December 20, 2023

Ivanti Sentry Vulnerability | Analysis & Insights

Darktrace observed a critical vulnerability in Ivanti Sentry's cybersecurity. Learn how this almost become a huge threat and how we stopped it in its tracks.

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

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

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Dec 2023

In an increasingly interconnected digital landscape, the prevalence of critical vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems stands as an open invitation to malicious actors. These vulnerabilities serve as a near limitless resource, granting attackers a continually array of entry points into targeted networks.

In the final week of August 2023, Darktrace observed malicious actors validating exploits for one such critical vulnerability, likely the critical RCE vulnerability, CVE-2023-38035, on Ivanti Sentry servers within multiple customer networks. Shortly after these successful tests were carried out, malicious actors were seen delivering crypto-mining and reconnaissance tools onto vulnerable Ivanti Sentry servers.

Fortunately, Darktrace DETECT™ was able to identify this post-exploitation activity on the compromised servers at the earliest possible stage, allowing the customer security teams to take action against affected devices. In environments where Darktrace RESPOND™ was enabled in autonomous response mode, Darktrace was further able inhibit the identified post-exploitation activity and stop malicious actors from progressing towards their end goals.

Exploitation of Vulnerabilities in Ivanti Products

The software provider, Ivanti, offers a variety of widely used endpoint management, service management, and security solutions. In July and August 2023, the Norwegian cybersecurity company, Mnemonic, disclosed three vulnerabilities in Ivanti products [1]/[2]/[3]; two in Ivanti's endpoint management solution, Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) (formerly called 'MobileIron Core'), and one in Ivanti’s security gateway solution, Ivanti Sentry (formerly called 'MobileIron Sentry'):

CVE-2023-35078

CVSS Score: 10.0
Affected Product: Ivanti EPMM
Details from Ivanti: [4]/[5]/[6]
Vulnerability type: Authentication bypass

CVE-2023-35081

CVSS Score: 7.2
Affected Product: Ivanti EPMM
Details from Ivanti: [7]/[8]/[9]
Vulnerability type: Directory traversal

CVE-2023-38035

CVSS Score:
Affected Product: Ivanti Sentry
Details from Ivanti: [10]/[11]/[12]
Vulnerability type: Authentication bypass

At the beginning of August 2023, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Norwegian National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NO) provided details of advanced persistent threat (APT) activity targeting EPMM systems within Norwegian private sector and government networks via exploitation of CVE-2023-35078 combined with suspected exploitation of CVE-2023-35081.

In an article published in August 2023 [12], Ivanti disclosed that a very limited number of their customers had been subjected to exploitation of the Ivanti Sentry vulnerability, CVE-2023-38035, and on the August 22, 2023, CISA added the Ivanti Sentry vulnerability, CVE-2023-38035 to its ‘Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalogue’. CVE-2023-38035 is a critical authentication bypass vulnerability affecting the System Manager Portal of Ivanti Sentry systems. The System Manager Portal, which is accessible by default on port 8433, is used for administration of the Ivanti Sentry system. Through exploitation of CVE-2023-38035, an unauthenticated actor with access to the System Manager Portal can achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the underlying Ivanti Sentry system.

Observed Exploitation of CVE-2023-38035

On August 24, Darktrace observed Ivanti Sentry servers within several customer networks receiving successful SSL connections over port 8433 from the external endpoint, 34.77.65[.]112. The usage of port 8433 indicates that the System Manager Portal was accessed over the connections. Immediately after receiving these successful connections, Ivanti Sentry servers made GET requests over port 4444 to 34.77.65[.]112. The unusual string ‘Wget/1.14 (linux-gnu)’ appeared in the User-Agent headers of these requests, indicating that the command-line utility, wget, was abused to initiate the requests.

Figure 1: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system showing the device breaching a range of DETECT models after contacting 34.77.65[.]112.The suspicious behavior highlighted by DETECT was subsequently investigated by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™, which was able to weave together these separate behaviors into single incidents representing the whole attack chain.

‍

Figure 2: AI Analyst Incident representing a chain of suspicious activities from an Ivanti Sentry server.

In cases where Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in autonomous response mode, RESPOND was able to automatically enforce the Ivanti Sentry server’s normal pattern of life, thus blocking further exploit testing.

Figure 3: Event Log for an Ivanti Sentry server showing the device receiving a RESPOND action immediately after trying to 34.77.65[.]112.

The GET requests to 34.77.65[.]112 were responded to with the following HTML document:

Figure 4: Snapshot of the HTML document returned by 34.77.65[.]112.

None of the links within this HTML document were functional. Furthermore, the devices’ downloads of these HTML documents do not appear to have elicited further malicious activities. These facts suggest that the observed 34.77.65[.]112 activities were representative of a malicious actor validating exploits (likely for CVE-2023-38035) on Ivanti Sentry systems.

Over the next 24 hours, these Ivanti Sentry systems received successful SSL connections over port 8433 from a variety of suspicious external endpoints, such as 122.161.66[.]161. These connections resulted in Ivanti Sentry systems making HTTP GET requests to subdomains of ‘oast[.]site’ and ‘oast[.]live’. Strings containing ‘curl’ appeared in the User-Agent headers of these requests, indicating that the command-line utility, cURL, was abused to initiate the requests.

These ‘oast[.]site’ and ‘oast[.]live’ domains are used by the out-of-band application security testing (OAST) service, Interactsh. Malicious actors are known to abuse this service to carry out out-of-band (OOB) exploit testing. It, therefore, seems likely that these activities were also representative of a malicious actor validating exploits for CVE-2023-38035 on Ivanti Sentry systems.

Figure 5: Event Log for Ivanti Sentry system showing the device contacting an 'oast[.]site' endpoint after receiving connections from the suspicious, external endpoint 122.161.66[.]161.

The actors seen validating exploits for CVE-2023-38035 may have been conducting such activities in preparation for their own subsequent malicious activities. However, given the variety of attack chains which ensued from these exploit validation activities, it is also possible that they were carried out by Initial Access Brokers (IABs) The activities which ensued from exploit validation activities identified by Darktrace fell into two categories: internal network reconnaissance and cryptocurrency mining.

Reconnaissance Activities

In one of the reconnaissance cases, immediately after receiving successful SSL connections over port 8443 from the external endpoints 190.2.131[.]204 and 45.159.248[.]179, an Ivanti Sentry system was seen making a long SSL connection over port 443 to 23.92.29[.]148, and making wget GET requests over port 4444 with the Target URIs '/ncat' and ‘/TxPortMap’ to the external endpoints, 45.86.162[.]147 and 195.123.240[.]183.

Figure 6: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system showing the device making connections to the external endpoints, 45.86.162[.]147, 23.92.29[.]148, and 195.123.240[.]183, immediately after receiving connections from rare external endpoints.

The Ivanti Sentry system then went on to scan for open SMB ports on systems within the internal network. This activity likely resulted from an attacker dropping a port scanning utility on the vulnerable Ivanti Sentry system.

Figure 7: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry server showing the device breaching several DETECT models after downloading a port scanning tool from 195.123.240[.]183.

In another reconnaissance case, Darktrace observed multiple wget HTTP requests with Target URIs such as ‘/awp.tar.gz’ and ‘/resp.tar.gz’ to a suspicious, external server (78.128.113[.]130). Shortly after making these requests, the Ivanti Sentry system started to scan for open SMB ports and to respond to LLMNR queries from other internal devices. These behaviors indicate that the server may have installed an LLMNR poisoning tool, such as Responder. The Ivanti Sentry server also went on to conduct further information-gathering activities, such as LDAP reconnaissance, HTTP-based vulnerability scanning, HTTP-based password searching, and RDP port scanning.

Figure 8: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system showing the device making connections to 78.128.113[.]130, scanning for an open SMB port on internal endpoints, and responding to LLMNR queries from internal endpoints.

In cases where Darktrace RESPOND was active, reconnaissance activities resulted in RESPOND enforcing the Ivanti Sentry server’s pattern of life.

Figure 9: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system receiving a RESPOND action as a result of its SMB port scanning activity.

Figure 10: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system receiving a RESPOND action as a result of its LDAP reconnaissance activity.

Crypto-Mining Activities

In one of the cryptomining cases, Darktrace detected an Ivanti Sentry server making SSL connections to aelix[.]xyz and mining pool endpoints after receiving successful SSL connections over port 8443 from the external endpoint, 140.228.24[.]160.

Figure 11: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system showing the device contacting aelix[.]xyz and mining pool endpoints immediately after receiving connections from the external endpoint, 140.228.24[.]160.

In a cryptomining case on another customer’s network, an Ivanti Sentry server was seen making GET requests indicative of Kinsing malware infection. These requests included wget GET requests to 185.122.204[.]197 with the Target URIs ‘/unk.sh’ and ‘/se.sh’ and a combination of GET and POST requests to 185.221.154[.]208 with the User-Agent header ‘Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.51 Safari/537.36’ and the Target URIs, ‘/mg’, ‘/ki’, ‘/get’, ‘/h2’, ‘/ms’, and ‘/mu’. These network-based artefacts have been observed in previous Kinsing infections [13].

Figure 12: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry system showing the device displaying likely Kinsing C2 activity.

On customer environments where RESPOND was active, Darktrace was able to take swift autonomous action by blocking cryptomining connection attempts to malicious command-and-control (C2) infrastructure, in this case Kinsing servers.

Figure 13: Event Log data for an Ivanti Sentry server showing the device receiving a RESPOND action after attempting to contact Kinsing C2 infrastructure.

Fortunately, due to Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND prompt identification and targeted actions against these emerging threats, coupled with remediating steps taken by affected customers’ security teams, neither the cryptocurrency mining activities nor the network reconnaissance activities led to significant disruption.

Figure 14: Timeline of observed malicious activities.

Conclusion The inevitable presence of critical vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems underscores the perpetual challenge of defending against malicious intrusions. The near inexhaustible supply of entry routes into organizations’ networks available to malicious actors necessitates a more proactive and vigilant approach to network security.

While it is, of course, essential for organizations to secure their digital environments through the regular patching of software and keeping abreast of developing vulnerabilities that could impact their network, it is equally important to have a safeguard in place to mitigate against attackers who do manage to exploit newly discovered vulnerabilities.

In the case of Ivanti Sentry, Darktrace observed malicious actors validating exploits against affected servers on customer networks just a few days after the public disclosure of the critical vulnerability. This activity was followed up by a variety of malicious and disruptive, activities including cryptocurrency mining and internal network reconnaissance.

Darktrace DETECT immediately detected post-exploitation activities on compromised Ivanti Sentry servers, enabling security teams to intervene at the earliest possible stage. Darktrace RESPOND, when active, autonomously inhibited detected post-exploitation activities. These DETECT detections, along with their accompanying RESPOND interventions, prevented malicious actors from being able to progress further towards their likely harmful objectives.

Credit to Sam Lister, Senior Cyber Analyst, and Trent Kessler, SOC Analyst

‍

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Initial Access techniques:

Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190)

Credential Access techniques:

Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001)
Adversary-in-the-Middle: LLMNR/NBT-NS Poisoning and SMB Relay (T1557.001)

Discovery

Network Service Discovery (T1046)
Remote System Discovery (T1018)
Account Discovery: Domain Account (T1087.002)

Command and Control techniques:

Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001)
Ingress Tool Transfer (T1105)
Non-Standard Port (T1571)
Encrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography (T1573.002)

Impact techniques

Resource Hijacking (T1496)

List of IoCs

Exploit testing IoCs:

