Blog
/
Network
/
August 2, 2023

Darktrace's Detection of Ransomware & Syssphinx

Read how Darktrace identified an attack technique by the threat group, Syssphinx. Learn how Darktrace's quick identification process can spot a threat.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior 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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
02
Aug 2023

Introduction

As the threat of costly cyber-attacks continues represent a real concern to security teams across the threat landscape, more and more organizations are strengthening their defenses with additional security tools to identify attacks and protect their networks. As a result, malicious actors are being forced to adapt their tactics, modify existing variants of malicious software, or utilize entirely new variants.  

Symantec recently released an article about Syssphinx, the financially motivated cyber threat group previously known for their point-of-sale attacks. Syssphinx attempts to deploy ransomware on customer networks via a modified version of their ‘Sardonic’ backdoor. Such activity highlights the ability of threat actors to alter the composition and presentation of payloads, tools, and tactics.

Darktrace recently detected some of the same indicators suggesting a likely Syssphinx compromise within the network of a customer trialing the Darktrace DETECT™ and RESPOND™ products. Despite the potential for variations in the construction of backdoors and payloads used by the group, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to stitch together a detailed account of compromise activity and identify the malicious activity prior to disruptive events on the customer’s network.

What is Syssphinx?

Syssphinx is a notorious cyber threat entity known for its financially motivated compromises.  Also referred to as FIN8, Syssphinx has been observed as early as 2016 and is largely known to target private sector entities in the retail, hospitality, insurance, IT, and financial sectors.[1]

Although Syssphinx primarily began focusing on point-of-sale style attacks, the activity associated with the group has more recently incorporated ransomware variants into their intrusions in a potential bid to further extract funds from target organizations.[2]

Syssphinx Sardonic Backdoor

Given this gradual opportunistic incorporation of ransomware, it should not be surprising that Syssphinx has slowly expanded its repertoire of tools.  When primarily performing point-of-sale compromises, the group was known for its use of point-of-sale specific malwares including BadHatch, PoSlurp/PunchTrack, and PowerSniff/PunchBuggy/ShellTea.[3]

However, in a seeming response to updates in detection systems while using previous indicators of compromise (IoCs), Syssphinx began to modify its BadHatch malware.  This resulted in the use of a C++ derived backdoor known as “Sardonic”, which has the ability to aggregate host credentials, spawn additional command sessions, and deliver payloads to compromised devices via dynamic-link library (DLL).[4],[5]

Analysis of the latest version of Sardonic reveals further changes to the malware to elude detection. These shifts include the implementation of the backdoor in the C programming language, and additional over-the-network communication obfuscation techniques. [6]

During the post-exploitation phase, the group tends to rely on “living-off-the-land” tactics, whereby an attacker utilizes tools already present within the organization’s digital environment to avoid detection. Syssphinx seems to utilize system-native tools such as PowerShell and the Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) interface.[7] It is also not uncommon to see Windows-based vulnerability exploits employed on compromised devices. This has been observed by researchers who have examined previous iterations of Syssphinx backdoors.[8] Syssphinx also appears to exhibit elements of strategic patience and discipline in its operations, with significant time gaps in operations noted by researchers. During this time, it appears likely that updates and tweaks were applied to Syssphinx payloads.

Compromise Details

In late April 2023, Darktrace identified an active compromise on the network of a prospective customer who was trialing Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND. The customer, a retailer in EMEA with hundreds of tracked devices, reached out to the Darktrace Analyst team via the Ask the Expert (ATE) service for support and further investigation, following the encryption of their server and backup data storage in an apparent ransomware attack. Although the encryption events fell outside Darktrace’s purview due to a limited set up of trial appliances, Darktrace was able to directly track early stages of the compromise before exfiltration and encryption events began. If a full deployment had been set up and RESPOND functionality had been configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace may have helped mitigate such encryption events and would have aided in the early identification of this ransomware attack.

Initial Intrusion and Establishment of Command and Control (C2) Infrastructure

As noted by security researchers, Syssphinx largely relies on social engineering and phishing emails to deliver its backdoor payloads. As there were no Darktrace/Email™ products deployed for this customer, it would be difficult to directly observe the exact time and manner of initial payload delivery related to this compromise. This is compounded by the fact that the customer had only recently began using Darktrace’s products during their trial period. Given the penchant for patience and delay by Syssphinx, it is possible that the intrusion began well before Darktrace had visibility of the organization’s network.

However, beginning on April 30, 2023, at 07:17:31 UTC, Darktrace observed the domain controller dc01.corp.XXXX  making repeated SSL connections to the endpoint 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. In addition to the multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags for this endpoint, the construction of the domain parallels that of the initial domain used to deliver a backdoor, as noted by Symantec in their analysis (37-10-71-215[.]nip[.]io). This activity likely represented the initial beaconing being performed by the compromised device. Additionally, an elevated level of incoming external data over port 443 was observed during this time, which may be associated with the delivery of the Sardonic backdoor payload. Given the unusual use of port 443 to perform SSH connections later seen in the kill chain of this attack, this activity could also parallel the employment of embedded backdoor payloads seen in the latest iteration of the Sardonic backdoor noted by Symantec.

Figure 1: Graph of the incoming external data surrounding the time of the initial establishment of command and control communication for the domain controller. As seen in the graph, the spike in incoming external data during this time may parallel the delivery of Syssphinx Sardonic backdoor.

Regardless, the domain controller proceeded to make repeated connections over port 443 to the noted domain.

Figure 2: Breach event log for the domain controller making repeated connections over port 443 to the rare external destination endpoint in constitute the establishment of C2 communication.

Internal Reconnaissance/Privilege Escalation

Following the establishment of C2 communication, Darktrace detected numerous elements of internal reconnaissance. On Apr 30, 2023, at 22:06:26 UTC, the desktop device desktop_02.corp.XXXX proceeded to perform more than 100 DRSGetNCChanges requests to the aforementioned domain controller. These commands, which are typically implemented over the RPC protocol on the DRSUAPI interface, are frequently utilized in Active Directory sync attacks to copy Active Directory information from domain controllers. Such activity, when not performed by new domain controllers to sync Active Directory contents, can indicate malicious domain or user enumeration, credential compromise or Active Directory enumeration.

Although the affected device made these requests to the previously noted domain controller, which was already compromised, such activity may have further enabled the compromise by allowing the threat actor to transfer these details to a more easily manageable device.

The device performing these DRSGetNCChanges requests would later be seen performing lateral movement activity and making connections to malicious endpoints.

Figure 3: Breach log highlighting the DRS operations performed by the corporate device to the destination domain controller. Such activity is rarely authorized for devices not tagged as administrative or as domain controllers.

Execution and Lateral Movement

At 23:09:53 UTC on April 30, 2023, the original domain server proceeded to make multiple uncommon WMI calls to a destination server on the same subnet (server01.corp.XXXX). Specifically, the device was observed making multiple RPC calls to IWbem endpoints on the server, which included login and ExecMethod (method execution) commands on the destination device. This destination device later proceeded to conduct additional beaconing activity to C2 endpoints and exfiltrate data.

Figure 4: Breach log for the domain controller performing WMI commands to the destination server during the lateral movement phase of the breach.

Similarly, beginning on May 1, 2023, at 00:11:09 UTC, the device desktop_02.corp.XXXX made multiple WMI requests to two additional devices, one server and one desktop, within the same subnet as the original domain controller. During this time, desktop_02.corp.XXXX  also utilized SMBv1, an outdated and typically non-compliant version communication protocol, to write the file rclone.exe to the same two destination devices. Rclone.exe, and its accompanying bat file, is a command-line tool developed by IT provider Rclone, to perform file management tasks. During this time, Darktrace also observed the device reading and deleting an unexpected numeric file on the ADMIN$ of the destination server, which may represent additional defense evasion techniques and tool staging.

Figure 5: Event log highlighting the writing of rclone.exe using the outdated SMBv1 communication protocol.
Figure 6: SMB logs indicating the reading and deletion of numeric string files on ADMIN$ shares of the destination devices during the time of the rclone.exe SMB writes. Such activity may be associated with tool staging and could indicate potential defense evasion techniques.

Given that the net loader sample analyzed by Symantec injects the backdoor into a WmiPrvSE.exe process, the use of WMI operations is not unexpected. Employment of WMI also correlates with the previously mentioned “living-off-the-land” tactics, as WMI services are commonly used for regular network and system administration purposes. Moreover, the staging of rclone.exe, a legitimate file management tool, for data exfiltration underscores attempts to blend into existing and expected network traffic and remain undetected on the customer’s network.

Data Exfiltration and Impact

Initial stages of data exfiltration actually began prior to some of the lateral movement events described above. On April 30, 2023, 23:09:47 the device server01.corp.XXXX, transferred nearly 11 GB of data to 173.44[.]141[.]47, as well as to the rare external IP address 170.130[.]55[.]77, which appears to have served as the main exfiltration destination during this compromise. Furthermore, the host made repeated connections to the same external IP associated with the initial suspicious beaconing activity (173.44[.]141[.]47) over SSL.

While the data exfiltration event unfolded, the device, server01.corp.XXXX, made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215, which featured URIs requesting the rclone.exe and rclone.bat files. This IP address was directly involved in the sample analyzed by Symantec. Furthermore, one of the devices that received the SMB file writes of rclone.exe and the WMI commands from desktop_02.corp.XXXX also performed SSL beaconing to endpoints associated with the compromise.

Between 01:20:45 - 03:31:41 UTC on May 1, 2023, a Darktrace detected a series of devices on the network performing a repeated pattern of activity, namely external connectivity followed by suspicious file downloads and external data transfer operations. Specifically, each affected device made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215 for rclone files. The devices proceeded to download the executable and/or binary files, and then transfer large amounts of data to the aforementioned endpoints, 170.130[.]55[.]77 and or 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. Although the devices involved in data exfiltration utilized port 443 as a destination port, the connections actually used the SSH protocol. Darktrace recognized this behavior as unusual as port 443 is typically associated with the SSL protocol, while port 22 is reserved for SSH. Therefore, this activity may represent the threat actor’s attempts to remain undetected by security tools.

This unexpected use of SSH over port 443 also correlates with the descriptions of the new Sardonic backdoor according to threat researchers. Further beaconing and exfiltration activity was performed by an additional host one day later whereby the device made suspicious repeated connections to the aforementioned external hosts.

Figure 7: Connection details highlighting the use of port 443 for SSH connections during the exfiltration events.

In total, nine separate devices were involved in this pattern of activity. Five of these devices were labeled as ‘administrative’ devices according to their hostnames. Over the course of the entire exfiltration event, the attackers exfiltrated almost 61 GB of data from the organization’s environment.

Figure 8: Graph showing the levels of external data transfer from a breach device for one day on either side of the breach time. There is a large spike in such activity during the time of the breach that underscores the exfiltration events.

In addition to the individual anomaly detections by DETECT, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an autonomous investigation into the unusual behavior carried out by affected devices, connecting and collating multiple security events into one AI Analyst Incident. AI Analyst ensures that Darktrace can recognize and link the individual steps of a wider attack, rather than just identifying isolated incidents. While traditional security tools may mistake individual breaches as standalone activity, Darktrace’s AI allows it to provide unparalleled visibility over emerging attacks and their kill chains. Furthermore, Cyber AI Analyst’s instant autonomous investigations help to save customer security teams invaluable time in triaging incidents in comparison with human teams who would have to commit precious time and resources to conduct similar pattern analysis.

In this specific case, AI Analyst identified 44 separate security events from 18 different devices and was able to tie them together into one incident. The events that made up this AI Analyst Incident included:

  • Possible SSL Command and Control
  • Possible HTTP Command and Control
  • Unusual Repeated Connections
  • Suspicious Directory Replication ServiceActivity
  • Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
  • SMB Write of Suspicious File
  • Suspicious File Download
  • Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Unusual External Data Transfer to MultipleRelated Endpoints
Figure 9: Cyber AI Incident log highlighting multiple unusual anomalies and connecting them into one incident.

Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode on the network of this prospective customer, it would have been able to take rapid mitigative action to block the malicious external connections used for C2 communication and subsequent data exfiltration, ideally halting the attack at this stage. As previously discussed, the limited network configuration of this trial customer meant that the encryption events unfortunately took place outside of Darktrace’s scope. When fully configured on a customer environment, Darktrace DETECT can identify such encryption attempts as soon as they occur. Darktrace RESPOND, in turn, would be able to immediately intervene by applying preventative actions like blocking internal connections that may represent file encryption, or limiting potentially compromised devices to a previously established pattern of life, ensuring they cannot carry out any suspicious activity.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations posed by the customer’s trial configuration, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect malicious activity associated with Syssphinx and track it across multiple stages of the kill chain.

Darktrace’s ability to identify the early stages of a compromise and various steps of the kill chain, highlights the necessity for machine learning-enabled, anomaly-based detection. In the face of threats such as Syssphinx, that exhibit the propensity to recast backdoor payloads and incorporate on “living-off-the-land” tactics, signatures and rules-based detection may not prove as effective. While Syssphinx and other threat groups will continue to adopt new tools, methods, and techniques, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is uniquely positioned to meet the challenge of such threats.

Appendix

DETECT Model Breaches Observed

•      Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

•      Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation

•      Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

•      Compliance / SMB Drive Write

•      Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

•      Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

•      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

•      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints

•      Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

•      Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity

•      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

•      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

•      Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

•      Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

‍

AI Analyst Incidents Observed

•      Possible SSL Command and Control

•      Possible HTTP Command and Control

•      Unusual Repeated Connections

•      Suspicious Directory Replication Service Activity

•      Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

•      SMB Write of Suspicious File

•      Suspicious File Download

•      Unusual External Data Transfer

•      Unusual External Data Transfer to Multiple Related Endpoints

IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

37.10[.]71[.]215 – IP – C2 + payload endpoint

173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io – Hostname – C2 – payload

173.44[.]141[.]47 – IP – C2 + potential payload

170.130[.]55[.]77 – IP – Data exfiltration endpoint

Rclone.exe – Exe File – Common data tool

Rclone.bat – Script file – Common data tool

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Command and Control

T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

T1071.001 – Web protocols

T1573 – Encrypted channels

T1573.001 – Symmetric encryption

T1573.002 – Asymmetric encryption

T1571 – Non-standard port

T1105 – Ingress tool transfer

Execution

T1047 – Windows Management Instrumentation

Credential Access‍

T1003 – OS Credential Dumping

T1003.006 – DCSync

Lateral Movement

T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer

T1021 - Remote Services

T1021.002 - SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021.006 – Windows Remote Management

Exfiltration

T1048 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol

T1048.001 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

References

[1] https://cyberscoop.com/syssphinx-cybercrime-ransomware/

[2] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[3] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fin8-deploys-alphv-ransomware-using-sardonic-malware-variant/

[4] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[5] https://thehackernews.com/2023/07/fin8-group-using-modified-sardonic.html

[6] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[7] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[8] https://www.mandiant.com/resources/blog/windows-zero-day-payment-cards

Written by
Adam Potter
Senior 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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst

Beyond MFA: Detecting Adversary-in-the-Middle Attacks and Phishing with Darktrace

Email
•
December 15, 2025
David Ison
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Securing Generative AI: Managing Risk in Amazon Bedrock with Darktrace / CLOUD
Nov 19, 2025
2
The 17% of email threats SEGs miss – and how Darktrace catches them
Dec 4, 2025
3
Darktrace Named as a Leader in 2025 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Email Security Platforms
Dec 3, 2025
4
From Amazon to Louis Vuitton: How Darktrace Detects Black Friday Phishing Attacks
Nov 27, 2025
5
Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability
Jul 2, 2025

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
Network
•
December 10, 2025

React2Shell: How Opportunist Attackers Exploited CVE-2025-55182 Within Hours

Darktrace observed opportunistic exploitation of the React2Shell vulnerability within minutes of honeypot deployment. Attackers leveraged shell scripts, HTTP beaconing, and cryptomining activity, highlighting rapid adaptation to unpatched flaws.
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Read more
Network
•
December 4, 2025

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

Atomic Stealer is rapidly emerging as a significant macOS threat, using infostealing and backdoor capabilities to target Apple users worldwide. Darktrace observed campaigns in 24 countries, detecting activity across multiple kill chain stages and providing recommended actions to contain attacks.
Isabel Evans
Cyber Analyst
Read more
Network
•
November 26, 2025

CastleLoader & CastleRAT: Behind TAG150’s Modular Malware Delivery System

TAG-150, a MaaS operator active since March 2025, uses CastleLoader and CastleRAT in multi-stage attacks. CastleLoader acts as a loader that retrieves and executes additional malware through deceptive domains and malicious GitHub repositories, while CastleRAT functions as a remote access trojan providing attackers with system control, command execution, and data theft capabilities. Darktrace detected and blocked early attack activity, leveraging Autonomous Response to prevent further compromise and protect enterprise networks.
Ahmed Gardezi
Cyber Analyst
Read more

Blog

/

Proactive Security

/

January 7, 2026

How a leading bank is prioritizing risk management to power a resilient future

Default blog imageDefault blog image

As one of the region’s most established financial institutions, this bank sits at the heart of its community’s economic life – powering everything from daily transactions to business growth and long-term wealth planning. Its blend of physical branches and advanced digital services gives customers the convenience they expect and the personal trust they rely on. But as the financial world becomes more interconnected and adversaries more sophisticated, safeguarding that trust requires more than traditional cybersecurity. It demands a resilient, forward-leaning approach that keeps pace with rising threats and tightening regulatory standards.

A complex risk landscape demands a new approach

The bank faced a challenge familiar across the financial sector: too many tools, not enough clarity. Vulnerability scans, pen tests, and risk reports all produced data, yet none worked together to show how exposures connected across systems or what they meant for day-to-day operations. Without a central platform to link and contextualize this data, teams struggled to see how individual findings translated into real exposure across the business.

  • Fragmented risk assessments: Cyber and operational risks were evaluated in silos, often duplicated across teams, and lacked the context needed to prioritize what truly mattered.
  • Limited executive visibility: Leadership struggled to gain a complete, real-time view of trends or progress, making risk ownership difficult to enforce.
  • Emerging compliance pressure: This gap also posed compliance challenges under the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), which requires financial institutions to demonstrate continuous oversight, effective reporting, and the ability to withstand and recover from cyber and IT disruptions.
“The issue wasn’t the lack of data,” recalls the bank’s Chief Technology Officer. “The challenge was transforming that data into a unified, contextualized picture we could act on quickly and decisively.”

As the bank advanced its digital capabilities and embraced cloud services, its risk environment became more intricate. New pathways for exploitation emerged, human factors grew harder to quantify, and manual processes hindered timely decision-making. To maintain resilience, the security team sought a proactive, AI-powered platform that could consolidate exposures, deliver continuous insight, and ensure high-value risks were addressed before they escalated.

Choosing Darktrace to unlock proactive cyber resilience

To reclaim control over its fragmented risk landscape, the bank selected Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management™ for cyber risk insight. The solution’s ability to consolidate scanner outputs, pen test results, CVE data, and operational context into one AI-powered view made it the clear choice. Darktrace delivered comprehensive visibility the team had long been missing.

By shifting from a reactive model to proactive security, the bank aimed to:

  • Improve resilience and compliance with DORA
  • Prioritize remediation efforts with greater accuracy
  • Eliminate duplicated work across teams
  • Provide leadership with a complete view of risk, updated continuously
  • Reduce the overall likelihood of attack or disruption

The CTO explains: “We needed a solution that didn’t just list vulnerabilities but showed us what mattered most for our business – how risks connected, how they could be exploited, and what actions would create the biggest reduction in exposure. Darktrace gave us that clarity.”

Targeting the risks that matter most

Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management offered the bank a new level of visibility and control by continuously analyzing misconfigurations, critical attack paths, human communication patterns, and high-value assets. Its AI-driven risk scoring allowed the team to understand which vulnerabilities had meaningful business impact, not just which were technically severe.

Unifying exposure across architectures

Darktrace aggregates and contextualizes data from across the bank’s security stack, eliminating the need to manually compile or correlate findings. What once required hours of cross-team coordination now appears in a single, continuously updated dashboard.

Revealing an adversarial view of risk

The solution maps multi-stage, complex attack paths across network, cloud, identity systems, email environments, and endpoints – highlighting risks that traditional CVE lists overlook.

Identifying misconfigurations and controlling gaps

Using Self-Learning AI, Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management spots misconfigurations and prioritizes them based on MITRE adversary techniques, business context, and the bank’s unique digital environment.

Enhancing red-team and pen test effectiveness

By directing testers to the highest-value targets, Darktrace removes guesswork and validates whether defenses hold up against realistic adversarial behavior.

Supporting DORA compliance

From continuous monitoring to executive-ready reporting, the solution provides the transparency and accountability the bank needs to demonstrate operational resilience frameworks.

Proactive security delivers tangible outcomes

Since deploying Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management, the bank has significantly strengthened its cybersecurity posture while improving operational efficiency.

Greater insight, smarter prioritization, stronger defensee

Security teams are now saving more than four hours per week previously spent aggregating and analyzing risk data. With a unified view of their exposure, they can focus directly on remediation instead of manually correlating multiple reports.

Because risks are now prioritized based on business impact and real-time operational context, they no longer waste time on low-value tasks. Instead, critical issues are identified and resolved sooner, reducing potential windows for exploitation and strengthening the bank’s ongoing resilience against both known and emerging threats.

“Our goal was to move from reactive to proactive security,” the CTO says. “Darktrace didn’t just help us achieve that, it accelerated our roadmap. We now understand our environment with a level of clarity we simply didn’t have before.”

Leadership clarity and stronger governance

Executives and board stakeholders now receive clear, organization-wide visibility into the bank’s risk posture, supported by consistent reporting that highlights trends, progress, and areas requiring attention. This transparency has strengthened confidence in the bank’s cyber resilience and enabled leadership to take true ownership of risk across the institution.

Beyond improved visibility, the bank has also deepened its overall governance maturity. Continuous monitoring and structured oversight allow leaders to make faster, more informed decisions that strategically align security efforts with business priorities. With a more predictable understanding of exposure and risk movement over time, the organization can maintain operational continuity, demonstrate accountability, and adapt more effectively as regulatory expectations evolve.

Trading stress for control

With Darktrace, leaders now have the clarity and confidence they need to report to executives and regulators with accuracy. The ability to see organization-wide risk in context provides assurance that the right issues are being addressed at the right time. That clarity is also empowering security analysts who no longer shoulder the anxiety of wondering which risks matter most or whether something critical has slipped through the cracks. Instead, they’re working with focus and intention, redirecting hours of manual effort into strategic initiatives that strengthen the bank’s overall resilience.

Prioritizing risk to power a resilient future

For this leading financial institution, Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management has become the foundation for a more unified, data-driven, and resilient cybersecurity program. With clearer, business-relevant priorities, stronger oversight, and measurable efficiency gains, the bank has strengthened its resilience and met demanding regulatory expectations without adding operational strain.

Most importantly, it shifted the bank’s security posture from a reactive stance to a proactive, continuous program. Giving teams the confidence and intelligence to anticipate threats and safeguard the people and services that depend on them.

