Blog

Network

September 6, 2024

Lifting the Fog: Darktrace’s Investigation into Fog Ransomware

Sep 2024

In early May 2024, Fog ransomware was first observed in the wild, seemingly targeting US-based educational organizations. Read on to find out about Darktrace’s investigation into this novel ransomware threat.

Introduction to Fog Ransomware

As ransomware attacks continue to be launched at an alarming rate, Darktrace’s Threat Research team has identified that familiar strains like Akira, LockBit, and BlackBasta remain among the most prevalent threats impacting its customers, as reported in the First 6: Half-Year Threat Report 2024. Despite efforts by law agencies, like dismantling the infrastructure of cybercriminals and shutting down their operations [2], these groups continue to adapt and evolve.

As such, it is unsurprising that new ransomware variants are regularly being created and launched to get round law enforcement agencies and increasingly adept security teams. One recent example of this is Fog ransomware.

What is Fog ransomware?

Fog ransomware is strain that first appeared in the wild in early May 2024 and has been observed actively using compromised virtual private network (VPN) credentials to gain access to organization networks in the education sector in the United States.

Darktrace's detection of Fog Ransomware

In June 2024, Darktrace observed instances of Fog ransomware across multiple customer environments. The shortest time observed from initial access to file encryption in these attacks was just 2 hours, underscoring the alarming speed with which these threat actors can achieve their objectives.

Darktrace identified key activities typical of a ransomware kill chain, including enumeration, lateral movement, encryption, and data exfiltration. In most cases, Darktrace was able to successfully halt the progression Fog attacks in their early stages by applying Autonomous Response actions such as quarantining affected devices and blocking suspicious external connections.

To effectively illustrate the typical kill chain of Fog ransomware, this blog focuses on customer environments that did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response enabled. In these cases, the attack progressed unchecked and reached its intended objectives until the customer received Darktrace’s alerts and intervened.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Fog Ransomware

Initial Intrusion

After actors had successfully gained initial access into customer networks by exploiting compromised VPN credentials, Darktrace observed a series of suspicious activities, including file shares, enumeration and extensive scanning. In one case, a compromised domain controller was detected making outgoing NTLM authentication attempts to another internal device, which was subsequently used to establish RDP connections to a Windows server running Hyper-V.

Given that the source was a domain controller, the attacker could potentially relay the NTLM hash to obtain a domain admin Kerberos Ticket Granting Ticket (TGT). Additionally, incoming NTLM authentication attempts could be triggered by tools like Responder, and NTLM hashes used to encrypt challenge response authentication could be abused by offline brute-force attacks.

Darktrace also observed the use of a new administrative credential on one affected device, indicating that malicious actors were likely using compromised privileged credentials to conduct relay attacks.

Establish Command-and-Control Communication (C2)

In many instances of Fog ransomware investigated by Darktrace’s Threat Research team, devices were observed making regular connections to the remote access tool AnyDesk. This was exemplified by consistent communication with the endpoint “download[.]anydesk[.]com” via the URI “/AnyDesk.exe”. In other cases, Darktrace identified the use of another remote management tool, namely SplashTop, on customer servers.

In ransomware attacks, threat actors often use such legitimate remote access tools to establish command-and-control (C2) communication. The use of such services not only complicates the identification of malicious activities but also enables attackers to leverage existing infrastructure, rather than having to implement their own.

Internal Reconnaissance

Affected devices were subsequently observed making an unusual number of failed internal connections to other internal locations over ports such as 80 (HTTP), 3389 (RDP), 139 (NetBIOS) and 445 (SMB). This pattern of activity strongly indicated reconnaissance scanning behavior within affected networks. A further investigation into these HTTP connections revealed the URIs “/nice ports”/Trinity.txt.bak”, commonly associated with the use of the Nmap attack and reconnaissance tool.

Simultaneously, some devices were observed engaging in SMB actions targeting the IPC$ share and the named pipe “srvsvc” on internal devices. Such activity aligns with the typical SMB enumeration tactics, whereby attackers query the list of services running on a remote host using a NULL session, a method often employed to gather information on network resources and vulnerabilities.

Lateral Movement

As attackers attempted to move laterally through affected networks, Darktrace observed suspicious RDP activity between infected devices. Multiple RDP connections were established to new clients, using devices as pivots to propagate deeper into the networks, Following this, devices on multiple networks exhibited a high volume of SMB read and write activity, with internal share drive file names being appended with the “.flocked” extension – a clear sign of ransomware encryption. Around the same time, multiple “readme.txt” files were detected being distributed across affected networks, which were later identified as ransom notes.

Further analysis of the ransom note revealed that it contained an introduction to the Fog ransomware group, a summary of the encryption activity that had been carried out, and detailed instructions on how to communicate with the attackers and pay the ransom.

Figure 1: Packet capture (PCAP) of the ransom note file titled “readme.txt”.

Data Exfiltration

In one of the cases of Fog ransomware, Darktrace’s Threat Research team observed potential data exfiltration involving the transfer of internal files to an unusual endpoint associated with the MEGA file storage service, “gfs302n515[.]userstorage[.]mega[.]co[.]nz”.

This exfiltration attempt suggests the use of double extortion tactics, where threat actors not only encrypt victim’s data but also exfiltrate it to threaten public exposure unless a ransom is paid. This often increases pressure on organizations as they face the risk of both data loss and reputational damage caused by the release of sensitive information.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst autonomously investigated what initially appeared to be unrelated events, linking them together to build a full picture of the Fog ransomware attack for customers’ security teams. Specifically, on affected networks Cyber AI Analyst identified and correlated unusual scanning activities, SMB writes, and file appendages that ultimately suggested file encryption.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst’s analysis of encryption activity on one customer network.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analysts breakdown of the investigation process between the linked incident events on one customer network.

Safeguarding vulnerable sectors with real-time ransomware mitigation

As novel and fast-moving ransomware variants like Fog persist across the threat landscape, the time taken for from initial compromise to encryption has significantly decreased due to the enhanced skill craft and advanced malware of threat actors. This trend particularly impacts organizations in the education sector, who often have less robust cyber defenses and significant periods of time during which infrastructure is left unmanned, and are therefore more vulnerable to quick-profit attacks.

Traditional security methods may fall short against these sophisticated attacks, where stealthy actors evade detection by human-managed teams and tools. In these scenarios Darktrace’s AI-driven product suite is able to quickly detect and respond to the initial signs of compromise through autonomous analysis of any unusual emerging activity.

When Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was active, it swiftly mitigated emerging Fog ransomware threats by quarantining devices exhibiting malicious behavior to contain the attack and blocking the exfiltration of sensitive data, thus preventing customers from falling victim to double extortion attempts.

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

Credit to Qing Hong Kwa (Senior Cyber Analyst and Deputy Analyst Team Lead, Singapore) and Ryan Traill (Threat Content Lead)

‍Darktrace Model Detections:

- Anomalous Server Activity::Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

- Anomalous Connection::SMB Enumeration

- Anomalous Connection::Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB

- Anomalous Connection::Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

- Anomalous File::Internal::Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

- Compliance::Possible Cleartext LDAP Authentication

- Compliance::Remote Management Tool On Server

- Compliance::SMB Drive Write

- Compromise::Ransomware::SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions

- Compromise::Ransomware::Possible Ransom Note Write

- Compromise::Ransomware::Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB

- Device::Attack and Recon Tools

- User::New Admin Credentials on Client

- Unusual Activity::Anomalous SMB Move & Write

- Unusual Activity::Internal Data Transfer

- Unusual Activity::Unusual External Data Transfer

- Unusual Activity::Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Darktrace Model Detections:

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

- Antigena::Network::External Threat::Antigena Suspicious File Pattern of Life Block

- 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::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Breach

- Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Server Block

- Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

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

- Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Internal Data Transfer Block

- Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

- Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena SMB Enumeration Block

AI Analyst Incident Coverage

- Encryption of Files over SMB

- Scanning of Multiple Devices

- SMB Writes of Suspicious Files

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Technique Name) – (Tactic) – (ID) – (Sub-Technique of)

Data Obfuscation - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1001

Remote System Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1018

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

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

Network Sniffing - CREDENTIAL ACCESS, DISCOVERY - T1040

Exfiltration Over C2 Channel - EXFILTRATION - T1041

Data Staged - COLLECTION - T1074

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

Taint Shared Content - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1080

File and Directory Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1083

Email Collection - COLLECTION - T1114

Automated Collection - COLLECTION - T1119

Network Share Discovery - DISCOVERY - T1135

Exploit Public-Facing Application - INITIAL ACCESS - T1190

Hardware Additions - INITIAL ACCESS - T1200

Remote Access Software - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1219

Data Encrypted for Impact - IMPACT - T1486

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

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

Lateral Tool Transfer - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1570

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC – Type – Description

/AnyDesk.exe - Executable File - Remote Access Management Tool

gfs302n515[.]userstorage[.]mega[.]co[.]nz- Domain - Exfiltration Domain

*.flocked - Filename Extension - Fog Ransomware Extension

readme.txt - Text File - Fog Ransom Note

xql562evsy7njcsngacphcerzjfecwotdkobn3m4uxu2gtqh26newid[.]onion - Onion Domain - Threat Actor’s Communication Channel

References

[1] https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/lost-in-the-fog-a-new-ransomware-threat/

[2] https://intel471.com/blog/assessing-the-disruptions-of-ransomware-gangs

[3] https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/30167-fog-ransomware

Newsletter

Enjoying the blog?

Thanks for signing up!

Look out for your first newsletter, coming soon.

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Inside the SOC

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

Author

Qing Hong Kwa

Senior Cyber Analyst and Deputy Analyst Team Lead, Singapore

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Share this article

Feb 10, 2025

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

Jan 30, 2025

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

Nov 3, 2024

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

Feb 3, 2025

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

Jan 14, 2025

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

Email

February 13, 2025

Why Darktrace / EMAIL excels against APTs

What are APTs?

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

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

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

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

What makes APTs so successful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-world threat finds: Darktrace / EMAIL in action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Download the Darktrace / EMAIL Solution Brief

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

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

‍

References

[1] FBI Internet Crime Report 2020

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

[3] IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023

‍

About the author

Carlos Gray

Product Manager

Blog

Compliance

February 11, 2025

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

NIS2 Background

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

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

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

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

Regulartory expectations and ambiguity of NIS2

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

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

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

Defining state-of-the-art cybersecurity

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

The five core criteria include:

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

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

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

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

State of the art cybersecurity in the context of NIS2

1. Continuous monitoring

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

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

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

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

This can be achieved through the following means:

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

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

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

2. Correlation of incidents across your entire environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Detection of anomalous activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Autonomous response

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Proactive cyber resilience

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward

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

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

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

Get ahead with the NIS2 White Paper

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