-time.

Continuous monitoring, defined by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as the ability to maintain “ongoing awareness of information security, vulnerabilities, and threats to support organizational risk management decisions,”⁷ has therefore become a cornerstone of an effective cybersecurity strategy. By implementing continuous monitoring, organisations can ensure a real-time understanding of their attack surface and that new external assets are promptly accounted for. For instance, Spain’s technical guidelines for regulation, as set forth by the National Security Framework (Royal Decree 311/2022), highlight the importance of adopting continuous monitoring to detect anomalous activities or behaviours and to ensure timely responses to potential threats (article 10).⁸

This can be achieved through the following means:

All assets that form part of an organisation's estate, both known and unknown, must be identified and continuously monitored for current and emerging risks. Germany’s BSI mandates the continuous monitoring of all protocol and logging data in real-time (requirement #110).⁹ This should be conducted alongside any regular scans to detect unknown devices or cases of shadow IT, or the use of unauthorised or unmanaged applications and devices within an organisation, which can expose internet-facing assets to unmonitored risks. Continuous monitoring can therefore help identify potential risks and high-impact vulnerabilities within an organisation's digital estate and eliminate potential gaps and blind spots.

Organisations looking to implement more efficient continuous monitoring strategies may turn to automation, but, as the BSI notes, it is important for responsible parties to be immediately warned if an alert is raised (reference 110).¹⁰ Following the BSI’s recommendations, the alert must be examined and, if necessary, contained within a short period of time corresponding with the analysis of the risk at hand.

Finally, risk scoring and vulnerability mapping are also essential parts of this process. Looking across the Atlantic, the US’ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines continuous monitoring as “maintaining ongoing awareness of information security, vulnerabilities, and threats to support organizational risk management decisions”.¹¹ Continuous monitoring helps identify potential risks and significant vulnerabilities within an organisation's digital assets, fostering a dynamic understanding of risk. By doing so, risk scoring and vulnerability mapping allows organisations to prioritise the risks associated with their most critically exposed assets.

2. Correlation of incidents across your entire environment

Viewing and correlating incident alerts when working with different platforms and tools poses significant challenges to SecOps teams. Security professionals often struggle to cross-reference alerts efficiently, which can lead to potential delays in identifying and responding to threats. The complexity of managing multiple sources of information can overwhelm teams, making it difficult to maintain a cohesive understanding of the security landscape.

This fragmentation underscores the need for a centralised approach that provides a "single pane of glass" view of all cybersecurity alerts. These systems streamline the process of monitoring and responding to incidents, enabling security teams to act more swiftly and effectively. By consolidating alerts into a unified interface, organisations can enhance their ability to detect and mitigate threats, ultimately improving their overall security posture.

To achieve consolidation, organisations should consider the role automation can play when reviewing and correlating incidents. This is reflected in Spain’s technical guidelines for national security regulations regarding the requirements for the “recording of activity” (reinforcement R5).¹² Specifically, the guidelines state that:

"The system shall implement tools to analyses and review system activity and audit information, in search of possible or actual security compromises. An automatic system for collection of records, correlation of events and automatic response to them shall be available”.¹³

Similarly, the German guidelines stress that automated central analysis is essential not only for recording all protocol and logging data generated within the system environment but also to ensure that the data is correlated to ensure that security-relevant processes are visible (article 115).¹⁴

Correlating disparate incidents and alerts is especially important when considering the increased connectivity between IT and OT environments driven by business and functional requirements. Indeed, organisations that believe they have air-gapped systems are now becoming aware of points of IT/OT convergence within their systems. It is therefore crucial for organisations managing both IT and OT environments to be able to visualise and secure devices across all IT and OT protocols in real-time to identify potential spillovers.

By consolidating data into a centralised system, organisations can achieve a more resilient posture. This approach exposes and eliminates gaps between people, processes, and technology before they can be exploited by malicious actors. As seen in the German and Spanish guidelines, a unified view of security alerts not only enhances the efficacy of threat detection and response but also ensures comprehensive visibility and control over the organisation's cybersecurity posture.

3. Detection of anomalous activity

Recent research highlights the emergence of a "new normal" in cybersecurity, marked by an increase in zero-day vulnerabilities. Indeed, for the first time since sharing their annual list, the Five Eyes intelligence alliance reported that in 2023, the majority of the most routinely exploited vulnerabilities were initially exploited as zero-days.¹⁵

To effectively combat these advanced threats, policymakers, industry and academic stakeholders alike recognise the importance of anomaly-based techniques to detect both known and unknown attacks.

As AI-enabled threats become more prevalent,¹⁶ traditional cybersecurity methods that depend on lists of "known bads" are proving inadequate against rapidly evolving and sophisticated attacks. These legacy approaches are limited because they can only identify threats that have been previously encountered and cataloged. However, cybercriminals are constantly developing new, never-before-seen threats, such as signatureless ransomware or living off the land techniques, which can easily bypass these outdated defences.

The importance of anomaly detection in cybersecurity can be found in Spain’s technical guidelines, which states that “tools shall be available to automate the prevention and response process by detecting and identifying anomalies¹⁷” (reinforcement R4 prevention and automatic response to "incident management”).

Similarly, the UK NCSC’s Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF) highlights how anomaly-based detection systems are capable of detecting threats that “evade standard signature-based security solutions” (Principle C2 - Proactive Security Event Discovery¹⁸). The CAF’s C2 principle further outlines:

“The science of anomaly detection, which goes beyond using pre-defined or prescriptive pattern matching, is a challenging area. Capabilities like machine learning are increasingly being shown to have applicability and potential in the field of intrusion detection.”¹⁹

By leveraging machine learning and multi-layered AI techniques, organisations can move away from static rules and signatures, adopting a more behavioural approach to identifying and containing risks. This shift not only enhances the detection of emerging threats but also provides a more robust defence mechanism.

A key component of this strategy is behavioral zero trust, which focuses on identifying unauthorized and out-of-character attempts by users, devices, or systems. Implementing a robust procedure to verify each user and issuing the minimum required access rights based on their role and established patterns of activity is essential. Organisations should therefore be encouraged to follow a robust procedure to verify each user and issue the minimum required access rights based on their role and expected or established patterns of activity. By doing so, organisations can stay ahead of emerging threats and embrace a more dynamic and resilient cybersecurity strategy.

4. Autonomous response

The speed at which cyber-attacks occur means that defenders must be equipped with tools that match the sophistication and agility of those used by attackers. Autonomous response tools are thus essential for modern cyber defence, as they enable organisations to respond to both known and novel threats in real time.

These tools leverage a deep contextual and behavioral understanding of the organisation to take precise actions, effectively containing threats without disrupting business operations.

To avoid unnecessary business disruptions and maintain robust security, especially in more sensitive networks such as OT environments, it is crucial for organisations to determine the appropriate response depending on their environment. This can range from taking autonomous and native actions, such as isolating or blocking devices, or integrating their autonomous response tool with firewalls or other security tools to taking customized actions.

Autonomous response solutions should also use a contextual understanding of the business environment to make informed decisions, allowing them to contain threats swiftly and accurately. This means that even as cyber-attacks evolve and become more sophisticated, organisations can maintain continuous protection without compromising operational efficiency.

Indeed, research into the adoption of autonomous cyber defences points to the importance of implementing “organisation-specific" and “context-informed” approaches.²⁰ To decide the appropriate level of autonomy for each network action, it is argued, it is essential to use evidence-based risk prioritisation that is customised to the specific operations, assets, and data of individual enterprises.²¹

By adopting autonomous response solutions, organisations can ensure their defences are as dynamic and effective as the threats they face, significantly enhancing their overall security posture.

5. Proactive cyber resilience

Adopting a proactive approach to cybersecurity is crucial for organisations aiming to safeguard their operations and reputation. By hardening their defences enough so attackers are unable to target them effectively, organisations can save significant time and money. This proactive stance helps reduce business disruption, reputational damage, and the need for lengthy, resource-intensive incident responses.

Proactive cybersecurity incorporates many of the strategies outlined above. This can be seen in a recent survey of information technology practitioners, which outlines four components of a proactive cybersecurity culture: (1) visibility of corporate assets, (2) leveraging intelligent and modern technology, (3) adopting consistent and comprehensive training methods and (4) implementing risk response procedures.²² To this, we may also add continuous monitoring which allows organisations to understand the most vulnerable and high-value paths across their architectures, allowing them to secure their critical assets more effectively.

Alongside these components, a proactive cyber strategy should be based on a combined business context and knowledge, ensuring that security measures are aligned with the organisation's specific needs and priorities.

This proactive approach to cyber resilience is reflected in Spain’s technical guidance (article 8.2): “Prevention measures, which may incorporate components geared towards deterrence or reduction of the exposure surface, should eliminate or reduce the likelihood of threats materializing.”²³ It can also be found in the NCSC’s CAF, which outlines how organisations can achieve “proactive attack discovery” (see Principle C2).²⁴ Likewise, Belgium’s NIS2 transposition guidelines mandate the use of preventive measures to ensure the continued availability of services in the event of exceptional network failures (article 30).²⁵

Ultimately, a proactive approach to cybersecurity not only enhances protection but also lowers regulatory risk and supports the overall resilience and stability of the organisation.

Looking forward

The NIS2 Directive marked a significant regulatory milestone in strengthening cybersecurity across the EU.²⁶ Given the impact of emerging technologies, such as AI, on cybersecurity, it is to see that Member States are encouraged to promote the adoption of ‘state-of-the-art' cybersecurity across regulated entities.

In this blog, we have sought to translate what state-of-the-art cybersecurity may look like for organisations looking to enhance their cybersecurity posture. To do so, we have built on existing cybersecurity guidance, research and our own experience as an AI-cybersecurity company to outline five criteria: continuous monitoring, incident correlation, detection of anomalous activity, autonomous response, and proactive cyber resilience.

By embracing these principles and evolving cybersecurity practices in line with the state-of-the-art, organisations can comply with the NIS2 Directive while building a resilient cybersecurity posture capable of withstanding evolutions in the cyber threat landscape. Looking forward, it will be interesting to see how other jurisdictions embrace new technologies, such as AI, in solving the cybersecurity problem.

Get ahead with the NIS2 White Paper

Get a clear roadmap for meeting NIS2 requirements and strengthening your cybersecurity posture. Learn how to ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and protect your organization from evolving threats.