‍

‍

Continue reading
About the author
Kelland Goodin
Product Marketing Specialist

Blog

/

AI

/

January 5, 2026

How to Secure AI in the Enterprise: A Practical Framework for Models, Data, and Agents

How to secure AI in the enterprise: A practical framework for models, data, and agents Default blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction: Why securing AI is now a security priority

AI adoption is at the forefront of the digital movement in businesses, outpacing the rate at which IT and security professionals can set up governance models and security parameters. Adopting Generative AI chatbots, autonomous agents, and AI-enabled SaaS tools promises efficiency and speed but also introduces new forms of risk that traditional security controls were never designed to manage. For many organizations, the first challenge is not whether AI should be secured, but what “securing AI” actually means in practice. Is it about protecting models? Governing data? Monitoring outputs? Or controlling how AI agents behave once deployed?  

While demand for adoption increases, securing AI use in the enterprise is still an abstract concept to many and operationalizing its use goes far beyond just having visibility. Practitioners need to also consider how AI is sourced, built, deployed, used, and governed across the enterprise.

The goal for security teams: Implement a clear, lifecycle-based AI security framework. This blog will demonstrate the variety of AI use cases that should be considered when developing this framework and how to frame this conversation to non-technical audiences.  

What does “securing AI” actually mean?

Securing AI is often framed as an extension of existing security disciplines. In practice, this assumption can cause confusion.

Traditional security functions are built around relatively stable boundaries. Application security focuses on code and logic. Cloud security governs infrastructure and identity. Data security protects sensitive information at rest and in motion. Identity security controls who can access systems and services. Each function has clear ownership, established tooling, and well-understood failure modes.

AI does not fit neatly into any of these categories. An AI system is simultaneously:

  • An application that executes logic
  • A data processor that ingests and generates sensitive information
  • A decision-making layer that influences or automates actions
  • A dynamic system that changes behavior over time

As a result, the security risks introduced by AI cuts across multiple domains at once. A single AI interaction can involve identity misuse, data exposure, application logic abuse, and supply chain risk all within the same workflow. This is where the traditional lines between security functions begin to blur.

For example, a malicious prompt submitted by an authorized user is not a classic identity breach, yet it can trigger data leakage or unauthorized actions. An AI agent calling an external service may appear as legitimate application behavior, even as it violates data sovereignty or compliance requirements. AI-generated code may pass standard development checks while introducing subtle vulnerabilities or compromised dependencies.

In each case, no single security team “owns” the risk outright.

This is why securing AI cannot be reduced to model safety, governance policies, or perimeter controls alone. It requires a shared security lens that spans development, operations, data handling, and user interaction. Securing AI means understanding not just whether systems are accessed securely, but whether they are being used, trained, and allowed to act in ways that align with business intent and risk tolerance.

At its core, securing AI is about restoring clarity in environments where accountability can quickly blur. It is about knowing where AI exists, how it behaves, what it is allowed to do, and how its decisions affect the wider enterprise. Without this clarity, AI becomes a force multiplier for both productivity and risk.

The five categories of AI risk in the enterprise

A practical way to approach AI security is to organize risk around how AI is used and where it operates. The framework below defines five categories of AI risk, each aligned to a distinct layer of the enterprise AI ecosystem  

How to Secure AI in the Enterprise:

  • Defending against misuse and emergent behaviors
  • Monitoring and controlling AI in operation
  • Protecting AI development and infrastructure
  • Securing the AI supply chain
  • Strengthening readiness and oversight

Together, these categories provide a structured lens for understanding how AI risk manifests and where security teams should focus their efforts.

1. Defending against misuse and emergent AI behaviors

Generative AI systems and agents can be manipulated in ways that bypass traditional controls. Even when access is authorized, AI can be misused, repurposed, or influenced through carefully crafted prompts and interactions.

Key risks include:

  • Malicious prompt injection designed to coerce unwanted actions
  • Unauthorized or unintended use cases that bypass guardrails
  • Exposure of sensitive data through prompt histories
  • Hallucinated or malicious outputs that influence human behavior

Unlike traditional applications, AI systems can produce harmful outcomes without being explicitly compromised. Securing this layer requires monitoring intent, not just access. Security teams need visibility into how AI systems are being prompted, how outputs are consumed, and whether usage aligns with approved business purposes

2. Monitoring and controlling AI in operation

Once deployed, AI agents operate at machine speed and scale. They can initiate actions, exchange data, and interact with other systems with little human oversight. This makes runtime visibility critical.

Operational AI risks include:

  • Agents using permissions in unintended ways
  • Uncontrolled outbound connections to external services or agents
  • Loss of forensic visibility into ephemeral AI components
  • Non-compliant data transmission across jurisdictions

Securing AI in operation requires real-time monitoring of agent behavior, centralized control points such as AI gateways, and the ability to capture agent state for investigation. Without these capabilities, security teams may be blind to how AI systems behave once live, particularly in cloud-native or regulated environments.

3. Protecting AI development and infrastructure

Many AI risks are introduced long before deployment. Development pipelines, infrastructure configurations, and architectural decisions all influence the security posture of AI systems.

Common risks include:

  • Misconfigured permissions and guardrails
  • Insecure or overly complex agent architectures
  • Infrastructure-as-Code introducing silent misconfigurations
  • Vulnerabilities in AI-generated code and dependencies

AI-generated code adds a new dimension of risk, as hallucinated packages or insecure logic may be harder to detect and debug than human-written code. Securing AI development means applying security controls early, including static analysis, architectural review, and continuous configuration monitoring throughout the build process.

4. Securing the AI supply chain

AI supply chains are often opaque. Models, datasets, dependencies, and services may come from third parties with varying levels of transparency and assurance.

Key supply chain risks include:

  • Shadow AI tools used outside approved controls
  • External AI agents granted internal access
  • Suppliers applying AI to enterprise data without disclosure
  • Compromised models, training data, or dependencies

Securing the AI supply chain requires discovering where AI is used, validating the provenance and licensing of models and data, and assessing how suppliers process and protect enterprise information. Without this visibility, organizations risk data leakage, regulatory exposure, and downstream compromise through trusted integrations.

5. Strengthening readiness and oversight

Even with strong technical controls, AI security fails without governance, testing, and trained teams. AI introduces new incident scenarios that many security teams are not yet prepared to handle.

Oversight risks include:

  • Lack of meaningful AI risk reporting
  • Untested AI systems in production
  • Security teams untrained in AI-specific threats

Organizations need AI-aware reporting, red and purple team exercises that include AI systems, and ongoing training to build operational readiness. These capabilities ensure AI risks are understood, tested, and continuously improved, rather than discovered during a live incident.

Reframing AI security for the boardroom

AI security is not just a technical issue. It is a trust, accountability, and resilience issue. Boards want assurance that AI-driven decisions are reliable, explainable, and protected from tampering.

Effective communication with leadership focuses on:

  • Trust: confidence in data integrity, model behavior, and outputs
  • Accountability: clear ownership across teams and suppliers
  • Resilience: the ability to operate, audit, and adapt under attack or regulation

Mapping AI security efforts to recognized frameworks such as ISO/IEC 42001 and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework helps demonstrate maturity and aligns AI security with broader governance objectives.

Conclusion: Securing AI is a lifecycle challenge

The same characteristics that make AI transformative also make it difficult to secure. AI systems blur traditional boundaries between software, users, and decision-making, expanding the attack surface in subtle but significant ways.

Securing AI requires restoring clarity. Knowing where AI exists, how it behaves, who controls it, and how it is governed. A framework-based approach allows organizations to innovate with AI while maintaining trust, accountability, and control.

The journey to secure AI is ongoing, but it begins with understanding the risks across the full AI lifecycle and building security practices that evolve alongside the technology.

Continue reading
About the author
Brittany Woodsmall
Product Marketing Manager, AI
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI