Blog
/
/
April 4, 2022

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Read about 2021's top four incidents and how Darktrace's advanced threat detection technology identified and mitigated vulnerabilities. Learn more.
Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
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
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
04
Apr 2022

By virtue of their exposure, Internet-facing systems (i.e., systems which have ports open/exposed to the wider Internet) are particularly susceptible to compromise. Attackers typically compromise Internet-facing systems by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in applications they run. During 2021, critical zero-day vulnerabilities in the following applications were publicly disclosed:

Internet-facing systems running these applications were consequently heavily targeted by attackers. In this post, we will provide examples of compromises of these systems observed by Darktrace’s SOC team in 2021. As will become clear, successful exploitation of weaknesses in Internet-facing systems inevitably results in such systems doing things which they do not normally do. Rather than focusing on identifying attempts to exploit these weaknesses, Darktrace focuses on identifying the unusual behaviors which inevitably ensue. The purpose of this post is to highlight the effectiveness of this approach.

Exchange server compromise

In January, researchers from the cyber security company DEVCORE reported a series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyLogon’.[1] ProxyLogon consists of a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26855) and a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-27065). Attackers were observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild from as early as January 6.[2] In April, DEVCORE researchers reported another series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyShell’.[3] ProxyShell consists of a pre-authentication path confusion vulnerability (CVE-2021-34473), a privilege elevation vulnerability (CVE-2021-34523), and a post-authentication RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-31207). Attackers were first observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild in August.[4] In many cases, attackers exploited the ProxyShell and ProxyLogon vulnerabilities in order to create web shells on the targeted Exchange servers. The presence of these web shells provided attackers with the means to remotely execute commands on the compromised servers.

In early August 2021, by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerabilities, an attacker gained the rights to remotely execute PowerShell commands on an Internet-facing Exchange server within the network of a US-based transportation company. The attacker subsequently executed a number of PowerShell commands on the server. One of these commands caused the server to make a 28-minute-long SSL connection to a highly unusual external endpoint. Within a couple of hours, the attacker managed to strengthen their foothold within the network by installing AnyDesk and CobaltStrike on several internal devices. In mid-August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed Cobalt Strike to conduct network reconnaissance and to transfer terabytes of data to the cloud storage service, MEGA. At the end of August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed AnyDesk to execute Conti ransomware and to spread executable files and script files to further internal devices.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of ProxyShell immediately resulted in the Exchange Server making a long SSL connection to an unusual external endpoint. This connection caused the model Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint to breach. The subsequent reconnaissance, lateral movement, C2, external data transfer, and encryption behavior brought about by the attacker were also picked up by Darktrace’s models.

A non-exhaustive list of the models that breached as a result of the behavior brought about by the attacker:

  • Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint
  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
  • Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
  • Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
  • Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days
  • Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
  • Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
  • Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB
  • Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
  • Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Data Volume as Client or Server
  • Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Masqueraded Executable SMB Write
  • Device / SMB Lateral Movement
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Confluence server compromise

Atlassian’s Confluence is an application which provides the means for building collaborative, virtual workspaces. In the era of remote working, the value of such an application is undeniable. The public disclosure of a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) in Confluence in August 2021 thus provided a prime opportunity for attackers to cause havoc. The vulnerability, which arises from the use of Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL) in Confluence’s tag system, provides attackers with the means to remotely execute code on vulnerable Confluence server by sending a crafted HTTP request containing a malicious parameter.[5] Attackers were first observed exploiting this vulnerability towards the end of August, and in the majority of cases, attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable servers.[6]

At the beginning of September 2021, an attacker was observed exploiting CVE-2021-26084 in order to install the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as a shell script, onto an Internet-facing Confluence server within the network of an EMEA-based television and broadcasting company. Within a couple of hours, the attacker installed files associated with the crypto-mining malware, Kinsing, onto the server. The Kinsing-infected server then immediately began to communicate over HTTP with the attacker’s C2 infrastructure. Around the time of this activity, the server was observed using the MinerGate crypto-mining protocol, indicating that the server had begun to mine cryptocurrency.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of CVE-2021-26084 immediately resulted in the Confluence server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with curl in this case) to a rare external IP. This behavior caused the models Device / New User Agent, Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname, and Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location to breach. The subsequent file downloads, C2 traffic and crypto-mining activity also resulted in several models breaching.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

