January 30, 2023

Qakbot Resurgence in the Cyber Landscape

Stay informed on the evolving threat Qakbot. Protect yourself from the Qakbot resurgence! Learn more from our Darktrace AI Cybersecurity experts!

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC 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

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Jan 2023

In June 2022, Darktrace observed a surge in Qakbot infections across its client base. The detected Qakbot infections, which in some cases led to the delivery of secondary payloads such as Cobalt Strike and Dark VNC, were initiated through novel delivery methods birthed from Microsoft’s default blocking of XL4 and VBA macros in early 2022 [1]/[2]/[3]/[4] and from the public disclosure in May 2022 [5] of the critical Follina vulnerability (CVE-2022-30190) in Microsoft Support Diagnostic Tool (MSDT). Despite the changes made to Qakbot’s delivery methods, Qakbot infections still inevitably resulted in unusual patterns of network activity. In this blog, we will provide details of these network activities, along with Darktrace/Network’s coverage of them.

Qakbot Background

Qakbot emerged in 2007 as a banking trojan designed to steal sensitive data such as banking credentials. Since then, Qakbot has developed into a highly modular triple-threat powerhouse used to not only steal information, but to also drop malicious payloads and to serve as a backdoor. The malware is also versatile, with its delivery methods regularly changing in response to the changing threat landscape.

Threat actors deliver Qakbot through email-based delivery methods. In the first half of 2022, Microsoft started rolling out versions of Office which block XL4 and VBA macros by default. Prior to this change, Qakbot email campaigns typically consisted in the spreading of deceitful emails with Office attachments containing malicious macros. Opening these attachments and then enabling the macros within them would lead users’ devices to install Qakbot.

Actors who deliver Qakbot onto users’ devices may either sell their access to other actors, or they may leverage Qakbot’s capabilities to pursue their own objectives [6]. A common objective of actors that use Qakbot is to drop Cobalt Strike beacons onto infected systems. Actors will then leverage the interactive access provided by Cobalt Strike to conduct extensive reconnaissance and lateral movement activities in preparation for widespread ransomware deployment. Qakbot’s close ties to ransomware activity, along with its modularity and versatility, make the malware a significant threat to organisations’ digital environments.

Activity Details and Qakbot Delivery Methods

During the month of June, variationsof the following pattern of network activity were observed in several client networks:

1. User’s device contacts an email service such as outlook.office[.]com or mail.google[.]com

2. User’s device makes an HTTP GET request to 185.234.247[.]119 with an Office user-agent string and a ‘/123.RES' target URI. The request is responded to with an HTML file containing a exploit for the Follina vulnerability (CVE-2022-30190)

3. User’s device makes an HTTP GET request with a cURL User-Agent string and a target URI ending in ‘.dat’ to an unusual external endpoint. The request is responded to with a Qakbot DLL sample

4. User’s device contacts Qakbot Command and Control servers over ports such as 443, 995, 2222, and 32101

In some cases, only steps 1 and 4 were seen, and in other cases, only steps 1, 3, and 4 were seen. The different variations of the pattern correspond to different Qakbot delivery methods.

‍

‍*Figure 1: Geographic distribution of Darktrace clients affected by Qakbot*

Qakbot is known to be delivered via malicious email attachments [7]. The Qakbot infections observed across Darktrace’s client base during June were likely initiated through HTML smuggling — a method which consists in embedding malicious code into HTML attachments. Based on open-source reporting [8]-[14] and on observed patterns of network traffic, we assess with moderate to high confidence that the Qakbot infections observed across Darktrace’s client base during June 2022 were initiated via one of the following three methods:

User opens HTML attachment which drops a ZIP file on their device. ZIP file contains a LNK file, which when opened, causes the user's device to make an external HTTP GET request with a cURL User-Agent string and a '.dat' target URI. If successful, the HTTP GET request is responded to with a Qakbot DLL.
User opens HTML attachment which drops a ZIP file on their device. ZIP file contains a docx file, which when opened, causes the user's device to make an HTTP GET request to 185.234.247[.]119 with an Office user-agent string and a ‘/123.RES' target URI. If successful, the HTTP GET request is responded to with an HTML file containing a Follina exploit. The Follina exploit causes the user's device to make an external HTTP GET with a '.dat' target URI. If successful, the HTTP GET request is responded to with a Qakbot DL.
User opens HTML attachment which drops a ZIP file on their device. ZIP file contains a Qakbot DLL and a LNK file, which when opened, causes the DLL to run.

The usage of these delivery methods illustrate how threat actors are adopting to a post-macro world [4], with their malware delivery techniques shifting from usage of macros-embedding Office documents to usage of container files, Windows Shortcut (LNK) files, and exploits for novel vulnerabilities.

The Qakbot infections observed across Darktrace’s client base did not only vary in terms of their delivery methods — they also differed in terms of their follow-up activities. In some cases, no follow-up activities were observed. In other cases, however, actors were seen leveraging Qakbot to exfiltrate data and to deliver follow-up payloads such as Cobalt Strike and Dark VNC. These follow-up activities were likely preparation for the deployment of ransomware. Darktrace’s early detection of Qakbot activity within client environments enabled security teams to take actions which likely prevented the deployment of ransomware.

Darktrace Coverage

Users’ interactions with malicious email attachments typically resulted in their devices making cURL HTTP GET requests with empty Host headers and target URIs ending in ‘.dat’ (such as as ‘/24736.dat’ and ‘/noFindThem.dat’) to rare, external endpoints. In cases where the Follina vulnerability is believed to have been exploited, users’ devices were seen making HTTP GET requests to 185.234.247[.]119 with a Microsoft Office User-Agent string before making cURL HTTP GET requests. The following Darktrace DETECT/Network models typically breached as a result of these HTTP activities:

Device / New User Agent
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Device / New User Agent and New IP
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download

These DETECT models were able to capture the unusual usage of Office and cURL User-Agent strings on affected devices, as well as the downloads of the Qakbot DLL from rare external endpoints. These models look for unusual activity that falls outside a device’s usual pattern of behavior rather than for activity involving User-Agent strings, URIs, files, and external IPs which are known to be malicious.

When enabled, Darktrace RESPOND/Network autonomously intervened, taking actions such as ‘Enforce group pattern of life’ and ‘Block connections’ to quickly intercept connections to Qakbot infrastructure.

*Figure 2: This ‘New User Agent to IP Without Hostname’ model breach highlights an example of Darktrace’s detection of a device attempting to download a file containing a Follina exploit*

*Figure 3: This ‘New User Agent to IP Without Hostname’ model breach highlights an example of Darktrace’s detection of a device attempting to download Qakbot*

Figure 4: The Event Log for an infected device highlights the moment a connection to the endpoint outlook.office365[.]com was made. This was followed by an executable file transfer detection and use of a new User-Agent, curl/7.9.1

After installing Qakbot, users’ devices started making connections to Command and Control (C2) endpoints over ports such as 443, 22, 990, 995, 1194, 2222, 2078, 32101. Cobalt Strike and Dark VNC may have been delivered over some of these C2 connections, as evidenced by subsequent connections to endpoints associated with Cobalt Strike and Dark VNC. These C2 activities typically caused the following Darktrace DETECT/Network models to breach:

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behavior
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed
Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
Compromise / SSL Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / Suspicious TLS Beaconing To Rare External
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

*Figure 5: This Device Event Log illustrates the Command and Control activity displayed by a Qakbot-infected device*

The Darktrace DETECT/Network models which detected these C2 activities do not look for devices making connections to known, malicious endpoints. Rather, they look for devices deviating from their ordinary patterns of activity, making connections to external endpoints which internal devices do not usually connect to, over ports which devices do not normally connect over.

In some cases, actors were seen exfiltrating data from Qakbot-infected systems and dropping Cobalt Strike in order to conduct extensive discovery. These exfiltration activities typically caused the following models to breach:

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
Anomalous Connection / Low and Slow Exfiltration to IP
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints

The reconnaissance and brute-force activities carried out by actors typically resulted in breaches of the following models:

Device / ICMP Address Scan
Device / Network Scan
Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity
Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance
Device / SMB Lateral Movement
Device / Increase in New RPC Services
Device / Spike in LDAP Activity
Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force
Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Non-Admin)
Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)
Device / Anomalous NTLM Brute Force

Conclusion

June 2022 saw Qakbot swiftly mould itself in response to Microsoft's default blocking of macros and the public disclosure of the Follina vulnerability. The evolution of the threat landscape in the first half of 2022 caused Qakbot to undergo changes in its delivery methods, shifting from delivery via macros-based methods to delivery via HTML smuggling methods. The effectiveness of these novel delivery methods where highlighted in Darktrace's client base, where large volumes of Qakbot infections were seen during June 2022. Leveraging Self-Learning AI, Darktrace DETECT/Network was able to detect the unusual network behaviors which inevitably resulted from these novel Qakbot infections. Given that the actors behind these Qakbot infections were likely seeking to deploy ransomware, these detections, along with Darktrace RESPOND/Network’s autonomous interventions, ultimately helped to protect affected Darktrace clients from significant business disruption.

Appendices

List of IOCs

References

[1] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/excel-4-0-xlm-macros-now-restricted-by-default-for-customer/ba-p/3057905

[2] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-365-blog/helping-users-stay-safe-blocking-internet-macros-by-default-in/ba-p/3071805

[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/security/internet-macros-blocked

[4] https://www.proofpoint.com/uk/blog/threat-insight/how-threat-actors-are-adapting-post-macro-world

[5] https://twitter.com/nao_sec/status/1530196847679401984

[6] https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/12/09/a-closer-look-at-qakbots-latest-building-blocks-and-how-to-knock-them-down/

[7] https://www.zscaler.com/blogs/security-research/rise-qakbot-attacks-traced-evolving-threat-techniques

[8] https://www.esentire.com/blog/resurgence-in-qakbot-malware-activity

[9] https://www.fortinet.com/blog/threat-research/new-variant-of-qakbot-spread-by-phishing-emails

[10] https://twitter.com/pr0xylife/status/1539320429281615872

[11] https://twitter.com/max_mal_/status/1534220832242819072

[12] https://twitter.com/1zrr4h/status/1534259727059787783?lang=en

[13] https://isc.sans.edu/diary/rss/28728

[14] https://www.fortiguard.com/threat-signal-report/4616/qakbot-delivered-through-cve-2022-30190-follina

Credit to: Hanah Darley, Cambridge Analyst Team Lead and Head of Threat Research and Sam Lister, Senior Cyber Analyst

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Nahisha Nobregas

SOC Analyst

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

•

March 26, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

In today's threat landscape, blending in to normal activity is the key to success for attackers and the growing reliance on residential proxies shows a significant shift in how threat actors are attempting to bypass IP detection tools.

The increasing dependency on residential proxies has exposed how prevalent proxy services are and how reliant a diverse range of threat actors are on them. From cybercriminal groups to state‑sponsored actors, the need to bypass IP detection tools is fundamental to the success of these groups. One malware that has quietly become notorious for its ability to avoid anomaly detection is GhostSocks, a malware that turns compromised devices into residential proxies.

What is GhostSocks?

Originally marketed on the Russian underground forum xss[.]is as a Malware‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS), GhostSocks enables threat actors to turn compromised devices into residential proxies, leveraging the victim's internet bandwidth to route malicious traffic through it.

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

The malware offers the threat actor a “clean” IP address, making it look like it is coming from a household user. This enables the bypassing of geographic restrictions and IP detection tools, a perfect tool for avoiding anomaly detection. It wasn’t until 2024, when a partnership was announced with the infamous information stealer Lumma Stealer, that GhostSocks surged into widespread adoption and alluded to who may be the author of the proxy malware.

Written in GoLang, GhostSocks utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy protocol, creating a SOCKS5 connection on infected devices. It uses a relay‑based C2 implementation, where an intermediary server sits in between the real command-and-control (C2) server and the infected device.

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

To further increase evasion, the Ghostsocks malware wraps its SOCKS5 tunnels in TLS encryption, allowing its malicious traffic to blend into normal network traffic.

Early variants of GhostSocks do not implement a persistence mechanism; however, later versions achieve persistence via registry run keys, ensuring sustained proxy operational time [1].

While proxying is its primary purpose, GhostSocks also incorporates backdoor functionality, enabling malicious actors to run arbitrary commands and download and deploy additional malicious payloads. This was evident with the well‑known ransomware group Black Basta, which reportedly used GhostSocks as a way of maintaining long‑term access to victims’ networks [1].

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Darktrace observed a steady increase in GhostSocks activity across its customer base from late 2025, with its Threat Research team identifying multiple incidents involving the malware. In one notable case from December 2025, Darktrace detected GhostSocks operating alongside Lumma Stealer, reinforcing that the partnership between Lumma and GhostSocks remains active despite recent attempts to disrupt Lumma’s infrastructure.

Darktrace’s first detection of GhostSocks‑related activity came when a device on the network of a customer in the education sector began making connections to an endpoint with a suspicious self‑signed certificate that had never been seen on the network before.

The endpoint in question, 159.89.46[.]92 with the hostname retreaw[.]click, has been flagged by multiple open‑source intelligence (OSINT) sources as being associated with Lumma Stealer’s C2 infrastructure [2], indicating its likely role in the delivery of malicious payloads.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious SSL connections to retreaw[.]click, indicating an attempted link to Lumma C2 infrastructure.

Less than two minutes later, Darktrace observed the same device downloading the executable (.exe) file “Renewable.exe” from the IP 86.54.24[.]29, which Darktrace recognized as 100% rare for this network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device downloading the unusual executable file “Renewable.exe”.

Both the file MD5 hash and the executable itself have been identified by multiple OSINT vendors as being associated with the GhostSocks malware [3], with the executable likely the backdoor component of the GhostSocks malware, facilitating the distribution of additional malicious payloads [4].

Following this detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability recommended a blocking action for the device in an early attempt to stop the malicious file download. In this instance, Darktrace was configured in Human Confirmation Mode, meaning the customer’s security team was required to manually apply any mitigative response actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled at the time of the attack, the connections to 86.54.24[.]29 would have been blocked, rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its C2 infrastructure and halting any further malicious communication.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability suggesting blocking the suspicious connections to the unusual endpoint from which the malicious executable was downloaded.

As the attack was able to progress, two days later the device was detected downloading additional payloads from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site (23.106.58[.]48), including “Setup.exe”, “,.exe”, and “/vp6c63yoz.exe”.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a malicious payload being downloaded from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site.

Once again, Darktrace recognized the anomalous nature of these downloads and suggested that a “group pattern of life” be enforced on the offending device in an attempt to contain the activity. By enforcing a pattern of life on a device, Darktrace restricts its activity to connections and behaviors similar to those performed by peer devices within the same group, while still allowing it to carry out its expected activity, effectively preventing deviations indicative of compromise while minimizing disruption. As mentioned earlier, these mitigative actions required manual implementation, so the activity was able to continue. Darktrace proceeded to suggest further actions to contain subsequent malicious downloads, including an attempt to block all outbound traffic to stop the attack from progressing.

Figure 5: An overview of download activity and the Autonomous Response actions recommended by Darktrace to block the downloads.

Around the same time, a third executable download was detected, this time from the hostname hxxp[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront.net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe, along with the file “udppump.exe”.While GhostSocks may have been present only to facilitate the delivery of additional payloads, there is no indication that these CloudFront endpoints or files are functionally linked to GhostSocks. Rather, the evidence points to broader malicious file‑download activity.

Shortly after the multiple executable files had been downloaded, Darktrace observed the device initiating a series of repeated successful connections to several rare external endpoints, behavior consistent with early-stage C2 beaconing activity.

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of additional malicious file downloads from malicious CloudFront endpoints.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst carried out its own autonomous investigation, piecing together seemingly separate events into one wider incident encompassing the first suspicious downloads beginning on December 4, the unusual connectivity to many suspicious IPs that followed, and the successful beaconing activity observed two days later. By analyzing these events in real-time and viewing them as part of the bigger picture, Cyber AI Analyst was able to construct an in‑depth breakdown of the attack to aid the customer’s investigation and remediation efforts.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the sequence of events on the compromised device, highlighting its extensive connectivity to rare endpoints, the related malicious file‑download activity, and finally the emergence of C2 beaconing behavior.

Conclusion

The versatility offered by GhostSocks is far from new, but its ability to convert compromised devices into residential proxy nodes, while enabling long‑term, covert network access—illustrates how threat actors continue to maximise the value of their victims’ infrastructure. Its growing popularity, coupled with its ongoing partnership with Lumma, demonstrates that infrastructure takedowns alone are insufficient; as long as threat actors remain committed to maintaining anonymity and can rapidly rebuild their ecosystems, related malware activity is likely to persist in some form.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Gernice Lee (Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead – APJ)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References

1. https://bloo.io/research/malware/ghostsocks

2. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/retreaw.click/community

3. https://synthient.com/blog/ghostsocks-from-initial-access-to-residential-proxy

4. https://www.joesandbox.com/analysis/1810568/0/html

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/fab6525bf6e77249b74736cb74501a9491109dc7950688b3ae898354eb920413

Darktrace Model Detections

Real-time Detection Models

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Compromise / Possible Fast Flux C2 Activity

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Autonomous Response Models

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

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

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

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

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

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

Resource Development – T1588 - Malware

Initial Access - T1189 - Drive-by Compromise

Persistence – T1112 – Modify Registry

Command and Control – T1071 – Application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1095 – Non-application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1071 – Web Protocols

Command and Control – T1571 – Non-Standard Port

Command and Control – T1102 – One-Way Communication

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

86.54.24[.]29 - IP - Likely GhostSocks C2

http[://]86.54.24[.]29/Renewable[.]exe - Hostname - GhostSocks Distribution Endpoint

http[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront[.]net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe - CDN - Payload Distribution Endpoint

www.lbfs[.]site - Hostname - Likely C2 Endpoint

retreaw[.]click - Hostname - Lumma C2 Endpoint

alltipi[.]com - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

w2.bruggebogeyed[.]site - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

9b90c62299d4bed2e0752e2e1fc777ac50308534 - SHA1 file hash – Likely GhostSocks payload

3d9d7a7905e46a3e39a45405cb010c1baa735f9e - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

10f928e00a1ed0181992a1e4771673566a02f4e3 - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

About the author

Gernice Lee

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

Blog

AI

March 26, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

The findings in this blog are taken from Darktrace's annual State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2026.

AI is already embedded in day-to-day enterprise activity, with 78% of participants in one recent survey reporting that their organizations are using generative AI in at least one business function. Generative AI now acts as an always-on assistant, researcher, creator, and coach across an expanding array of departments and functions. Autonomous agents are performing multi-step operational workflows from end to end. AI features have been layered on top of every SaaS application. And vibe coding is making it possible for employees without deep technical expertise to build their own AI-powered automations.

According to Gartner, more than 80% of enterprises will have deployed GenAI models, applications, or APIs in production environments by the end of this year, up from less than 5% in 2023. Companies report a 130% increase in spending on AI over the same period, with 72% of business leaders using AI tools at least weekly. The outsized efficiency and productivity gains that were once a future vision are quickly becoming everyday reality.

AI is currently driving business growth and innovation, and organizations risk falling behind peers if they don’t keep up with the pace of adoption, but it is also quietly expanding the enterprise attack surface. The modern CISO is challenged to both enable innovation and protect the business from these emerging threats.

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

AI agents are playing growing roles in enterprise production environments. In many cases, these agents act with broad permissions across multiple software systems and platforms. This means they’re granted far-reaching access – to sensitive data, business-critical applications, tokens and APIs, and IT and security tools. With this access comes risk for security leaders – 92% are concerned about the use of AI agents across the workforce and their impact on security.

These agents must be governed as identities, with least-privilege access and ongoing monitoring. They can’t be thought of as invisible aspects of the application estate. Understanding how AI agents behave, and how to manage their permissions, control their behavior, and limit their data access will be a top security priority throughout 2026.

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

Prompts are how users – both human and agentic – interact with AI systems, and they’re where natural language gets translated into model behavior. Natural language is infinite in its potential combinations and permutations, making this aspect of the attack surface open-ended and far more complex than traditional CVEs. With carefully crafted prompts, bad actors may be able to coax models into disclosing sensitive data, bypassing guardrails, or initiating undesirable actions.

Among security leaders, the biggest worries about AI usage in their environments all involve ways that systems might be manipulated to bypass traditional controls.

61% are most concerned about the exposure of sensitive data
56% are most concerned about potential data security and policy violations
51% are most concerned about the misuse or abuse of AI tools

The more employees rely on AI in their day-to-day workflows, the more critical it becomes for security teams to understand how prompt behavior determines model behavior – and where that behavior could go wrong.

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

AI adoption opens new security risks that blur the boundaries between traditional security disciplines. A single malicious interaction with an AI model could involve identity misuse, sensitive data exposure, application logic abuse, and supply chain risk – all within a single workflow. Protecting this dynamic and rapidly evolving attack surface requires an approach that spans identity security, cloud security, application security, data security, software development security, and more.

The task for security leaders is to implement the tools, policies, and frameworks to mitigate these novel, expansive, and cross-disciplinary risks.

However, within most enterprises, AI policy creation remains in its infancy. Just 37% of security leaders report that their organization has a formal AI policy, representing a small but worrisome decrease from last year. Conversations about AI abound: in 52% of organizations, there’s discussion about an AI policy. Still, talk is cheap, and leaders will need to take action if they’re to successfully enable secure AI innovation.

To govern and protect their AI systems, organizations must take a multi-pronged approach. This requires building out policies, but it also demands that they are able to:

Monitor the prompts driving GenAI assistants and agents in real time. Organizations must be able to inspect prompts, sessions, and responses across enterprise GenAI tools, low- and high-code environments, and SaaS and SASE so that they can detect clever conversational prompt attacks and malicious chaining.
Secure all business AI agent identities. Security teams need to identify all the agents acting within their environment and supply chain, map their connections and interactions via MCP and services like Amazon S3, and audit their behavior across the cloud, SaaS environments, and on the network and endpoint devices.
Maintain centralized, comprehensive visibility. Understanding intent, assessing risks, and enforcing policies all require that security teams have a single view that spans AI interactions across the entire business.
Discover and control shadow AI. Teams need to be able to identify unsanctioned AI activities, distinguish the misuse of legitimate tools from their appropriate use, and apply policies to protect data, while guiding users towards approved solutions.

Scaling AI safely and responsibly

The approach that most cybersecurity vendors have taken – using historical patterns to predict future threats – doesn’t work well for AI systems. Because AI changes its behavior in response to the information it encounters while taking action, previous patterns don’t indicate what it will do next. Looking at past attacks can’t tell you how complex models will behave in your individual business.

Securing AI requires interpreting ambiguous interactions, uncovering subtleties that reveal intent within extended conversations, understanding how access accumulates over time, and recognizing when behavior – both human and machine – begins to drift towards areas of risk. To do this, you need to understand what “normal” looks like in each unique organization: how users, systems, applications, and AI agents behave, how they communicate, and how data flows between them.

Darktrace has spent more than a decade designing AI-powered solutions that can understand and adapt to evolving behavior in complex environments. This technology learns directly from the environment it protects, identifying malicious actions that deviate from normal operations, so that it can stop AI-related threats on the very first encounter.

As AI adoption reshapes enterprise operations, humans and machines will collaborate more and more often. This collaboration might dramatically expand the attack surface, but it also has the potential to be a force multiplier for defenders.

‍

Explore the full State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 report for deeper insights into how security leaders are responding to AI-driven risks.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Qakbot Resurgence in the Cyber Landscape

Qakbot Background

Activity Details and Qakbot Delivery Methods

Darktrace Coverage

Conclusion

Appendices

List of IOCs

References

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

When Reality Diverges from the Playbook: Darktrace Identifies Encryption in a World Leaks Ransomware Attack

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

What is GhostSocks?

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Detections

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

AI

March 26, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

Scaling AI safely and responsibly