· 34.77.65[.]112

· Wget/1.14 (linux-gnu)

· cjjovo7mhpt7geo8aqlgxp7ypod6dqaiz.oast[.]site • 178.128.16[.]97

· curl/7.19.7 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.19.7 NSS/3.27.1 zlib/1.2.3 libidn/1.18 libssh2/1.4.2

· cjk45q1chpqflh938kughtrfzgwiofns3.oast[.]site • 178.128.16[.]97

· curl/7.29.0

Kinsing-related IoCs:

· 185.122.204[.]197

· /unk.sh

· /se.sh

· 185.221.154[.]208

· 45.15.158[.]124

· Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.51 Safari/537.36

· /mg

· /ki

· /get

· /h2

· /ms

· /mu

· vocaltube[.]ru • 185.154.53[.]140

· 92.255.110[.]4

· 194.87.254[.]160

Responder-related IoCs:

· 78.128.113[.]130

· 78.128.113[.]34

· /awp.tar.gz

· /ivanty

· /resp.tar.gz

Crypto-miner related IoCs:

· 140.228.24[.]160

· aelix[.]xyz • 104.21.60[.]147 / 172.67.197[.]200

· c8446f59cca2149cb5f56ced4b448c8d (JA3 client fingerprint)

· b5eefe582e146aed29a21747a572e11c (JA3 client fingerprint)

· pool.supportxmr[.]com

· xmr.2miners[.]com

· monerooceans[.]stream

· xmr-eu2.nanopool[.]org

Port scanner-related IoCs:

· 122.161.66[.]161

· 192.241.235[.]32

· 45.86.162[.]147

· /ncat

· Wget/1.14 (linux-gnu)

· 45.159.248[.]179

· 142.93.115[.]146

· 23.92.29[.]148

· /TxPortMap

· 195.123.240.183

· 6935a8d379e086ea1aed159b8abcb0bc8acf220bd1cbc0a84fd806f14014bca7 (SHA256 hash of downloaded file)

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

· Anomalous Server Activity / New User Agent from Internet Facing System

· Device / New User Agent

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Device / New User Agent and New IP

· Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

· Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

· Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

· Compromise / Agent Beacon (Short Period)

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

· Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

· Compromise / Monero Mining

· Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

· Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / Unusual LDAP Bind and Search Activity

· Compliance / Vulnerable Name Resolution

· Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

· Device / New User Agent To Internal Server

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious HTTP Activity

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Connections

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious HTTP Activity

· Device / RDP Scan

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious HTTP Activity

· Compromise / Suspicious Internal Use Of Web Protocol

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download

· Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

References

[1] https://www.mnemonic.io/resources/blog/ivanti-endpoint-manager-mobile-epmm-authentication-bypass-vulnerability/
‍[2] https://www.mnemonic.io/resources/blog/threat-advisory-remote-file-write-vulnerability-in-ivanti-epmm/
‍[3] https://www.mnemonic.io/resources/blog/threat-advisory-remote-code-execution-vulnerability-in-ivanti-sentry/
‍[4] https://www.ivanti.com/blog/cve-2023-35078-new-ivanti-epmm-vulnerability
‍[5] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/CVE-2023-35078-Remote-unauthenticated-API-access-vulnerability?language=en_US
‍[6] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/KB-Remote-unauthenticated-API-access-vulnerability-CVE-2023-35078?language=en_US
‍[7] https://www.ivanti.com/blog/cve-2023-35081-new-ivanti-epmm-vulnerability
‍[8] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/CVE-2023-35081-Arbitrary-File-Write?language=en_US
‍[9] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/KB-Arbitrary-File-Write-CVE-2023-35081?language=en_US
‍[10] https://www.ivanti.com/blog/cve-2023-38035-vulnerability-affecting-ivanti-sentry
‍[11] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/CVE-2023-38035-API-Authentication-Bypass-on-Sentry-Administrator-Interface?language=en_US
‍[12] https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/KB-API-Authentication-Bypass-on-Sentry-Administrator-Interface-CVE-2023-38035?language=en_US
‍[13] https://isc.sans.edu/diary/Your+Business+Data+and+Machine+Learning+at+Risk+Attacks+Against+Apache+NiFi/29900

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Inside the SOC

Written by

Sam Lister

Specialist Security Researcher

Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

July 6, 2026

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

As organizations adopt generative AI, many still assume that the right set of guardrails will be enough. The problem is you can’t anticipate every way these systems might be misused, abused or attacked. What NIST has done is put a mathematical foundation under that intuition.

In recent research building on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which showed that any system built on a fixed set of rules will always have gaps, NIST demonstrates that there is no finite set of guardrails that can be universally robust against adversarial prompts. In plain terms, if your defense is based on a fixed set of rules, there will always be inputs that bypass them. Not because the rules are badly written, but because the problem space is bigger than static rules can ever cover.

This is not new in cybersecurity - detection rules have always had to live with this trade-off. What is different with GenAI is the scale and shape of that problem. These systems are built on human language, and human language is not bounded. It is fluid, contextual and deliberately ambiguous. The number of ways intent can be hidden is effectively limitless. You are not defending against a defined protocol or a fixed exploit chain. You are defending against the entire expressive capacity of people.

So attempting to create a complete set of rules is the wrong starting point. It assumes the problem can be deterministically described. NIST’s work shows that it cannot. Organizations still need a way to manage AI risk, but the traditional approach of defining allowed and disallowed patterns is always going to lag behind what is actually happening. The same input can be benign in one context and risky in another, and static rules struggle to capture that distinction.

The question then is what fills that gap?

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

What's required is a shift in what you are trying to understand. Rules try to describe what should and shouldn't happen. Behavior shows you what is happening. Or to put it another way, if inputs are unbounded and adversaries adapt, the only stable signal is behavior.

In a GenAI context, that means analyzing how an AI model is being used, how prompts evolve over time, how outputs are shaped, and where AI agent interactions start to drift from what is expected. It means moving from static definitions of bad to a more dynamic understanding of intent.

Instead of trying to predict every bad prompt, you focus on identifying when behavior starts to move outside expected norms. Instead of asking whether a single input matches a rule, you ask whether the overall pattern of activity makes sense for the system and how it’s being used.

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

This does not eliminate the need for guardrails. They still play a role. But they will never address the entire problem space and are simply one part of your defense in depth approach.

NIST’s proof is useful because it makes this explicit. It removes the assumption that with enough effort, a complete rule set is achievable. It isn’t.

Once you accept that, the shift becomes unavoidable. This is no longer a problem of writing better rules, but of understanding behavior in a space where the possible inputs are effectively unbounded.

For security leaders, that changes the nature of the problem. It is less about defining what should be allowed, and more about recognizing when something is no longer consistent with expected behavior.

That does not remove the need for guardrails, but it does change their role. They set boundaries, but they do not define understanding. The gap between the two is where risk now sits.

In the end, this is what “can’t be solved with rules” really means. Rules will always leave gaps, and those gaps are not theoretical. They show up in how systems actually behave Not what we expect them to do, or what we intended them to do, but what they are doing in practice. That is where the signal is, and increasingly, that is where the security problem sits.

References:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-mathematical-proof-supports-transition-continuous-monitor-and-update

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11475847

About the author

Andrew Hollister

Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician

Blog

AI

July 1, 2026

5 Ways AI is changing traditional security models according to modern CISOs

The Reality of Securing AI in Motion

Traditional security tools were built for environments defined by fixed rules and predictable workflows. But AI behavior is non-deterministic. The same prompt can produce different outcomes, and risk often emerges gradually as AI behavior adapts, and permissions drift over time. This creates a constantly shifting environment where security teams are working to define control in a system that resists stability. “In AI security, yesterday's priorities can become tomorrow's blind spots. The landscape shifts that fast,” warned the SVP and Head of Technology and Cybersecurity of a real estate investment trust. Conventional approaches, which rely on establishing and maintaining a steady baseline, struggle to keep up with that level of change.

At the same time, AI adoption is accelerating across organizations, often faster than security teams can implement the controls needed to manage it. “The car is being built while it’s already on the road,” explained the CISO of a global private fund administrator. “The threats we're securing against today won't be the threats we're facing tomorrow. What kept us up three months ago looks nothing like what we're dealing with today.”

As businesses move quickly to unlock value from AI, security teams are left closing gaps in real time, while also facing adversaries who are using AI to make their attacks more scalable, adaptive, and difficult to detect. In this recent roundtable discussion of CISOs and security leaders, five themes emerged around AI cyber risk.

1. AI agents with human access but no human judgment

In Darktrace’s 2026 State of AI Cybersecurity report, 96% of the surveyed security professionals agree that AI significantly improves the speed and efficiency with which they work. Yet, 92% admitted that they’re concerned with the security implications of the use of AI agents across their workforce.

AI agents now operate with human-level permissions across systems, acting at machine speed, orchestrating actions across platforms, and making decisions without the judgment or caution a person would apply. Unlike human users, they cannot be expected to pause and question whether a given action is appropriate.

Their identities are also difficult to inventory, govern, and audit. As agents become easier to deploy than legacy IT systems ever were, organizations are quickly losing track of what is running, what it has access to, and what it is doing. This creates a growing class of highly privileged, autonomous actors operating without the visibility or oversight that traditional identity and access controls were designed to provide.“While AI adoption is critical to running a modern business, AI alone can’t solve all our cybersecurity challenges,” said a global financial sector CISO. “We still need think critically and use human judgement. Those are two things AI can’t do.”

This lack of human judgment becomes especially risky as new architectures, such as Model Context Protocol (MCP), can expand how agents connect to data, tools, and external systems. By design, MCP enables agents to dynamically discover and interact with new resources, increasing flexibility but also introducing new pathways for unintended access, data exposure, or abuse if not properly governed.

The CISO of a fund administrator highlighted one emerging vector as an example: rogue MCP servers. “Our developers want to move quickly and bring value to the business, but technologies like these can unintentionally expose sensitive data in ways that would never have happened before.”

2. Increased digital complexity and expanded attack surface

AI activity rarely stays contained. A single prompt can trigger a chain of actions across networks, email, cloud infrastructure, SaaS platforms, endpoints, identity systems, and development environments, spanning systems that were never designed to be secured as a single, connected flow. This expands both the scale and complexity of what security teams need to monitor and defend.

Yet no single control has visibility across that entire chain. “You can’t defend effectively what you can’t see,” cautioned the private fund administrator CISO. As AI-driven activity moves fluidly across environments, gaps in coverage become inevitable, creating blind spots that attackers can exploit.

Threat actors are already capitalizing on this lack of visibility. “Threat actors have advanced their use of generative AI to launch more convincing phishing campaigns, automate social engineering, and scale attacks with greater precision down to the individual level,” said the SVP of Technology and Cybersecurity for the real estate investment trust. What was once manual and targeted can now be automated and personalized at scale, making attacks harder to detect and easier to execute.

At the same time, the pace of exploitation is accelerating. As a global CISO operating across 40+ countries described it: “Zero-day vulnerabilities are no longer zero day; it’s minus one day. By the time you get to it and address it, it’s already a problem.” By the time risk is identified, it has often already been realized.

The result is a rapidly expanding and increasingly interconnected attack surface that challenges security teams to maintain visibility, context, and control across AI-driven activity.

3. Shadow AI is already everywhere

76% of organizations now cite shadow AI as a problem, one that is spreading through organizations in ways that are hard to track and even harder to control.

Employees are experimenting with publicly available Gen AI tools. Teams are spinning up low-code automations on their own. SaaS providers are quietly embedding AI into existing products. Developers are plugging AI services directly into workflows, often without pausing to consider what that exposure means.

The result is a lack of visibility into:

What AI tools are being used
What data those tools can access
Where prompts and outputs are going
Which AI agents are interacting with enterprise systems

The SVP of Cybersecurity at a real estate investment trust described the shift: “Before, I was worried about someone sending data erroneously to their personal email. Now we have all these agents online that people are utilizing, and we’re looking at those vectors as well.” For security teams, this means operating without a complete view of how AI is being used, what it can access, and where risk may already be emerging.

4. Built-in guardrails are not enough

Organizations often assume that native AI guardrails or provider-level controls are sufficient to manage AI risk. But securing AI requires ongoing visibility, oversight, and governance, not just controls configured at deployment. "It’s a misconception that adopting AI is going to solve all your problems,” warns a global financial services CISO.

Security leaders are increasingly recognizing the limitations of these controls as:

Fragmented and difficult to enforce consistently across multiple AI systems, workflows, and environments
Ambiguous in terms of accountability due to shared responsibility for AI governance between IT, security, developers, business teams, and third-party providers
Limited in end-to-end oversight, leaving gaps that stretch from the initial prompt all the way through to the downstream impact of an agent's actions

Securing AI demands more than simple prompt filtering or static policy enforcement. It requires understanding intent, behavior, and context across both human and AI activity.

The next phase of cybersecurity: securing AI

To safely and responsibly adopt AI at scale, organizations need a new operational model for cybersecurity that’s capable of:

• Understanding AI behavior

• Identifying risk in real time

• Maintaining governance without slowing innovation

The CSO of a $10 billion municipal utility organization described the challenge with precision: “We have to move at the speed of innovation and risk, because both are accelerating faster than ever.”

Embrace AI with confidence with Darktrace / SECURE AI

Darktrace has introduced Darktrace / SECURE AI™, a new product within the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™ ,designed to provide enterprise-wide security for AI by applying industry leading behavioral analysis to how prompts, agents, and AI systems are used.

Darktrace / SECURE AI^TMdelivers real-time visibility and control across Enterprise and SaaS GenAI prompts, AI agent identities, development and production environments, and Shadow AI - detecting even subtle misuse, misconfiguration, and drift that traditional, rule-based controls simply do not understand. By interpreting context and intent across humans and machines, Darktrace enables organizations to adopt AI at scale without introducing unmanaged risk

What makes this possible is Darktrace’s decade-long maturity and expertise in behavioral understanding and AI-native cybersecurity. Achieved with Self-Learning AI that has been proven across more than 10,000 organizations, Darktrace understands what “normal” looks like for a business, across its users, systems, and now AI, so that meaningful deviations can be detected and acted on before they become incidents.

With one CISO describing Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI as “a leap forward compared to other tools” and another as a “force multiplier,” the technology can interpret ambiguous interactions, understand how access accumulates over time, and recognize when behavior, human or machine, begins to drift.

“Strategically, we’re looking to gain more visibility into how AI is operating across the environment and achieve greater control over what AI should be allowed to access and do,” shared the CISO at a private fund administrator.

“What I’ve seen from Darktrace / SECURE AI is extremely promising. I have tremendous confidence in Darktrace’s vision for where this is headed and its ability to execute on this new solution.”

‍

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: Ivanti Sentry Vulnerability | Analysis & Insights

Ivanti Sentry Vulnerability | Analysis & Insights

Exploitation of Vulnerabilities in Ivanti Products

Observed Exploitation of CVE-2023-38035

Reconnaissance Activities

Crypto-Mining Activities

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of IoCs

References

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

How Attackers Abuse the Chinese Nezha Monitoring Tool

Blog

AI

July 6, 2026

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

Blog

AI

July 1, 2026

5 Ways AI is changing traditional security models according to modern CISOs

The Reality of Securing AI in Motion

The next phase of cybersecurity: securing AI

Embrace AI with confidence with Darktrace / SECURE AI