  • Device / New User Agent
  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
  • Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
  • Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
  • Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

GitLab server compromise

GitLab is an application providing services ranging from project planning to source code management. Back in April 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-22205) in GitLab was publicly reported by a cyber security researcher via the bug bounty platform, HackerOne.[7] The vulnerability, which arises from GitLab’s use of ExifTool for removing metadata from image files, [8] enables attackers to remotely execute code on vulnerable GitLab servers by uploading specially crafted image files.[9] Attackers were first observed exploiting CVE-2021-22205 in the wild in June/July.[10] A surge in exploitations of the vulnerability was observed at the end of October, with attackers exploiting the flaw in order to assemble botnets.[11] Darktrace observed a significant number of cases in which attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable GitLab servers.

On October 29, an attacker successfully exploited CVE-2021-22205 on an Internet-facing GitLab server within the network of a UK-based education provider. The organization was trialing Darktrace when this incident occurred. The attacker installed several executable files and shell scripts onto the server by exploiting the vulnerability. The attacker communicated with the compromised server (using unusual ports) for several days, before making the server transfer large volumes of data externally and download the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as the botnet malware, Mirai. The server was consequently observed making connections to the crypto-mining pool, C3Pool.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the vulnerability in GitLab immediately resulted in the server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Wget in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname and Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location breached as a result of this behavior. The attacker’s subsequent activity on the server over the next few days resulted in frequent model breaches.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the attacker’s activity on the server:

  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
  • Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
  • Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New IPs
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
  • Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
  • Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
  • Compliance / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
  • Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
  • Compromise / Monero Mining
  • Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
  • Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
  • Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download

Log4j server compromise

On December 9 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (dubbed ‘Log4Shell’) in version 2 of Apache’s Log4j was publicly disclosed by researchers at LunaSec.[12] As a logging library present in potentially millions of Java applications,[13] Log4j constitutes an obscured, yet ubiquitous feature of the digital world. The vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228), which arises from Log4j’s Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) Lookup feature, enables an attacker to make a vulnerable server download and execute a malicious Java class file. To exploit the vulnerability, all the attacker must do is submit a specially crafted JNDI lookup request to the server. The fact that Log4j is present in so many applications and that the exploitation of this vulnerability is so simple, Log4Shell has been dubbed the ‘most critical vulnerability of the last decade’.[14] Attackers have been exploiting Log4Shell in the wild since at least December 1.[15] Since then, attackers have been observed exploiting the vulnerability to install crypto-mining tools, Cobalt Strike, and RATs onto vulnerable servers.[16]

On December 10, one day after the public disclosure of Log4Shell, an attacker successfully exploited the vulnerability on a vulnerable Internet-facing server within the network of a US-based architecture company. By exploiting the vulnerability, the attacker managed to get the server to download and execute a Java class file named ‘Exploit69ogQNSQYz.class’. Executing the code in this file caused the server to download a shell script file and a file related to the Kinsing crypto-mining malware. The Kinsing-infected server then went on to communicate over HTTP with a C2 server. Since the customer was using the Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, they were immediately alerted to this activity, and the server was subsequently quarantined, preventing crypto-mining activity from taking place.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the zero-day vulnerability immediately resulted in the vulnerable server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Java in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device and Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname breached as a result of this behavior. The device’s subsequent file downloads and C2 activity caused several Darktrace models to breach.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

  • Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Round-up

It is inevitable that attackers will attempt to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in applications running on Internet-facing devices. Whilst identifying these attempts is useful, the fact that attackers regularly exploit new zero-days makes the task of identifying attempts to exploit them akin to a game of whack-a-mole. Whilst it is uncertain which zero-day vulnerability attackers will exploit next, what is certain is that their exploitation of it will bring about unusual behavior. No matter the vulnerability, whether it be a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, Confluence, GitLab, or Log4j, Darktrace will identify the unusual behaviors which inevitably result from its exploitation. By identifying unusual behaviors displayed by Internet-facing devices, Darktrace thus makes it almost impossible for attackers to successfully exploit zero-day vulnerabilities without being detected.

For Darktrace customers who want to find out more about detecting potential compromises of internet-facing devices, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

Thanks to Andy Lawrence for his contributions.

