November 13, 2024

Tactics Behind the Royal and Blacksuit Ransomware

Delve into the complexities of the Royal and Blacksuit ransomware strains and their implications for cybersecurity in today’s digital landscape.

Written by

Signe Zaharka

Principal Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

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

Written by

Signe Zaharka

Principal Cyber Analyst

Nov 2024

What is BlackSuit Ransomware?

Since late 2023, Darktrace has detected BlackSuit ransomware infiltrating multiple customer networks in the US. This ransomware has targeted a wide range of industries, including arts, entertainment, real estate, public administration, defense, and social security.

Emerging in May 2023, BlackSuit is believed to be a spinoff of Royal ransomware due to similarities in code and Conti, and most likely consists of Russian and Eastern European hackers [1]. Recorded Future reported that the ransomware had affected 95 organizations worldwide, though the actual number is likely much higher [2]. While BlackSuit does not appear to focus on any particular sector, it has targeted multiple organizations in the healthcare, education, IT, government, retail and manufacturing industries [3]. Employing double extortion tactics, BlackSuit not only encrypts files but also steals sensitive data to leverage ransom payments.

BlackSuit has demanded over USD 500 million in ransoms, with the highest individual demand reaching USD 60 million [4]. Notable targets include CDK Global, Japanese media conglomerate Kadokawa, multiple educational institutions, Octapharma Plasma, and the government of Brazil [5][6][7][8].

Darktrace’s Coverage of BlackSuit Ransomware Attack

Case 1, November 2023

The earliest attack on a Darktrace customer by BlackSuit was detected at the start of November 2023. The unusual network activity began on a weekend—a time commonly chosen by ransomware groups to increase their chances of success, as many security teams operate with reduced staff. Darktrace identified indicators of the attackers’ presence on the network for almost two weeks, during which a total of 15 devices exhibited suspicious behavior.

The attack commenced with unusual internal SMB (Server Message Block) connections using a compromised service account. An internal device uploaded an executable (zzza.exe) to a domain controller (DC) and shortly after, wrote a script (socks5.ps1) to another device. According to a Cybersecurity Advisory from the CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, US), the script file was a PowerShell reverse proxy [9].

Approximately an hour and a half later, the device to which the script was written exhibited uncommon WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation) activity. Two hours after receiving the executable file, the DC was observed making an outgoing NTLM request, using PowerShell to remotely execute commands, distributing differently named executable files (<PART OF THE CUSTOMER’S NAME>.exe), and controlling services on other devices.

Eighteen hours after the start of the unusual activity, Darktrace detected another device making repeated connections to “mystuff.bublup[.]com”, which the aforementioned CISA Advisory identifies as a domain used by BlackSuit for data exfiltration [9].

About ten minutes after the suspicious executables were distributed across the network, and less than 24 hours after the start of the unusual activity, file encryption began. A total of ten devices were seen appending the “.blacksuit” extension to files saved on other devices using SMB, as well as writing ransom notes (readme.blacksuit.txt). The file encryption lasted less than 20 minutes.

Figure 1: An example of the contents of a BlackSuit ransom note being written over SMB.

During this compromise, external connections to endpoints related to ConnectWise’s ScreenConnect remote management tool were also seen from multiple servers, suggesting that the tool was likely being abused for command-and-control (C2) activity. Darktrace identified anomalous connectivity associated with ScreenConnect was seen up to 11 days after the start of the attack.

10 days after the start of the compromise, an account belonging to a manager was detected adding “.blacksuit” extensions to the customer’s Software-a-Service (SaaS) resources while connecting from 173.251.109[.]106. Six minutes after file encryption began, Darktrace flagged the unusual activity and recommended a block. However, since Autonomous Response mode was not enabled, the customer’s security team needed to manually confirm the action. Consequently, suspicious activity continued for about a week after the initial encryption. This included disabling authentication on the account and an unusual Teams session initiated from the suspicious external endpoint 216.151.180[.]147.

Case 2, February 2024

Another BlackSuit compromise occurred at the start of February 2024, when Darktrace identified approximately 50 devices exhibiting ransomware-related activity in another US customer’s environment. Further investigation revealed that a significant number of additional devices had also been compromised. These devices were outside Darktrace’s purview to the customer’s specific deployment configuration. The threat actors managed to exfiltrate around 4 TB of data.

Initial access to the network was gained via a virtual private network (VPN) compromise in January 2024, when suspicious connections from a Romanian IP address were detected. According to CISA, the BlackSuit group often utilizes the services of initial access brokers (IAB)—actors who specialize in infiltrating networks, such as through VPNs, and then selling that unauthorized access to other threat actors [9]. Other initial access vectors include phishing emails, RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) compromise, and exploitation of vulnerable public-facing applications.

Similar to the first case, the file encryption began at the end of the working week. During this phase of the attack, affected devices were observed encrypting files on other internal devices using two compromised administrator accounts. The encryption activity lasted for approximately six and a half hours. Multiple alerts were sent to the customer from Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) team, who began reviewing the activity within four minutes of the start of the file encryption.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst clustering together multiple events related to unusual activity on the network, including file encryption over SMB by BlackSuit.

Figure 3: A spike in model alerts on the day when file encryption by BlackSuit was observed in the network.

In this case, the threat actor utilized SystemBC proxy malware for command and control (C2). A domain controller (DC) was seen connecting to 137.220.61[.]94 on the same day the file encryption took place. The DC was also observed connecting to a ProxyScrape domain around the same time, which is related to the SOCKS5 protocol used by SystemBC. During this compromise, RDP, SSH, and SMB were used for lateral movement within the network.

Figure 4: A Cyber AI Analyst investigation alerting to a device on the VPN subnet making suspicious internal SSH connections due to malicious actors moving laterally within the network.

Signs of threat actors potentially being on the network were observed as early as two days prior to the file encryption. This included unusual internal network scanning via multiple protocols (ICMP, SMB, RDP, etc.), credential brute-forcing, SMB access failures, and anonymous SMBv1 sessions. These activities were traced to IP addresses belonging to two desktop devices in the VPN subnet associated with two regular employee user accounts. Threat actors were seemingly able to exploit at least one of these accounts due to LDAP legacy policies being in place on the customer’s environment.

Figure 5: A Cyber AI Analyst incident summary alerting to a device on the VPN subnet conducting internal reconnaissance.

Figure 6: Examples of the proposed Darktrace Autonomous Response actions on the day BlackSuit initiated file encryption.

Case 3, August 2024

The most recently observed BlackSuit compromise occurred in August 2024, when a device was observed attempting to brute-force the credentials of an IT administrator. This activity continued for 11 days.

Once the admin’s account was successfully compromised, network scanning, unusual WMI, and SAMR (Security Account Manager Remote protocol) activity followed. A spike in the use of this account was detected on a Sunday—once again, the attackers seemingly targeting the weekend—when the account was used by nearly 50 different devices.

The compromised admin’s account was exploited for data gathering via SMB, resulting in the movement of 200 GB of data between internal devices in preparation for exfiltration. The files were then archived using the naming convention “*.part<number>.rar”.

Around the same time, Darktrace observed data transfers from 19 internal devices to “bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com,” totaling just over 200 GB—the same volume of data gathered internally. Connections to other Bublup domains were also detected. The internal data download and external data transfer activity took approximately 8-9 hours.

Unfortunately, Darktrace was not configured in Autonomous Response mode at the time of the attack, meaning any mitigative actions to stop the data gathering or exfiltration required human confirmation.

One of the compromised devices was seen sending 80 GB of data to bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com within a span of 4 hours. — Figure 7: One of the compromised devices was seen sending 80 GB of data to **bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com** within a span of 4 hours.

Once the information was stolen, the threat actor moved on to the final stage of the attack—file encryption. Five internal devices, using either the compromised admin account or connecting via anonymous SMBv1 sessions, were seen encrypting files and writing ransom notes to five other devices on the network. The attempts at file encryption continued for around two hours, but Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was able to block the activity and prevent the attack from escalating.

Conclusion

The persistent and evolving threat posed by ransomware like BlackSuit underscores the critical importance of robust cybersecurity measures across all sectors. Since its emergence in 2023, BlackSuit has demonstrated a sophisticated approach to infiltrating networks, leveraging double extortion tactics, and demanding substantial ransoms. The cases highlighted above illustrate the varied methods and persistence of BlackSuit attackers, from exploiting VPN vulnerabilities to abusing remote management tools and targeting off-hours to maximize impact.

Although many similar connection patterns, such as the abuse of Bublup services for data exfiltration or the use of SOCKS5 proxies for C2, were observed during cases investigated by Darktrace, BlackSuit actors are highly sophisticated and tailors their attacks to each target organization. The consequences of a successful attack can be highly disruptive, and remediation efforts can be time-consuming and costly. This includes taking the entire network offline while responding to the incident, restoring encrypted files from backups (if available), dealing with damage to the organization’s reputation, and potential lawsuits.

These BlackSuit ransomware incidents emphasize the need for continuous vigilance, timely updates to security protocols, and the adoption of autonomous response technologies to swiftly counteract such attacks. As ransomware tactics continue to evolve, organizations must remain agile and informed to protect their critical assets and data. By learning from these incidents and enhancing their cybersecurity frameworks, organizations can better defend against the relentless threat of ransomware and ensure the resilience of their operations in an increasingly digital world.

Credit to Signe Zaharka (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Insights from Darktrace’s First 6: Half-year threat report for 2024

First 6: half year threat report darktrace screenshot

Darktrace’s First 6: Half-Year Threat Report 2024 highlights the latest attack trends and key threats observed by the Darktrace Threat Research team in the first six months of 2024.

Focuses on anomaly detection and behavioral analysis to identify threats
Maps mitigated cases to known, publicly attributed threats for deeper context
Offers guidance on improving security posture to defend against persistent threats

‍

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

Anomalous Connection / High Volume of New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / Rare WinRM Outgoing

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB

Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion

Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session

Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

Anomalous File / Internal / Executable Uploaded to DC

Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

Anomalous Server Activity / Write to Network Accessible WebRoot

Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Read

Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Write

Compromise / Ransomware / SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions

Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity

Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Device / EXE Files Distributed to Multiple Devices

Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Device / Network Scan

Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

Device / New User Agent To Internal Server

Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / Unusual LDAP Query For Domain Admins

SaaS / Access / Teams Activity from Rare Endpoint

SaaS / Resource / SaaS Resources With Additional Extensions

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Disabled Strong Authentication

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activity Scores

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual SaaS Activity Score

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual Volume of SaaS Modifications

Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Delete Volume

Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write

Unusual Activity / High Volume Client Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / High Volume Server Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / Internal Data Transfer

Unusual Activity / SMB Access Failures

Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

User / New Admin Credentials on Client

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

User/ Kerberos Password Bruteforce

Autonomous Response Models

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

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Ransomware Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / SMB Ratio Antigena Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Internal Anomalous File Activity

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Internal Data Transfer Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Network Scan Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Pattern of Life Block

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

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

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Server Block

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Server Anomaly Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Repeated Antigena Breaches

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Unusual Activity Block

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

.blacksuit - File extension – When encrypting the files, this extension is appended to the filename – High

readme.blacksuit.txt – ransom note - A file demanding cryptocurrency payment in exchange for decrypting the victim's files and not leaking the stolen data – High

mystuff.bublup[.]com, bublup-media-production.s3.amazonaws[.]com – data exfiltration domains related to an organization and project management app that has document sharing functionality – High

137.220.61[.]94:4001 – SystemBC C2 related IP address (this tool is often used by other ransomware groups as well) - Medium

173.251.109[.]106 – IP address seen during a SaaS BlackSuit compromise (during file encryption) – Medium

216.151.180[.]147 – IP address seen during a SaaS BlackSuit compromise (during an unusual Teams session) - Medium

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic - Technqiue

Account Manipulation - PERSISTENCE - T1098

Alarm Suppression - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0878

Application Layer Protocol - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071

Automated Collection - COLLECTION - T1119

Block Command Message - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0803

Block Reporting Message - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0804

Browser Extensions - PERSISTENCE - T1176

Brute Force I/O - IMPAIR PROCESS CONTROL - T0806

Brute Force - CREDENTIAL ACCESS - T1110

Client Configurations - RECONNAISSANCE - T1592.004 - T1592

Cloud Accounts - DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - T1078.004 - T1078

Data Destruction - IMPACT - T1485

Data Destruction - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0809

Data Encrypted for Impact - IMPACT - T1486

Data from Cloud Storage Object - COLLECTION - T1530

Data Staged - COLLECTION - T1074

Domain Groups - DISCOVERY - T1069.002 - T1069

Email Collection - COLLECTION - T1114

Exfiltration Over C2 Channel - EXFILTRATION - T1041

Exfiltration to Cloud Storage - EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - T1567

Exploit Public - Facing Application - INITIAL ACCESS - T1190

Exploitation for Privilege Escalation - PRIVILEGE ESCALATION - T0890

Exploitation of Remote Services - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1210

File and Directory Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1083

File Deletion - DEFENSE EVASION - T1070.004 - T1070

IP Addresses - RECONNAISSANCE - T1590.005 - T1590

Lateral Tool Transfer - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1570

LLMNR/NBT - NS Poisoning and SMB Relay - CREDENTIAL ACCESS, COLLECTION - T1557.001 - T1557

Modify Alarm Settings - INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0838

Modify Control Logic - IMPAIR PROCESS CONTROL, INHIBIT RESPONSE FUNCTION - T0833

Modify Parameter - IMPAIR PROCESS CONTROL - T0836

Network Service Scanning - DISCOVERY - T1046

Network Share Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1135

Pass the Hash - DEFENSE EVASION, LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1550.002 - T1550

RDP Hijacking - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1563.002 - T1563

Remote Access Software - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1219

Remote Desktop Protocol - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1021.001 - T1021

Remote System Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1018

Rename System Utilities - DEFENSE EVASION - T1036.003 - T1036

Scanning IP Blocks - RECONNAISSANCE - T1595.001 - T1595

Scheduled Transfer - EXFILTRATION - T1029

Service Execution - EXECUTION - T1569.002 - T1569

Service Stop - IMPACT - T1489

SMB/Windows Admin Shares - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1021.002 - T1021

Stored Data Manipulation - IMPACT - T1565.001 - T1565

Taint Shared Content - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1080

Valid Accounts - DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - T1078

Vulnerability Scanning - RECONNAISSANCE - T1595.002 - T1595

Web Protocols - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - T1071

Web Services - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1583.006 - T1583

Web Shell - PERSISTENCE - T1505.003 - T1505

Windows Management Instrumentation - EXECUTION - T1047

Windows Remote Management - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1021.006 - T1021

References

1. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/23/e/investigating-blacksuit-ransomwares-similarities-to-royal.html

2. https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/blacksuit-hacker-behind-cdk-global-attack-hitting-us-car-dealers-2024-06-27/

3. https://www.sentinelone.com/anthology/blacksuit/

4. https://thehackernews.com/2024/08/fbi-and-cisa-warn-of-blacksuit.html

5. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/The-CDK-Global-outage-Explaining-how-it-happened

6. https://therecord.media/japanese-media-kadokawa-investigating-cyber

7. https://therecord.media/plasma-donation-company-cyberattack-blacksuit

8. https://thecyberexpress.com/government-of-brazil-cyberattack-by-blacksuit/

9. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-061a

Written by

Signe Zaharka

Principal Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Signe Zaharka

Principal Cyber Analyst

SVP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

July 7, 2026

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

AI adoption outpaces most security programs’ ability to adapt. That gap is now one of the most consequential sources of cyber risk facing enterprises. As organizations embed generative and agentic AI into development workflows, business operations, and security tooling itself, the question is no longer whether AI will introduce risk. The question is whether organizations understand where that risk actually lives and how to manage it operationally.

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

The upcoming Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI from NIST

The Five Eyes government guidance on the careful adoption of agentic AI services

Taken together, they point to a critical conclusion. AI security cannot be reduced to model hardening or prompt filtering. It requires a defense in depth strategy that treats AI as both a new attack surface and a force multiplier for defense, while accounting for how AI fundamentally changes scale, speed, and autonomy.

Recent threat research suggests that today's cyber risk is driven less by initial compromise and more by an adversary's ability to blend into normal operations over time. AI systems create the same exposure in a new form: more autonomy, more scale, and more opportunities for risky behavior to blend into normal operations.

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

The NIST profile organizes AI risk across three inseparable focus areas that span all cybersecurity functions, Secure, Defend and Thwart. These areas are not sequential. They exist simultaneously and must be addressed together.

Secure

This treats AI as an attack surface. It includes models, prompts, agents, pipelines, training and inference data, retrieval augmented generation corpora, and the AI supply chain itself. AI systems are opaque, probabilistic, and non-deterministic by design. Some vulnerabilities are inherent in how models are trained or how data is sourced. Traditional patching does not fully mitigate these risks. This is also where many enterprises are weakest today and, critically, where many security programs stop.

Defend

This is AI as a defensive force multiplier. AI can improve detection speed, scale, correlation, and response, but only if the right models are used and operationalized correctly. Machine-speed behavior-based detection, response and containment becomes critical in defending non-deterministic systems. Accuracy, explainability, governance, testing, validation, and integration into SOC workflows matter as much as capability. Without those controls, hallucination risk, over automation, and misplaced trust become security risks themselves.

Thwart

This treats AI as an adversarial accelerant. Threat actors are already using AI to generate targeted social engineering attacks, deepfakes, malware, and autonomous attack agents. Asymmetric warfare is highlighting faster vulnerability discovery and exploitation with a lag on patch development, testing and deployment.

How this looks in practice

Darktrace researchers observed scaled, automated exploitation of the React2Shell vulnerability within days of disclosure. A vulnerable cloud asset was exploited in under 120 seconds of being deployed. Darktrace research team observed an AI/LLM-generated malware sample used in exploitation activity tied to React2Shell. The significance isn't novelty. It is that AI lowers the barrier to producing usable offensive tooling and compresses the time between experimentation and deployment.

Tactics are getting more and more creative in order to string together steps of an attack kill chain. This creates a dependency on behavior-based detection, autonomous investigation, autonomous containment, training, resilience investment, and recovery planning across the entire enterprise.

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

The Five Eyes guidance on agentic AI highlights material changes to the cyber risk profile of an organization. Unlike generative AI systems that produce content for human consumption, agentic AI systems reason, plan, and act autonomously across tools, data, and environments. That autonomy, combined with access to real systems, amplifies the impact of traditional cyber failures and introduces new system level risks that are difficult to predict, observe, and contain.

Risk in agentic systems does not live in the model alone. It emerges from interactions between models, prompts, memory, tools, APIs, identities, privileges, inter-agent trust relationships, and human assumptions baked into design. Vulnerabilities are often introduced through data, connectors, natural language interfaces, protocols, and drift by design.

In supply-chain incidents, attackers did not need sophisticated exploits to scale impact. They abused trusted systems built for automation and implicit access. Agentic AI inherits that model. Once a system can act across tools, data, and workflows, compromise propagates through trust relationships that were never designed for machine autonomy.

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:

The identity control for non-human identities or autonomous agents makes it difficult to mitigate over-permissioning, limiting access, scope, and duration, as well as access hygiene

Agents are frequently over permissioned

Compromised tools inherit agent authority

Static secrets enable impersonation

Implicit trust between agents enables lateral movement

Design and configuration risks compound this, including privileges evaluated once at startup, poor segmentation, unvetted third party tools, reused authorization decisions outside their original context, and guardrail limitations.

Behavioral risk

Agents can optimize for goals in unsafe ways, misinterpret ambiguous intent, chain actions into unintended sequences, change behavior during evaluation, and exhibit deceptive or sycophantic responses.

Structural risk

Structural risk follows from agentic systems that are tightly coupled, multicomponent ecosystems. Failures can propagate across agents. Hallucinations cascade downstream. Resource exhaustion becomes systemic. Tool misuse enables indirect prompt injection and command execution. Rogue agents can poison peer agents through trust relationships.

Accountability

Accountability becomes unclear as autonomy increases. Autonomous agents assume human identity permissions, and humans should have clear ownership of these agents, but they don’t, and this model is flawed. Decision paths are opaque and non-deterministic. Logs are fragmented and difficult to interpret. Reproducing an incident will be impossible without explicit design for observability and forensics. An agent compromise is functionally an insider threat, often with better access and fewer behavioral constraints than a human.

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

Agentic AI runs on software, networks, identities, and data. It must be governed using the same foundational principles that have proven resilient under uncertainty, including secure by design, defense in depth, zero trust, least privilege, continuous monitoring, behavior-based advanced threat detection and containment, and incident response and recovery.

Core components to a Defense in depth Strategy for Securing the use of AI:

Strong, precise identity control plane to include an identity per agent (cryptographic, non‑shared)
- Privilege monitoring and just‑in‑time access

Data Governance

Secure‑by‑default configurations
- Security Posture Management
- Zero Trust principles

Strong guardrails, deny‑by‑default policies, and isolation

Explicit instruction hierarchies and controlled context

Behavioral-based detection across entire enterprise to include inputs, tools, and outputs as well as AI used on the endpoint, across the network, cloud, SaaS, email, and OT
- Runtime anomaly detection and goal‑drift detection
- Autonomous containment to mitigate risk and minimize damage

Hard boundaries on autonomy and delegation

Testing, Evaluation, Validation and Verification
- Determine when autonomous action and when human in the loop
- Adversarial training and agent‑specific testing
- Simulation, red teaming, and chaos testing

Kill‑switches, rollback, and containment mechanisms
- Forensics data captures, interpretability, autonomous containment, and remediation/recovery plans

Until standards, tooling, and assurance methods mature, organizations should assume agentic AI systems will behave unexpectedly and design deployments around resilience, behavior-based detection, reversibility, and containment, not efficiency.

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

AI security is not model security alone. Data, pipelines, identities, and agents are first class assets. Many AI attacks succeed through standard cyber failures amplified by AI. Identity, data, and supply chain risk dominate. Behavior-based detection and response are critical, not optional. Logging, provenance, versioning, and forensics data capture of detections are mandatory because you cannot investigate or recover from AI incidents without them.

Risk will often be visible in behavior before it is clearly defined in policy or guidance. The same pattern has been seen in pre-CVE disclosure detection, where abnormal activity appears before the industry has named or described the vulnerability. AI systems introduce that uncertainty by design.

Security leaders should prioritize controls before AI is fully deployed, avoid generic AI security checklists, integrate AI risk into existing cyber programs, and mitigate the risk of non-deterministic technology with continuous oversight, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, autonomous investigation, and autonomous containment.

Visibility has a different connotation with AI. Previously, audit logging worked for software/people, but with Generative AI-based systems, interpretability and explainability is difficult to understand, you cannot "undo" what has been done, or see the logic or control a chain of events. This is why behavioral-based detections and containment becomes critical.

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

If an organization asked “what must be in place before scaling AI?”:

AI Risk board and approval workflow

IAM + PAM for all AI services and agents

AI asset inventory

Prompt/output DLP with sanctioned AI access – This is not just pre- and post- filters, but behavior-based detections of semantic interface as well as behavior-based analysis of output with associated risk context.

Shadow AI identification

Secure MLOps – This is an entire paper itself

Runtime guardrails and tool restrictions
- Including AI Gateway/SASE/Zero trust/

Runtime security with behavior-based detections
- Complete visibility, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, risk/intent/context evaluation of anomalies, autonomous investigation and autonomous containment of all AI assets across endpoint, network, SaaS, SASE, cloud, OT, email, and messaging platforms

Secure data pipelines and data governance

SOC workflow changes from malicious classification workflows to behavior-based detection workflows

Remediation plans for AI-related incidents

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI

The following outline considers governance and security tools that should be considered, well-integrated, deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. These tools and controls map to NIST’s CMF for AI.

These considerations do not need to be implemented in order. Runtime Detect and Respond will help mitigate risk while Governance, Visibility, and Identity mature.

Category	Tooling	Controls
Governance & Visibility	AI asset inventory / AI CMDB Shadow AI discovery SaaS discovery AI usage on non-endpoint managed systems via network or cloud telemetry MCP server/client usage via protocols Browser telemetry Gateway or SASE telemetry	Establish a risk board to set up controls Mandatory registration of AI systems Owner, data classification, intended use, and risk tier Supplier disclosure requirements Risk mitigation plan for AI adoption, innovation, or development
Identity, Access & Agent Control	Non-human autonomous agents should not have the full permissions associated with a human user. IAM with workload identities PAM for AI service accounts Secrets management with short-lived tokens Zero Trust principles Identity, permission, and token hygiene	Unique identities per model, agent, and pipeline Least privilege for tools, data, and APIs Explicit approval for autonomous actions
Data Security & Privacy	Data classification and labeling Enterprise DLP across endpoint, email, network, cloud, and SaaS Forensics data capture after risky detections	Prompt-level DLP through behavior-based semantic analysis with risk and intent context Input/interface analysis for risky data requests Output analysis for sensitive data Data integrity evaluation Retention and redaction policies for prompts and responses
Secure MLOps / LLMOps	Secure CI/CD with AI-specific gates Model registries with approval workflows Dependency, container, and artifact scanning SBOM/AIBOM generation IaC security scanning Security posture management Misconfiguration identification Hardening recommendations	Signed models and prompts Versioned datasets, configurations, logging, and controls Securing data pipelines Controlled promotion Quality assurance Adversarial testing
Runtime Security	Securing runtime goes beyond guardrails and model firewalls to include behavior-based detections, response, and containment. Detection, monitoring, and SOC integration Centralized visibility into prompts, outputs, and tool calls AI-specific detections Behavior-based detection for AI usage patterns Model drift and behavior monitoring Autonomous containment Behavior-based detection of model inputs and outputs Prompt injection detection Model manipulation, including jailbreaking, poisoning, and related attacks Sensitive data access attempts Behavior-based detection across low-code agents, high-code agents, MCP clients and servers, endpoint, network, cloud, email, SaaS, SASE, IoT, and OT	Policy enforcement between users, models, tools, agents, SaaS models/tools, and MCP servers/clients Risk, intent, and context evaluation for detections and response actions
Response & Recovery	Autonomous containment AI-assisted playbooks Forensics data capture for AI-related events Model rollback mechanisms Backup and restore for models and datasets	Kill switch for agents Autonomous response to agents performing risky behaviors Model and dataset rollback Remediation plans Tabletop exercises Supplier coordination plans Post-incident AI performance validation

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

AI changes how fast systems move, how decisions are made, and how risk propagates. It does not change the fundamentals of security. Organizations that succeed will be the ones that apply those fundamentals rigorously, assume failure, and build systems that can detect, contain, and recover when AI behaves in ways they did not anticipate. Security is not what AI is allowed to do. It is whether the organization can understand, trust, and control what AI actually does in practice.

Take this guidance to understand different initiatives that organizations should be considering. Securing AI is the most critical component to AI safety. As organizations invest more in AI adoption, they should be investing in security in order to mitigate the risk of AI adoption. Organizations should be evaluating their governance and security stack to include well-integrated tools that are deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. While organizations mature in governance, visibility and identity access management, they should be investing in behavior-based detection and autonomous containment to mitigate AI risk.

About the author

Nicole Carignan

SVP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

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

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Tactics Behind the Royal and Blacksuit Ransomware

What is BlackSuit Ransomware?

Darktrace’s Coverage of BlackSuit Ransomware Attack

Case 1, November 2023

Case 2, February 2024

Case 3, August 2024

Conclusion

Insights from Darktrace’s First 6: Half-year threat report for 2024

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Autonomous Response Models

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

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

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

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 7, 2026

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

Secure

Defend

Thwart

How this looks in practice

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

Behavioral risk

Structural risk

Accountability

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

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