Blog
/
/
June 28, 2021

Post-Mortem Analysis of a SQL Server Exploit

Learn about the post-mortem analysis of a SQL Server exploit. Discover key insights and strategies to enhance your cybersecurity defenses.
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Default blog image
28
Jun 2021

While SaaS and IoT devices are increasingly popular vectors of intrusion, server-side attacks remain a serious threat to organizations worldwide. With sophisticated vulnerability scanning tools, attackers can now pinpoint security flaws in seconds, finding points of entry across the attack surface. Human security teams often struggle to keep pace with the constant wave of newly documented vulnerabilities and patches.

Darktrace recently stopped a targeted cyber-attack by an unknown attacker. After the initial entry, the attacker exploited an unpatched vulnerability (CVE-2020-0618), granting a low-privileged credential the ability to remotely execute code. This enabled the attacker to spread laterally and eventually establish a foothold in the system by creating a new user account.

The server-side attack cycle: authenticates user; scans network; infects three servers; downloads malware; c2 traffic; creates new user.

Figure 1: Overview of the server-side attack cycle.

This blog breaks down the intrusion and explores how Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology took three surgical actions to halt the attacker’s movements.

Unknown threat actors exploit a vulnerability

Initial compromise

At a financial firm in Canada with around 3,000 devices, Cyber AI detected the use of a new credential, ‘parents’. The attacker used this credential to access the company’s internal environment through the VPN. From there, the credential authenticated to a desktop using NT LAN Manager (NTLM). No further suspicious activity was observed.

NTLM is a popular attack vector for cyber-criminals as it is vulnerable to multiple methods of compromise, including brute-force and ‘pass the hash’. The initial access to the credential could have been obtained via phishing before Darktrace had been deployed.

Figure 2: The credential was first observed on the device five days prior to reconnaissance. The attacker performed reconnaissance and lateral movement for two days, until the compromised devices were taken down.

Internal reconnaissance

Five days later, the ‘parents’ credential was seen logging onto the desktop. The desktop began scanning the network – over 80 internal IPs – on Port 443 and 445.

Shortly after the scan, the device used Nmap to attempt to establish SMBv1 sessions to 139 internal IPs, using guest / user credentials. 79 out of the 278 sessions were successful, all using the login.

Figure 3: New failed internal connections performed by an initially infected desktop, in a similar incident. The graph highlights a surge in failed internal connections and model breaches.

The network scan was the first stage after intrusion, enabling the attacker to find out which services were running, before looking for unpatched vulnerabilities.

Nmap has multiple built-in functionalities which are often exploited for reconnaissance and lateral movement. In this case, it was being used to establish the SMBv1 sessions to the domain controller, saving the attacker from having to initiate SMBv1 sessions with each destination one by one. SMBv1 has well-known vulnerabilities and best practice is to disable it where possible.

Lateral movement

The desktop began controlling services (svcctl endpoint) on a SQL server. It was observed both creating and starting services (CreateServiceW, StartServiceW).

The desktop then initiated an unencrypted HTTP connection to a SQL Reporting server. This was the first HTTP connection between the two devices and the first time the user agent had been seen on the device.

A packet capture of the connection reveals a POST that is seen in an exploit of CVE-2020-0613. This vulnerability is a deserialization issue, whereby the server mishandles carefully crafted page requests and allows low-privileged accounts to establish a reverse shell and remotely execute code on the server.

Figure 4: A partial PCAP of the HTTP connection. The traffic matches the CVE-2020-0618 exploit, which enables Remote Code Execution (RCE) in SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS).

Most movements were seen in East-West traffic, with readily-available remote procedure call (RPC) methods. Such connections are abundant in systems. Without learning an organization’s ‘pattern of life’, it would have been near-impossible to highlight the malicious connections.

Cyber AI detected connections to the svcctl endpoint, via the DCE-RPC endpoint. This is called the 'service control' endpoint and is used to remotely control running processes on a device.

During the lateral movement from the desktop, the HTTP POST request revealed that the desktop was exploiting CVE-2020-0613. The attacker had managed to find and exploit an existing vulnerability which hadn’t been patched.

Darktrace was the only tool which alerted to the HTTP connection, revealing this underlying (and concluding) exploit. The AI determined that the user agent was unusual for the device and for the wider organization, and that the connection was highly anomalous. This connection would have gone otherwise amiss, since HTTP connections are common in most digital environments.

Because the attacker on the desktop used readily-available tools and protocols, such as Nmap, DCE-RPC, and HTTP, the device went undetected by all the other cyber defenses. However, Cyber AI noticed multiple scanning and lateral movement anomalies – triggering high-fidelity detections which would have been alerted to with Proactive Threat Notifications.