Footnotes

1. https://devco.re/blog/2021/08/06/a-new-attack-surface-on-MS-exchange-part-1-ProxyLogon/

2. https://www.volexity.com/blog/2021/03/02/active-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-zero-day-vulnerabilities/

3. https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2021/8/17/from-pwn2own-2021-a-new-attack-surface-on-microsoft-exchange-proxyshell

4. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/12/proxyshell-more-widespread-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-servers/

5. https://www.kaspersky.co.uk/blog/confluence-server-cve-2021-26084/23376/

6. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/atlassian-confluence-flaw-actively-exploited-to-install-cryptominers/

7. https://hackerone.com/reports/1154542

8. https://security.humanativaspa.it/gitlab-ce-cve-2021-22205-in-the-wild/

9.https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2021/04/14/security-release-gitlab-13-10-3-released/

10. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/11/01/gitlab-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-cve-2021-22205-exploited-in-the-wild/

11. https://www.hackmageddon.com/2021/12/16/1-15-november-2021-cyber-attacks-timeline/

12. https://www.lunasec.io/docs/blog/log4j-zero-day/

13. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3644472/apache-log4j-vulnerability-actively-exploited-impacting-millions-of-java-based-apps.html

14. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/10/software-flaw-most-critical-vulnerability-log-4-shell

15. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/12/15/the-everypersons-guide-to-log4shell-cve-2021-44228/

16. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/12/11/guidance-for-preventing-detecting-and-hunting-for-cve-2021-44228-log4j-2-exploitation/

Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
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
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

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

Email
•
December 15, 2025
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Securing Generative AI: Managing Risk in Amazon Bedrock with Darktrace / CLOUD
Nov 19, 2025
2
How Empowering End Users can Improve Your Email Security and Decrease the Burden on the SOC
May 8, 2024
3
Elevating Network Security: Confronting Trust, Ransomware, & Novel Attacks
Jun 21, 2024
4
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners
Apr 9, 2024
5
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
May 13, 2024

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
No items found.

Blog

/

/

December 22, 2025

The Year Ahead: AI Cybersecurity Trends to Watch in 2026

2026 cyber threat trendsDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction: 2026 cyber trends

Each year, we ask some of our experts to step back from the day-to-day pace of incidents, vulnerabilities, and headlines to reflect on the forces reshaping the threat landscape. The goal is simple:  to identify and share the trends we believe will matter most in the year ahead, based on the real-world challenges our customers are facing, the technology and issues our R&D teams are exploring, and our observations of how both attackers and defenders are adapting.  

In 2025, we saw generative AI and early agentic systems moving from limited pilots into more widespread adoption across enterprises. Generative AI tools became embedded in SaaS products and enterprise workflows we rely on every day, AI agents gained more access to data and systems, and we saw glimpses of how threat actors can manipulate commercial AI models for attacks. At the same time, expanding cloud and SaaS ecosystems and the increasing use of automation continued to stretch traditional security assumptions.

Looking ahead to 2026, we’re already seeing the security of AI models, agents, and the identities that power them becoming a key point of tension – and opportunity -- for both attackers and defenders. Long-standing challenges and risks such as identity, trust, data integrity, and human decision-making will not disappear, but AI and automation will increase the speed and scale of the cyber risk.  

Here's what a few of our experts believe are the trends that will shape this next phase of cybersecurity, and the realities organizations should prepare for.  

Agentic AI is the next big insider risk

‍In 2026, organizations may experience their first large-scale security incidents driven by agentic AI behaving in unintended ways—not necessarily due to malicious intent, but because of how easily agents can be influenced. AI agents are designed to be helpful, lack judgment, and operate without understanding context or consequence. This makes them highly efficient—and highly pliable. Unlike human insiders, agentic systems do not need to be socially engineered, coerced, or bribed. They only need to be prompted creatively, misinterpret legitimate prompts, or be vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. Without strong controls around access, scope, and behavior, agents may over-share data, misroute communications, or take actions that introduce real business risk. Securing AI adoption will increasingly depend on treating agents as first-class identities—monitored, constrained, and evaluated based on behavior, not intent.

-- Nicole Carignan, SVP of Security & AI Strategy ‍

Prompt Injection moves from theory to front-page breach

‍We’ll see the first major story of an indirect prompt injection attack against companies adopting AI either through an accessible chatbot or an agentic system ingesting a hidden prompt. In practice, this may result in unauthorized data exposure or unintended malicious behavior by AI systems, such as over-sharing information, misrouting communications, or acting outside their intended scope. Recent attention on this risk—particularly in the context of AI-powered browsers and additional safety layers being introduced to guide agent behavior—highlights a growing industry awareness of the challenge.  

-- Collin Chapleau, Senior Director of Security & AI Strategy ‍

Humans are even more outpaced, but not broken

‍When it comes to cyber, people aren’t failing; the system is moving faster than they can. Attackers exploit the gap between human judgment and machine-speed operations. The rise of deepfakes and emotion-driven scams that we’ve seen in the last few years reduce our ability to spot the familiar human cues we’ve been taught to look out for. Fraud now spans social platforms, encrypted chat, and instant payments in minutes. Expecting humans to be the last line of defense is unrealistic.

Defense must assume human fallibility and design accordingly. Automated provenance checks, cryptographic signatures, and dual-channel verification should precede human judgment. Training still matters, but it cannot close the gap alone. In the year ahead, we need to see more of a focus on partnership: systems that absorb risk so humans make decisions in context, not under pressure.

-- Margaret Cunningham, VP of Security & AI Strategy

‍AI removes the attacker bottleneck—smaller organizations feel the impact

‍One factor that is currently preventing more companies from breaches is a bottleneck on the attacker side: there’s not enough human hacker capital. The number of human hands on a keyboard is a rate-determining factor in the threat landscape. Further advancements of AI and automation will continue to open that bottleneck. We are already seeing that. The ostrich approach of hoping that one’s own company is too obscure to be noticed by attackers will no longer work as attacker capacity increases.  

-- Max Heinemeyer, Global Field CISO ‍

SaaS platforms become the preferred supply chain target

‍Attackers have learned a simple lesson: compromising SaaS platforms can have big payouts. As a result, we’ll see more targeting of commercial off-the-shelf SaaS providers, which are often highly trusted and deeply integrated into business environments. Some of these attacks may involve software with unfamiliar brand names, but their downstream impact will be significant. In 2026, expect more breaches where attackers leverage valid credentials, APIs, or misconfigurations to bypass traditional defenses entirely.

-- Nathaniel Jones, VP of Security & AI Strategy ‍

Increased commercialization of generative AI and AI assistants in cyber attacks

One trend we’re watching closely for 2026 is the commercialization of AI-assisted cybercrime. For example, cybercrime prompt playbooks sold on the dark web—essentially copy-and-paste frameworks that show attackers how to misuse or jailbreak AI models. It’s an evolution of what we saw in 2025, where AI lowered the barrier to entry. In 2026, those techniques become productized, scalable, and much easier to reuse.  

-- Toby Lewis, Global Head of Threat Analysis

Conclusion

Taken together, these trends underscore that the core challenges of cybersecurity are not changing dramatically -- identity, trust, data, and human decision-making still sit at the core of most incidents. What is changing quickly is the environment in which these challenges play out. AI and automation are accelerating everything: how quickly attackers can scale, how widely risk is distributed, and how easily unintended behavior can create real impact. And as technology like cloud services and SaaS platforms become even more deeply integrated into businesses, the potential attack surface continues to expand.  

Predictions are not guarantees. But the patterns emerging today suggest that 2026 will be a year where securing AI becomes inseparable from securing the business itself. The organizations that prepare now—by understanding how AI is used, how it behaves, and how it can be misused—will be best positioned to adopt these technologies with confidence in the year ahead.

Learn more about how to secure AI adoption in the enterprise without compromise by registering to join our live launch webinar on February 3, 2026.  

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community

Blog

/

Email

/

December 22, 2025

Why Organizations are Moving to Label-free, Behavioral DLP for Outbound Email

Man at laptopDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why outbound email DLP needs reinventing

In 2025, the global average cost of a data breach fell slightly — but remains substantial at USD 4.44 million (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025). The headline figure hides a painful reality: many of these breaches stem not from sophisticated hacks, but from simple human error: mis-sent emails, accidental forwarding, or replying with the wrong attachment. Because outbound email is a common channel for sensitive data leaving an organization, the risk posed by everyday mistakes is enormous.

In 2025, 53% of data breaches involved customer PII, making it the most commonly compromised asset (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025). This makes “protection at the moment of send” essential. A single unintended disclosure can trigger compliance violations, regulatory scrutiny, and erosion of customer trust –consequences that are disproportionate to the marginal human errors that cause them.

Traditional DLP has long attempted to mitigate these impacts, but it relies heavily on perfect labelling and rigid pattern-matching. In reality, data loss rarely presents itself as a neat, well-structured pattern waiting to be caught – it looks like everyday communication, just slightly out of context.

How data loss actually happens

Most data loss comes from frustratingly familiar scenarios. A mistyped name in auto-complete sends sensitive data to the wrong “Alex.” A user forwards a document to a personal Gmail account “just this once.” Someone shares an attachment with a new or unknown correspondent without realizing how sensitive it is.

Traditional, content-centric DLP rarely catches these moments. Labels are missing or wrong. Regexes break the moment the data shifts formats. And static rules can’t interpret the context that actually matters – the sender-recipient relationship, the communication history, or whether this behavior is typical for the user.

It’s the everyday mistakes that hurt the most. The classic example: the Friday 5:58 p.m. mis-send, when auto-complete selects Martin, a former contractor, instead of Marta in Finance.

What traditional DLP approaches offer (and where gaps remain)

Most email DLP today follows two patterns, each useful but incomplete.

  • Policy- and label-centric DLP works when labels are correct — but content is often unlabeled or mislabeled, and maintaining classification adds friction. Gaps appear exactly where users move fastest
  • Rule and signature-based approaches catch known patterns but miss nuance: human error, new workflows, and “unknown unknowns” that don’t match a rule

The takeaway: Protection must combine content + behavior + explainability at send time, without depending on perfect labels.

Your technology primer: The three pillars that make outbound DLP effective

1) Label-free (vs. data classification)

Protects all content, not just what’s labeled. Label-free analysis removes classification overhead and closes gaps from missing or incorrect tags. By evaluating content and context at send time, it also catches misdelivery and other payload-free errors.

  • No labeling burden; no regex/rule maintenance
  • Works when tags are missing, wrong, or stale
  • Detects misdirected sends even when labels look right

2) Behavioral (vs. rules, signatures, threat intelligence)

Understands user behavior, not just static patterns. Behavioral analysis learns what’s normal for each person, surfacing human error and subtle exfiltration that rules can’t. It also incorporates account signals and inbound intel, extending across email and Teams.

  • Flags risk without predefined rules or IOCs
  • Catches misdelivery, unusual contacts, personal forwards, odd timing/volume
  • Blends identity and inbound context across channels

3) Proprietary DSLM (vs. generic LLM)

Optimized for precise, fast, explainable on-send decisions. A DSLM understands email/DLP semantics, avoids generative risks, and stays auditable and privacy-controlled, delivering intelligence reliably without slowing mail flow.

  • Low-latency, on-send enforcement
  • Non-generative for predictable, explainable outcomes
  • Governed model with strong privacy and auditability

The Darktrace approach to DLP

Darktrace / EMAIL – DLP stops misdelivery and sensitive data loss at send time using hold/notify/justify/release actions. It blends behavioral insight with content understanding across 35+ PII categories, protecting both labeled and unlabeled data. Every action is paired with clear explainability: AI narratives show exactly why an email was flagged, supporting analysts and helping end-users learn. Deployment aligns cleanly with existing SOC workflows through mail-flow connectors and optional Microsoft Purview label ingestion, without forcing duplicate policy-building.

Deployment is simple: Microsoft 365 routes outbound mail to Darktrace for real-time, inline decisions without regex or rule-heavy setup.

A buyer’s checklist for DLP solutions

When choosing your DLP solution, you want to be sure that it can deliver precise, explainable protection at the moment it matters – on send – without operational drag.  

To finish, we’ve compiled a handy list of questions you can ask before choosing an outbound DLP solution:

  • Can it operate label free when tags are missing or wrong? 
  • Does it truly learn per user behavior (no shortcuts)? 
  • Is there a domain specific model behind the content understanding (not a generic LLM)? 
  • Does it explain decisions to both analysts and end users? 
  • Will it integrate with your label program and SOC workflows rather than duplicate them? 

For a deep dive into Darktrace’s DLP solution, check out the full solution brief.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Carlos Gray
Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI