Blog
/
Network
/
October 13, 2023

Protecting Brazilian Organizations from Malware

Discover how Darktrace DETECT thwarted a banking trojan targeting Brazilian organizations, preventing data theft and informing the customer.
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
Roberto Romeu
Senior SOC Analyst
Default blog image
13
Oct 2023

Nationally Targeted Cyber Attacks

As the digital world becomes more and more interconnected, the threat of cyber-attacks transcends borders and presents a significant concern to security teams worldwide. Yet despite this, some malicious actors have shown a tendency to focus their attacks on specific countries. By employing highly tailored tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to target users and organizations from one nation, rather than launching more widespread campaigns, threat actors are able to maximize the efficiency and efficacy of their attacks.

What is Guildma and how does it work?

One example can be seen in the remote access trojan (RAT) and information stealer, Guildma. Guildma, also known by the demonic moniker, Astaroth, first appeared in the wild in 2017 and is a Latin America-based banking trojan known to primarily target organizations in Brazil, although has more recently been observed in North America and Europe too [1].

By concentrating their efforts on Brazil, Guildma is able to launch attacks with a high degree of specificity, focussing their language on Brazilian norms, referencing Brazilian institutions, and tailoring their social engineering accordingly. Moreover, considering that Brazilian customers likely represent a relatively small portion of security vendors’ clientele, there may be a limited pool of available indicators of compromise (IoCs). This limitation could significantly impact the efficacy of traditional security measures that rely on signature-based detection methods in identifying emerging threats.

Darktrace vs. Guildma

In June 2023, Darktrace observed a Guildma compromise on the network of a Brazilian customer in the manufacturing sector. The anomaly-based detection capabilities of Darktrace DETECT™ allowed it to identify suspicious activity surrounding the compromise, agnostic of any IoCs or specific signatures of a threat actor. Following the successful detection of the malware, the Darktrace Security Operations Center (SOC) carried out a thorough investigation into the compromise and brought it to the attention of the customer’s security team, allowing them to quickly react and prevent any further escalation.

This early detection by Darktrace effectively shut down Guildma operations on the network before any sensitive data could be gathered and stolen by malicious actors.

Attack Overview

In the case of the Guildma RAT detected by Darktrace, the affected system was a desktop device, ostensibly used by one employee. The desktop was first observed on the customer’s network in April 2023; however, it is possible that the initial compromise took place before Darktrace had visibility over the network. Guildma compromises typically start with phishing campaigns, indicating that the initial intrusion in this case likely occurred beyond the scope of Darktrace’s monitoring [2].

Early indicators

On June 23, 2023, Darktrace DETECT observed the first instance of unusual activity being performed by the affected desktop device, namely regular HTTP POST requests to a suspicious domain, indicative of command-and-control (C2) beaconing activity. The domain used an unusual Top-Level Domain (TLD), with a plausibly meaningful (in Portuguese) second-level domain and a seemingly random 11-character third-level domain, “dn00x1o0f0h.puxaofolesanfoneiro[.]quest”.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace observed additional connections like this, representing something of a signature of the attack. The suspicious domains were typically registered within six months of observation, featured an uncommon TLD, and included a seemingly randomized third-level domain of 6-11 characters, followed by a plausibly legitimate second-level domain with a minimum of 15 characters. The connections to these unusual endpoints all followed a similar two-hour beaconing period, suggesting that Guildma may rotate its C2 infrastructure, using the Multi-Stage Channels TTP (MITRE ID T1104) to evade restrictions by firewalls or other signature-based security tools that rely on static lists of IoCs and “known bads”.

Figure 1: Model Breach Event Log for the “Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)”. The connections at two-hour intervals, including at unreasonably late hours, is consistent with beaconing for C2.

Living-off-the-land with BITS abuse

A week later, on June 30, 2023, the affected device was observed making an unusual Microsoft BITS connection. BitsAdmin is a deprecated administrative tool available on most Windows devices and can be leveraged by attackers to transfer malicious obfuscated payloads into and around an organization’s network. The domain observed during this connection, "cwiufv.pratkabelhaemelentmarta[.]shop”, follows the previously outlined domain naming convention. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources indicated that the endpoint had links to malware and, when visited, redirected users to the Brazilian versions of WhatsApp and Zoom. This is likely a tactic employed by threat actors to ensure users are unaware of suspicious domains, and subsequent malware downloads, by redirected them to a trusted source.

Figure 2: A screenshot of the Model Breach log summary of the “Unusual BITS Activity” model breach. The breach log contains key details such as the ASN, hostname, and user agent used in the breaching connection.

Obfuscated Tooling Downloads

Within one minute of the suspicious BITS activity, Darktrace detected the device downloading a suspicious file from the aforementioned endpoint, (cwiufv.pratkabelhaemelentmarta[.]shop). The file in question appeared to be a ZIP file with the 17-digit numeric name query, namely “?37627343830628786”, with the filename “zodzXLWwaV.zip”.

However, Darktrace DETECT recognized that the file extension did not match its true file type and identified that it was, in fact, an executable (.exe) file masquerading as a ZIP file. By masquerading files downloads, threat actors are able to make their malicious files seem legitimate and benign to security teams and traditional security tools, thereby evading detection. In this case, the suspicious file in question was indeed identified as malicious by multiple OSINT sources.

Following the initial download of this masqueraded file, Darktrace also detected subsequent downloads of additional executable files from the same endpoint.  It is possible that these downloads represented Guildma actors attempting to download additional tooling, including the information-stealer widely known as Astaroth, in order to begin its data collection and exfiltration operations.

Figure 3: A screenshot of a graph produced by the Threat Visualizer of the affected device's external connections. The visual aid marks breaches with red and orange dots, creating a more intuitive explanation of observed behavior.

Darktrace SOC

The successful detection of the masqueraded file transfer triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model breach, a high-fidelity model designed to detect activity that is more likely indicative of an ongoing compromise.  

This breach was immediately escalated to the Darktrace SOC for analysis by Darktrace’s team of expert analysts who were able to complete a thorough investigation and notify the customer’s security team of the compromise in just over half an hour. The investigation carried out by Darktrace’s analysts confirmed that the activity was, indeed, malicious, and provided the customer’s security team with details around the extent of the compromise, the specific IoCs, and risks this compromise posed to their digital environment. This information empowered the customer’s security team to promptly address the issue, having a significant portion of the investigative burden reduced and resolved by the round-the-clock Darktrace analyst team.

In addition to this, Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an investigation into the ongoing compromise and was able to connect the anomalous HTTP connections to the subsequent suspicious file downloads, viewing them as one incident rather than two isolated events. AI Analyst completed its investigation in just three minutes, upon which it provided a detailed summary of events of the activity, further aiding the customer’s remediation process.

Figure 4: CyberAI Analyst summary of the suspicious activity. A prose summary of the breach activity and the meaning of the technical details is included to maintain an easily digestible stream of information.

Conclusion

While the combination of TTPs observed in this Guildma RAT compromise is not uncommon globally, the specificity to targeting organizations in Brazil allows it to be incredibly effective. By focussing on just one country, malicious actors are able to launch highly specialized attacks, adapting the language used and tailoring the social engineering effectively to achieve maximum success. Moreover, as Brazil likely represents a smaller segment of security vendors’ customers, therefore leading to a limited pool of IoCs, attackers are often able to evade traditional signature-based detections.

Darktrace DETECT’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows for effective detection, mitigation, and response to emerging threats, regardless of the specifics of the attack and without relying on threat intelligence or previous IoCs. Ultimately in this case, Darktrace was able to identify the suspicious activity surrounding the Guildma compromise and swiftly bring it to the attention of the customer’s security team, before any data gathering, or exfiltration activity took place.

Darktrace’s threat detection capabilities coupled with its expert analyst team and round-the-clock SOC response is a highly effective addition to an organization’s defense-in-depth, whether in Brazil or anywhere else around the world.

Credit to Roberto Romeu, Senior SOC Analyst, Taylor Breland, Analyst Team Lead, San Francisco

References

https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/details/win.astaroth

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2020/03/05/guildma-devil-drives-electric/  

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Model Breaches

  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)
  • Device / Unusual BITS Activity
  • Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)
  • Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer (Enhanced Monitoring Model)
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

List of IoCs

IoC Type - Description + Confidence

5q710e1srxk.broilhasoruikaliventiladorrta[.]shop - Domain - Likely C2 server

m2pkdlse8md.roilhasohlcortinartai[.]hair - Domain - Likely C2 server

cwiufv.pratkabelhaemelentmarta[.]shop - Domain - C2 server

482w5pct234.jaroilcasacorkalilc[.]ru[.]com - Domain - C2 server

dn00x1o0f0h.puxaofolesanfoneiro[.]quest - Domain - Likely C2 server

10v7mybga55.futurefrontier[.]cyou - Domain - Likely C2 server

f788gbgdclp.growthgenerator[.]cyou - Domain - Likely C2 server

6nieek.satqabelhaeiloumelsmarta[.]shop - Domain - Likely C2 server

zodzXLWwaV.zip (SHA1 Hash: 2a4062e10a5de813f5688221dbeb3f3ff33eb417 ) - File hash - Malware

IZJQCAOXQb.zip (SHA1 Hash: eaec1754a69c50eac99e774b07ef156a1ca6de06 ) - File hash - Likely malware

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

ATT&CK Technique - Technique ID

Multi-Stage Channels - T1104

BITS Jobs - T1197

Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols - T1071.001

Acquire Infrastructure: Web Services - T1583.006

Obtain Capabilities: Malware - T1588.001

Masquerading - T1036

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
Roberto Romeu
Senior SOC Analyst

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