Command and control (C2) communication

The next day, the attacker connected to an SNMP server from the VPN. The connection used the ‘parents’ RDP cookie.

Immediately after the RDP connection began, the server connected to Pastebin and downloaded small amounts of encrypted data. Pastebin was likely being used as a vector to drop malicious scripts onto the device.

The SNMP server then started controlling services (svcttl) on the SQL server: again, creating and starting services.

Following this, both the SQL server and the SNMP server made a high volume of SSL connections to a rare external domain. One upload to the destination was around 21 MB, but otherwise the connections were mostly the same packet size. This, among other factors, indicated that the destination was being used as a C2 server.

Figure 5: Example Cyber AI Analyst investigation into beaconing activity by a SQL server.

With just one compromised credential, the attacker was now connecting to the VPN and infecting multiple servers on the company’s internal network.

The attacker dropped scripts onto the host using Pastebin. Darktrace alerted on this because Pastebin is highly rare for the organization. In fact, these connections were the first time it had been seen. Most security tools would miss this, as Pastebin is a legitimate site and would not be blocked by open-source intelligence (OSINT).

Even if a lesser-known Pastebin alternative had been used – say, in an environment where Pastebin was blocked on the firewall but the alternative not — Darktrace would have picked up on it in exactly the same way.

The C2 beaconing endpoint – dropbox16[.]com – has no OSINT information available online. The connections were on Port 443 and nothing about them was notable except from their rarity on the company’s system. Darktrace sent alerts because of its high rarity, rather than relying on known signatures.

Achieve persistence

After another Pastebin pull, the attacker attempted to maintain a greater foothold and escalate privileges by creating a new user using the SamrCreateUser2InDomain operation (endpoint: samr).

To establish persistence, the attacker now created a new user through a specific DCE-RPC command to the domain controller. This was highly unusual activity for the device, and was given a 100% anomaly score for ‘New or Uncommon Occurrence’.

If Darktrace had not alerted on this activity, the attacker would have continued to access files and make further inroads in the company, extracting sensitive data and potentially installing ransomware. This could have led to sensitive data loss, reputational damage, and financial losses for the company.

The value of Autonomous Response

The organization had Antigena in passive mode, so although it was not able to respond autonomously, we have visibility into the actions that it would have taken.

Antigena would have taken three actions on the initially infected desktop, as shown in the table below. The actions would have taken effect immediately in response to the first scan and the first service control requests.

During the two days of reconnaissance and lateral movement activity, these were the only steps Antigena suggested. The steps were all directly relevant to the intrusion – there was no attempt to block anything unrelated to the attack, and no other Antigena actions were triggered during this period.

By surgically blocking connections on specific ports during the scanning activity and enforcing the ‘pattern of life’ on the infected desktop, Antigena would have paralyzed the attacker’s reconnaissance efforts.

Furthermore, unusual service control attempts performed by the device would have been halted, minimizing the damage to the targeted destination.

Antigena would have delivered these blocks directly or via whatever integration was most suitable for the customer, such as firewall integrations or NAC integrations.

Lessons learned

The threat story above demonstrates the importance of controlling the access granted to low-privileged credentials, as well as remaining up-to-date with security patches. Since such attacks take advantage of existing network infrastructure, it is extremely difficult to detect these anomalous connections without the use of AI.

There was a delay of several days between the initial use of the ‘parents’ credentials and the first signs of lateral movement. This dormancy period – between compromise and the start of internal activities – is commonly seen in attacks. It likely indicates that the attacker was checking initially if their access worked, and then re-visiting the victim for further compromise once their schedule allowed for it.

Stopping a server-side attack

This compromise is reflective of many real-life intrusions: attacks cannot be easily attributed and are often conducted by sophisticated, unidentified threat actors.

Nevertheless, Darktrace managed to detect each stage of the attack cycle: initial compromise, reconnaissance, lateral movement, established foothold, and privilege escalation, and had Antigena been in active mode, it would have blocked these connections, and even prevented the initial desktop from ever exploiting the SQL vulnerability, which allowed the attacker to execute code remotely.

One day later, after seeing the power of Autonomous Response, the company decided to deploy Antigena in active mode.

Thanks to Darktrace analyst Isabel Finn for her insights on the above threat find.

Darktrace model detections:

  • Device / Anomalous Nmap SMB Activity
  • Device / Network Scan - Low Anomaly Score
  • Device / Network Scan
  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
  • Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches
  • Device / New User Agent To Internal Server
  • Compliance / Pastebin
  • Device / Repeated Unknown RPC Service Bind Errors
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / Unusual Connections to Rare Lets Encrypt
  • User / Anomalous Domain User Creation Or Addition To Group


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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

July 7, 2026

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

ai security stackDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

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

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

  1. The upcoming Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI from NIST
  1. The Five Eyes government guidance on the careful adoption of agentic AI services

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

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

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

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

Secure

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

Defend

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

Thwart

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

How this looks in practice

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

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

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

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

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

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

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:  

  • The identity control for non-human identities or autonomous agents makes it difficult to mitigate over-permissioning, limiting access, scope, and duration, as well as access hygiene
  • Agents are frequently over permissioned
  • Compromised tools inherit agent authority
  • Static secrets enable impersonation
  • Implicit trust between agents enables lateral movement

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

Behavioral risk  

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

Structural risk  

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

Accountability

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

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

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

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

  • Strong, precise identity control plane to include an identity per agent (cryptographic, non‑shared)
    • Privilege monitoring and just‑in‑time access
  • Data Governance
  • Secure‑by‑default configurations
    • Security Posture Management  
    • Zero Trust principles  
  • Strong guardrails, deny‑by‑default policies, and isolation
  • Explicit instruction hierarchies and controlled context
  • Behavioral-based detection across entire enterprise to include inputs, tools, and outputs as well as AI used on the endpoint, across the network, cloud, SaaS, email, and OT
    • Runtime anomaly detection and goal‑drift detection
    • Autonomous containment to mitigate risk and minimize damage
  • Hard boundaries on autonomy and delegation
  • Testing, Evaluation, Validation and Verification  
    • Determine when autonomous action and when human in the loop
    • Adversarial training and agent‑specific testing
    • Simulation, red teaming, and chaos testing
  • Kill‑switches, rollback, and containment mechanisms
    • Forensics data captures, interpretability, autonomous containment, and remediation/recovery plans  

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

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

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

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

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

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

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

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

  1. AI Risk board and approval workflow
  1. IAM + PAM for all AI services and agents
  1. AI asset inventory
  1. Prompt/output DLP with sanctioned AI access – This is not just pre- and post- filters, but behavior-based detections of semantic interface as well as behavior-based analysis of output with associated risk context.  
  1. Shadow AI identification
  1. Secure MLOps – This is an entire paper itself
  1. Runtime guardrails and tool restrictions
    • Including AI Gateway/SASE/Zero trust/
  1. Runtime security with behavior-based detections
    • Complete visibility, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, risk/intent/context evaluation of anomalies, autonomous investigation and autonomous containment of all AI assets across endpoint, network, SaaS, SASE, cloud, OT, email, and messaging platforms
  1. Secure data pipelines and data governance
  1. SOC workflow changes from malicious classification workflows to behavior-based detection workflows
  1. Remediation plans for AI-related incidents  

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI  

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

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

Category Tooling Controls
Governance & Visibility
  • AI asset inventory / AI CMDB
  • Shadow AI discovery
  • SaaS discovery
  • AI usage on non-endpoint managed systems via network or cloud telemetry
  • MCP server/client usage via protocols
  • Browser telemetry
  • Gateway or SASE telemetry
  • Establish a risk board to set up controls
  • Mandatory registration of AI systems
  • Owner, data classification, intended use, and risk tier
  • Supplier disclosure requirements
  • Risk mitigation plan for AI adoption, innovation, or development
Identity, Access & Agent Control

Non-human autonomous agents should not have the full permissions associated with a human user.

  • IAM with workload identities
  • PAM for AI service accounts
  • Secrets management with short-lived tokens
  • Zero Trust principles
  • Identity, permission, and token hygiene
  • Unique identities per model, agent, and pipeline
  • Least privilege for tools, data, and APIs
  • Explicit approval for autonomous actions
Data Security & Privacy
  • Data classification and labeling
  • Enterprise DLP across endpoint, email, network, cloud, and SaaS
  • Forensics data capture after risky detections
  • Prompt-level DLP through behavior-based semantic analysis with risk and intent context
  • Input/interface analysis for risky data requests
  • Output analysis for sensitive data
  • Data integrity evaluation
  • Retention and redaction policies for prompts and responses
Secure MLOps / LLMOps
  • Secure CI/CD with AI-specific gates
  • Model registries with approval workflows
  • Dependency, container, and artifact scanning
  • SBOM/AIBOM generation
  • IaC security scanning
  • Security posture management
  • Misconfiguration identification
  • Hardening recommendations
  • Signed models and prompts
  • Versioned datasets, configurations, logging, and controls
  • Securing data pipelines
  • Controlled promotion
  • Quality assurance
  • Adversarial testing
Runtime Security

Securing runtime goes beyond guardrails and model firewalls to include behavior-based detections, response, and containment.

  • Detection, monitoring, and SOC integration
  • Centralized visibility into prompts, outputs, and tool calls
  • AI-specific detections
  • Behavior-based detection for AI usage patterns
  • Model drift and behavior monitoring
  • Autonomous containment
  • Behavior-based detection of model inputs and outputs
  • Prompt injection detection
  • Model manipulation, including jailbreaking, poisoning, and related attacks
  • Sensitive data access attempts
  • Behavior-based detection across low-code agents, high-code agents, MCP clients and servers, endpoint, network, cloud, email, SaaS, SASE, IoT, and OT
  • Policy enforcement between users, models, tools, agents, SaaS models/tools, and MCP servers/clients
  • Risk, intent, and context evaluation for detections and response actions
Response & Recovery
  • Autonomous containment
  • AI-assisted playbooks
  • Forensics data capture for AI-related events
  • Model rollback mechanisms
  • Backup and restore for models and datasets
  • Kill switch for agents
  • Autonomous response to agents performing risky behaviors
  • Model and dataset rollback
  • Remediation plans
  • Tabletop exercises
  • Supplier coordination plans
  • Post-incident AI performance validation

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

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

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

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

/

July 6, 2026

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

ai security nistDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

As organizations adopt generative AI, many still assume that the right set of guardrails will be enough. The problem is you can’t anticipate every way these systems might be misused, abused or attacked. What NIST has done is put a mathematical foundation under that intuition.

In recent research building on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which showed that any system built on a fixed set of rules will always have gaps, NIST demonstrates that there is no finite set of guardrails that can be universally robust against adversarial prompts. In plain terms, if your defense is based on a fixed set of rules, there will always be inputs that bypass them. Not because the rules are badly written, but because the problem space is bigger than static rules can ever cover.

This is not new in cybersecurity - detection rules have always had to live with this trade-off. What is different with GenAI is the scale and shape of that problem. These systems are built on human language, and human language is not bounded. It is fluid, contextual and deliberately ambiguous. The number of ways intent can be hidden is effectively limitless. You are not defending against a defined protocol or a fixed exploit chain. You are defending against the entire expressive capacity of people.

So attempting to create a complete set of rules is the wrong starting point. It assumes the problem can be deterministically described. NIST’s work shows that it cannot. Organizations still need a way to manage AI risk, but the traditional approach of defining allowed and disallowed patterns is always going to lag behind what is actually happening. The same input can be benign in one context and risky in another, and static rules struggle to capture that distinction.

The question then is what fills that gap?

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

What's required is a shift in what you are trying to understand. Rules try to describe what should and shouldn't happen. Behavior shows you what is happening. Or to put it another way, if inputs are unbounded and adversaries adapt, the only stable signal is behavior.

In a GenAI context, that means analyzing how an AI model is being used, how prompts evolve over time, how outputs are shaped, and where AI agent interactions start to drift from what is expected. It means moving from static definitions of bad to a more dynamic understanding of intent.

Instead of trying to predict every bad prompt, you focus on identifying when behavior starts to move outside expected norms. Instead of asking whether a single input matches a rule, you ask whether the overall pattern of activity makes sense for the system and how it’s being used.

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

This does not eliminate the need for guardrails. They still play a role. But they will never address the entire problem space and are simply one part of your defense in depth approach.

NIST’s proof is useful because it makes this explicit. It removes the assumption that with enough effort, a complete rule set is achievable. It isn’t.

Once you accept that, the shift becomes unavoidable. This is no longer a problem of writing better rules, but of understanding behavior in a space where the possible inputs are effectively unbounded.

For security leaders, that changes the nature of the problem. It is less about defining what should be allowed, and more about recognizing when something is no longer consistent with expected behavior.

That does not remove the need for guardrails, but it does change their role. They set boundaries, but they do not define understanding. The gap between the two is where risk now sits.

In the end, this is what “can’t be solved with rules” really means. Rules will always leave gaps, and those gaps are not theoretical. They show up in how systems actually behave Not what we expect them to do, or what we intended them to do, but what they are doing in practice. That is where the signal is, and increasingly, that is where the security problem sits.

References:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-mathematical-proof-supports-transition-continuous-monitor-and-update

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11475847

Continue reading
About the author
Andrew Hollister
Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI