September 8, 2025

Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 Raises the Bar: 6 Questions every security team should ask about their security posture

A practical guide to the key detection and response updates in CAF v4.0, including anomaly-based detection, machine-led threat hunting, and proactive security posture requirements.

Written by

Mariana Pereira

VP, 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

Mariana Pereira

VP, Field CISO

Sep 2025

What is the Cyber Assessment Framework?

The Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF) acts as guide for organizations, specifically across essential services, critical national infrastructure and regulated sectors, across the UK for assessing, managing and improving their cybersecurity, cyber resilience and cyber risk profile.

The guidance in the Cyber Assessment Framework aligns with regulations such as The Network and Information Systems Regulations (NIS), The Network and Information Security Directive (NIS2) and the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill.

What’s new with the Cyber Assessment Framework 4.0?

On 6 August 2025, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) released Cyber Assessment Framework 4.0 (CAF v4.0) a pivotal update that reflects the increasingly complex threat landscape and the regulatory need for organisations to respond in smarter, more adaptive ways.

The Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 introduces significant shifts in expectations, including, but not limited to:

Understanding threats in terms of the capabilities, methods and techniques of threat actors and the importance of maintaining a proactive security posture (A2.b)

The use of secure software development principles and practices (A4.b)

Ensuring threat intelligence is understood and utilised - with a focus on anomaly-based detection (C1.f)

Performance of proactive threat hunting with automation where appropriate (C2.a)

This blog post will focus on these components of the framework. However, we encourage readers to get the full scope of the framework by visiting the NCSC website where they can access the full framework here.

In summary, the changes to the framework send a clear signal: the UK’s technical authority now expects organisations to move beyond static rule-based systems and embrace more dynamic, automated defences. For those responsible for securing critical national infrastructure and essential services, these updates are not simply technical preferences, but operational mandates.

At Darktrace, this evolution comes as no surprise. In fact, it reflects the approach we've championed since our inception.

Why Darktrace? Leading the way since 2013

Darktrace was built on the principle that detecting cyber threats in real time requires more than signatures, thresholds, or retrospective analysis. Instead, we pioneered a self-learning approach powered by artificial intelligence, that understands the unique “normal” for every environment and uses this baseline to spot subtle deviations indicative of emerging threats.

From the beginning, Darktrace has understood that rules and lists will never keep pace with adversaries. That’s why we’ve spent over a decade developing AI that doesn't just alert, it learns, reasons, explains, and acts.

With Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0, the bar has been raised to meet this new reality. For technical practitioners tasked with evaluating their organisation’s readiness, there are five essential questions that should guide the selection or validation of anomaly detection capabilities.

6 Questions you should ask about your security posture to align with CAF v4

1. Can your tools detect threats by identifying anomalies?

Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 principle C1.f has been added in this version and requires that, “Threats to the operation of network and information systems, and corresponding user and system behaviour, are sufficiently understood. These are used to detect cyber security incidents.”

This marks a significant shift from traditional signature-based approaches, which rely on known Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) or predefined rules to an expectation that normal user and system behaviour is understood to an extent enabling abnormality detection.

Why this shift?

An overemphasis on threat intelligence alone leaves defenders exposed to novel threats or new variations of existing threats. By including reference to “understanding user and system behaviour” the framework is broadening the methods of threat detection beyond the use of threat intelligence and historical attack data.

While CAF v4.0 places emphasis on understanding normal user and system behaviour and using that understanding to detect abnormalities and as a result, adverse activity. There is a further expectation that threats are understood in terms of industry specific issues and that monitoring is continually updated

Darktrace uses an anomaly-based approach to threat detection which involves establishing a dynamic baseline of “normal” for your environment, then flagging deviations from that baseline — even when there’s no known IoCs to match against. This allows security teams to surface previously unseen tactics, techniques, and procedures in real time, whether it’s:

An unexpected outbound connection pattern (e.g., DNS tunnelling);

A first-time API call between critical services;

Unusual calls between services; or

Sensitive data moving outside normal channels or timeframes.

The requirement that organisations must be equipped to monitor their environment, create an understanding of normal and detect anomalous behaviour aligns closely with Darktrace’s capabilities.

2. Is threat hunting structured, repeatable, and improving over time?

CAF v4.0 introduces a new focus on structured threat hunting to detect adverse activity that may evade standard security controls or when such controls are not deployable.

Principle C2.a outlines the need for documented, repeatable threat hunting processes and stresses the importance of recording and reviewing hunts to improve future effectiveness. This inclusion acknowledges that reactive threat hunting is not sufficient. Instead, the framework calls for:

Pre-determined and documented methods to ensure threat hunts can be deployed at the requisite frequency;

Threat hunts to be converted into automated detection and alerting, where appropriate;

Maintenance of threat hunt records and post-hunt analysis to drive improvements in the process and overall security posture;

Regular review of the threat hunting process to align with updated risks;

Leveraging automation for improvement, where appropriate;

Focus on threat tactics, techniques and procedures, rather than one-off indicators of compromise.

Traditionally, playbook creation has been a manual process — static, slow to amend, and limited by human foresight. Even automated SOAR playbooks tend to be stock templates that can’t cover the full spectrum of threats or reflect the specific context of your organisation.

CAF v4.0 sets the expectation that organisations should maintain documented, structured approaches to incident response. But Darktrace / Incident Readiness & Recovery goes further. Its AI-generated playbooks are bespoke to your environment and updated dynamically in real time as incidents unfold. This continuous refresh of “New Events” means responders always have the latest view of what’s happening, along with an updated understanding of the AI's interpretation based on real-time contextual awareness, and recommended next steps tailored to the current stage of the attack.

The result is far beyond checkbox compliance: a living, adaptive response capability that reduces investigation time, speeds containment, and ensures actions are always proportionate to the evolving threat.

3. Do you have a proactive security posture?

Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 does not want organisations to detect threats, it expects them to anticipate and reduce cyber risk before an incident ever occurs. That is s why principle A2.b calls for a security posture that moves from reactive detection to predictive, preventative action.

A proactive security posture focuses on reducing the ease of the most likely attack paths in advance and reducing the number of opportunities an adversary has to succeed in an attack.

To meet this requirement, organisations could benefit in looking for solutions that can:

Continuously map the assets and users most critical to operations;

Identify vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in real time;

Model likely adversary behaviours and attack paths using frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK; and

Prioritise remediation actions that will have the highest impact on reducing overall risk.

When done well, this approach creates a real-time picture of your security posture, one that reflects the dynamic nature and ongoing evolution of both your internal environment and the evolving external threat landscape. This enables security teams to focus their time in other areas such as validating resilience through exercises such as red teaming or forecasting.

4. Can your team/tools customize detection rules and enable autonomous responses?

CAF v4.0 places greater emphasis on reducing false positives and acting decisively when genuine threats are detected.

The framework highlights the need for customisable detection rules and, where appropriate, autonomous response actions that can contain threats before they escalate:

The following new requirements are included:

C1.c.: Alerts and detection rules should be adjustable to reduce false positives and optimise responses. Custom tooling and rules are used in conjunction with off the shelf tooling and rules;

C1.d: You investigate and triage alerts from all security tools and take action – allowing for improvement and prioritization of activities;

C1.e: Monitoring and detection personnel have sufficient understanding of operational context and deal with workload effectively as well as identifying areas for improvement (alert or triage fatigue is not present);

C2.a: Threat hunts should be turned into automated detections and alerting where appropriate and automation should be leveraged to improve threat hunting.

Tailored detection rules improve accuracy, while automation accelerates response, both of which help satisfy regulatory expectations. Cyber AI Analyst allows for AI investigation of alerts and can dramatically reduce the time a security team spends on alerts, reducing alert fatigue, allowing more time for strategic initiatives and identifying improvements.

5. Is your software secure and supported?

CAF v4.0 introduced a new principle which requires software suppliers to leverage an established secure software development framework. Software suppliers must be able to demonstrate:

A thorough understanding of the composition and provenance of software provided;

That the software development lifecycle is informed by a detailed and up to date understanding of threat; and

They can attest to the authenticity and integrity of the software, including updates and patches.

Darktrace is committed to secure software development and all Darktrace products and internally developed systems are developed with secure engineering principles and security by design methodologies in place. Darktrace commits to the inclusion of security requirements at all stages of the software development lifecycle. Darktrace is ISO 27001, ISO 27018 and ISO 42001 Certified – demonstrating an ongoing commitment to information security, data privacy and artificial intelligence management and compliance, throughout the organisation.

6. Is your incident response plan built on a true understanding of your environment and does it adapt to changes over time?

CAF v4.0 raises the bar for incident response by making it clear that a plan is only as strong as the context behind it. Your response plan must be shaped by a detailed, up-to-date understanding of your organisation’s specific network, systems, and operational priorities.

The framework’s updates emphasise that:

Plans must explicitly cover the network and information systems that underpin your essential functions because every environment has different dependencies, choke points, and critical assets.

They must be readily accessible even when IT systems are disrupted ensuring critical steps and contact paths aren’t lost during an incident.

They should be reviewed regularly to keep pace with evolving risks, infrastructure changes, and lessons learned from testing.

From government expectation to strategic advantage

Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 signals a powerful shift in cybersecurity best practice. The newest version sets a higher standard for detection performance, risk management, threat hunting software development and proactive security posture.

For Darktrace, this is validation of the approach we have taken since the beginning: to go beyond rules and signatures to deliver proactive cyber resilience in real-time.

-----

_Disclaimer:

_{This document has been prepared on behalf of Darktrace Holdings Limited. It is provided for information purposes only to provide prospective readers with general information about the Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF) in a cyber security context. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, financial or any other kind of professional advice and it has not been prepared with the reader and/or its specific organisation’s requirements in mind. Darktrace offers no warranties, guarantees, undertakings or other assurances (whether express or implied) that: (i) this document or its content are accurate or complete; (ii) the steps outlined herein will guarantee compliance with CAF; (iii) any purchase of Darktrace’s products or services will guarantee compliance with CAF; (iv) the steps outlined herein are appropriate for all customers. Neither the reader nor any third party is entitled to rely on the contents of this document when making/taking any decisions or actions to achieve compliance with CAF. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law or regulation, Darktrace has no liability for any actions or decisions taken or not taken by the reader to implement any suggestions contained herein, or for any third party products, links or materials referenced. Nothing in this document negates the responsibility of the reader to seek independent legal or other advice should it wish to rely on any of the statements, suggestions, or content set out herein.}

_{The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content without notice.}

Written by

Mariana Pereira

VP, Field CISO

Inside the SOC

Written by

Mariana Pereira

VP, Field CISO

•

October 20, 2025

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

October 15, 2025

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

October 20, 2025

Salty Much: Darktrace’s view on a recent Salt Typhoon intrusion

What is Salt Typhoon?‍

Salt Typhoon represents one of the most persistent and sophisticated cyber threats targeting global critical infrastructure today. Believed to be linked to state-sponsored actors from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), this advanced persistent threat (APT) group has executed a series of high-impact campaigns against telecommunications providers, energy networks, and government systems—most notably across the United States.

Active since at least 2019, the group—also tracked as Earth Estries, GhostEmperor, and UNC2286—has demonstrated advanced capabilities in exploiting edge devices, maintaining deep persistence, and exfiltrating sensitive data across more than 80 countries. While much of the public reporting has focused on U.S. targets, Salt Typhoon’s operations have extended into Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) where it has targeted telecoms, government entities, and technology firms. Its use of custom malware and exploitation of high-impact vulnerabilities (e.g., Ivanti, Fortinet, Cisco) underscores the strategic nature of its campaigns, which blend intelligence collection with geopolitical influence [1].

Leveraging zero-day exploits, obfuscation techniques, and lateral movement strategies, Salt Typhoon has demonstrated an alarming ability to evade detection and maintain long-term access to sensitive environments. The group’s operations have exposed lawful intercept systems, compromised metadata for millions of users, and disrupted essential services, prompting coordinated responses from intelligence agencies and private-sector partners worldwide. As organizations reassess their threat models, Salt Typhoon serves as a stark reminder of the evolving nature of nation-state cyber operations and the urgent need for proactive defense strategies.

Darktrace’s coverage

In this case, Darktrace observed activity in a European telecommunications organisation consistent with Salt Typhoon’s known tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs), including dynamic-link library (DLL) sideloading and abuse of legitimate software for stealth and execution.

Initial access

The intrusion likely began with exploitation of a Citrix NetScaler Gateway appliance in the first week of July 2025. From there, the actor pivoted to Citrix Virtual Delivery Agent (VDA) hosts in the client’s Machine Creation Services (MCS) subnet. Initial access activities in the intrusion originated from an endpoint potentially associated with the SoftEther VPN service, suggesting infrastructure obfuscation from the outset.

Tooling

Darktrace subsequently observed the threat actor delivering a backdoor assessed with high confidence to be SNAPPYBEE (also known as Deed RAT) [2][3] to multiple Citrix VDA hosts. The backdoor was delivered to these internal endpoints as a DLL alongside legitimate executable files for antivirus software such as Norton Antivirus, Bkav Antivirus, and IObit Malware Fighter. This pattern of activity indicates that the attacker relied on DLL side-loading via legitimate antivirus software to execute their payloads. Salt Typhoon and similar groups have a history of employing this technique [4][5], enabling them to execute payloads under the guise of trusted software and bypassing traditional security controls.

Command-and-Control (C2)

The backdoor delivered by the threat actor leveraged LightNode VPS endpoints for C2, communicating over both HTTP and an unidentified TCP-based protocol. This dual-channel setup is consistent with Salt Typhoon’s known use of non-standard and layered protocols to evade detection. The HTTP communications displayed by the backdoor included POST requests with an Internet Explorer User-Agent header and Target URI patterns such as “/17ABE7F017ABE7F0”. One of the C2 hosts contacted by compromised endpoints was aar.gandhibludtric[.]com (38.54.63[.]75), a domain recently linked to Salt Typhoon [6].

Detection timeline

Darktrace produced high confidence detections in response to the early stages of the intrusion, with both the initial tooling and C2 activities being strongly covered by both investigations by Darktrace Cyber AI Analyst^TM investigations and Darktrace models. Despite the sophistication of the threat actor, the intrusion activity identified and remediated before escalating beyond these early stages of the attack, with Darktrace’s timely high-confidence detections likely playing a key role in neutralizing the threat.

Cyber AI Analyst observations

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst autonomously investigated the model alerts generated by Darktrace during the early stages of the intrusion. Through its investigations, Cyber AI Analyst discovered the initial tooling and C2 events and pieced them together into unified incidents representing the attacker’s progression.

Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst weaved together separate events from the intrusion into broader incidents summarizing the attacker’s progression.

Conclusion

Based on overlaps in TTPs, staging patterns, infrastructure, and malware, Darktrace assesses with moderate confidence that the observed activity was consistent with Salt Typhoon/Earth Estries (ALA GhostEmperor/UNC2286). Salt Typhoon continues to challenge defenders with its stealth, persistence, and abuse of legitimate tools. As attackers increasingly blend into normal operations, detecting behavioral anomalies becomes essential for identifying subtle deviations and correlating disparate signals. The evolving nature of Salt Typhoon’s tradecraft, and its ability to repurpose trusted software and infrastructure, ensures it will remain difficult to detect using conventional methods alone. This intrusion highlights the importance of proactive defense, where anomaly-based detections, not just signature matching, play a critical role in surfacing early-stage activity.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISO), Sam Lister (Specialist Security Researcher), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC-Type-Description + Confidence

89.31.121[.]101 – IP Address – Possible C2 server

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/WINMM.dll - URI – Likely SNAPPYBEE download

b5367820cd32640a2d5e4c3a3c1ceedbbb715be2 - SHA1 – Likely SNAPPYBEE download

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/NortonLog.txt - URI - Likely DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/123.txt - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/123.tar - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/pdc.exe - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443//Dialog.dat - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/fltLib.dll - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/DisplayDialog.exe - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/DgApi.dll - URI - Likely DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/dbindex.dat - URI - Likely DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/1.txt - URI - Possible DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/imfsbDll.dll – Likely DLL side-loading activity

hxxp://89.31.121[.]101:443/imfsbSvc.exe - URI – Likely DLL side-loading activity

aar.gandhibludtric[.]com – Hostname – Likely C2 server

38.54.63[.]75 – IP – Likely C2 server

156.244.28[.]153 – IP – Possible C2 server

hxxp://156.244.28[.]153/17ABE7F017ABE7F0 - URI – Possible C2 activity

MITRE TTPs

Technique | Description

T1190 | Exploit Public-Facing Application - Citrix NetScaler Gateway compromise

T1105 | Ingress Tool Transfer – Delivery of backdoor to internal hosts

T1665 | Hide Infrastructure – Use of SoftEther VPN for C2

T1574.001 | Hijack Execution Flow: DLL – Execution of backdoor through DLL side-loading

T1095 | Non-Application Layer Protocol – Unidentified application-layer protocol for C2 traffic

T1071.001| Web Protocols – HTTP-based C2 traffic

T1571| Non-Standard Port – Port 443 for unencrypted HTTP traffic

Darktrace Model Alerts during intrusion

Anomalous File::Internal::Script from Rare Internal Location

Anomalous File::EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File::Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Anomalous Connection::Possible Callback URL

Antigena::Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Server Anomaly Block

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

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

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

References

[1] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa25-239a

[2] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_gb/research/24/k/earth-estries.html

[3] https://www.trendmicro.com/content/dam/trendmicro/global/en/research/24/k/earth-estries/IOC_list-EarthEstries.txt

[4] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_gb/research/24/k/breaking-down-earth-estries-persistent-ttps-in-prolonged-cyber-o.html

[5] https://lab52.io/blog/deedrat-backdoor-enhanced-by-chinese-apts-with-advanced-capabilities/

[6] https://www.silentpush.com/blog/salt-typhoon-2025/

^{The content provided in this blog is published by Darktrace for general informational purposes only and reflects our understanding of cybersecurity topics, trends, incidents, and developments at the time of publication. While we strive to ensure accuracy and relevance, the information is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Darktrace makes no guarantees regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information presented and expressly disclaims all warranties.}

^{Nothing in this blog constitutes legal, technical, or professional advice, and readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein. Any references to third-party organizations, technologies, threat actors, or incidents are for informational purposes only and do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or recommendation.}

^{Darktrace, its affiliates, employees, or agents shall not be held liable for any loss, damage, or harm arising from the use of or reliance on the information in this blog.}

^{The cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly, and blog content may become outdated or superseded. We reserve the right to update, modify, or remove any content.}

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

AI

October 15, 2025

How a Major Civil Engineering Company Reduced MTTR across Network, Email and the Cloud with Darktrace

Asking more of the information security team

“What more can we be doing to secure the company?” is a great question for any cyber professional to hear from their Board of Directors. After successfully defeating a series of attacks and seeing the potential for AI tools to supercharge incoming threats, a UK-based civil engineering company’s security team had the answer: Darktrace.

“When things are coming at you at machine speed, you need machine speed to fight it off – it’s as simple as that,” said their Information Security Manager. “There were incidents where it took us a few hours to get to the bottom of what was going on. Darktrace changed that.”

Prevention was also the best cure. A peer organization in the same sector was still in business continuity measures 18 months after an attack, and the security team did not want to risk that level of business disruption.

Legacy tools were not meeting the team’s desired speed or accuracy

The company’s native SaaS email platform took between two and 14 days to alert on suspicious emails, with another email security tool flagging malicious emails after up to 24 days. After receiving an alert, responses often took a couple of days to coordinate. The team was losing precious time.

Beyond long detection and response times, the old email security platform was no longer performing: 19% of incoming spam was missed. Of even more concern: 6% of phishing emails reached users’ inboxes, and malware and ransomware email was also still getting through, with 0.3% of such email-borne payloads reaching user inboxes.

Choosing Darktrace

“When evaluating tools in 2023, only Darktrace had what I was looking for: an existing, mature, AI-based cybersecurity solution. ChatGPT had just come out and a lot of companies were saying ‘AI this’ and ‘AI that’. Then you’d take a look, and it was all rules- and cases-based, not AI at all,” their Information Security Manager.

The team knew that, with AI-enabled attacks on the horizon, a cybersecurity company that had already built, fielded, and matured an AI-powered cyber defense would give the security team the ability to fend off machine-speed attacks at the same pace as the attackers.

Darktrace accomplishes this with multi-layered AI that learns each organization’s normal business operations. With this detailed level of understanding, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI can recognize unusual activity that may indicate a cyber-attack, and works to neutralize the threat with precise response actions. And it does this all at machine speed and with minimal disruption.

On the morning the team was due to present its findings, the session was cancelled – for a good reason. The Board didn’t feel further discussion was necessary because the case for Darktrace was so conclusive. The CEO described the Darktrace option as ‘an insurance policy we can’t do without’.

Saving time with Darktrace / EMAIL

Darktrace / EMAIL reduced the discovery, alert, and response process from days or weeks to seconds .

Darktrace / EMAIL automates what was originally a time-consuming and repetitive process. The team has recovered between eight and 10 working hours a week by automating much of this process using / EMAIL.

Today, Darktrace / EMAIL prevents phishing emails from reaching employees’ inboxes. The volume of hostile and unsolicited email fell to a third of its original level after Darktrace / EMAIL was set up.

Further savings with Darktrace / NETWORK and Darktrace / IDENTITY

Since its success with Darktrace / EMAIL, the company adopted two more products from the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform – Darktrace / NETWORK and Darktrace / IDENTITY.

These have further contributed to cost savings. An initial plan to build a 24/7 SOC would have required hiring and retaining six additional analysts, rather than the two that currently use Darktrace, costing an additional £220,000 per year in salary. With Darktrace, the existing analysts have the tools needed to become more effective and impactful.

An additional benefit: Darktrace adoption has lowered the company’s cyber insurance premiums. The security team can reallocate this budget to proactive projects.

Detection of novel threats provides reassurance

Darktrace’s unique approach to cybersecurity added a key benefit. The team’s previous tool took a rules-based approach – which was only good if the next attack featured the same characteristics as the ones on which the tool was trained.

“Darktrace looks for anomalous behavior, and we needed something that detected and responded based on use cases, not rules that might be out of date or too prescriptive,” their Information Security Manager. “Our existing provider could take a couple of days to update rules and signatures, and in this game, speed is of the essence. Darktrace just does everything we need - without delay.”

Where rules-based tools must wait for a threat to emerge before beginning to detect and respond to it, Darktrace identifies and protects against unknown and novel threats, speeding identification, response, and recovery, minimizing business disruption as a result.

Looking to the future

With Darktrace in place, the UK-based civil engineering company team has reallocated time and resources usually spent on detection and alerting to now tackle more sophisticated, strategic challenges. Darktrace has also equipped the team with far better and more regularly updated visibility into potential vulnerabilities.

“One thing that frustrates me a little is penetration testing; our ISO accreditation mandates a penetration test at least once a year, but the results could be out of date the next day,” their Information Security Manager. “Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management will give me that view in real time – we can run it daily if needed - and that’s going to be a really effective workbench for my team.”

As the company looks to further develop its security posture, Darktrace remains poised to evolve alongside its partner.

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: Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 | Key Updates for Security Teams

Cyber Assessment Framework v4.0 Raises the Bar: 6 Questions every security team should ask about their security posture

What is the Cyber Assessment Framework?

What’s new with the Cyber Assessment Framework 4.0?

Why Darktrace? Leading the way since 2013

6 Questions you should ask about your security posture to align with CAF v4

1. Can your tools detect threats by identifying anomalies?

Why this shift?

2. Is threat hunting structured, repeatable, and improving over time?

3. Do you have a proactive security posture?

4. Can your team/tools customize detection rules and enable autonomous responses?

5. Is your software secure and supported?

6. Is your incident response plan built on a true understanding of your environment and does it adapt to changes over time?

From government expectation to strategic advantage

Salty Much: Darktrace’s view on a recent Salt Typhoon intrusion

How a Major Civil Engineering Company Reduced MTTR across Network, Email and the Cloud with Darktrace

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Understanding the Canadian Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act

ISO/IEC 42001: 2023: A milestone in AI standards at Darktrace

Modernising UK Cyber Regulation: Implications of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill

Blog

October 20, 2025

Salty Much: Darktrace’s view on a recent Salt Typhoon intrusion

What is Salt Typhoon?‍

Darktrace’s coverage

Initial access

Tooling

Command-and-Control (C2)

Detection timeline

Cyber AI Analyst observations

Conclusion

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE TTPs

Darktrace Model Alerts during intrusion

References

Blog

AI

October 15, 2025

How a Major Civil Engineering Company Reduced MTTR across Network, Email and the Cloud with Darktrace

Asking more of the information security team

Legacy tools were not meeting the team’s desired speed or accuracy

Choosing Darktrace

Saving time with Darktrace / EMAIL

Further savings with Darktrace / NETWORK and Darktrace / IDENTITY

Detection of novel threats provides reassurance

Looking to the future