July 18, 2023

How Darktrace SOC Thwarted a BEC Attack

Discover how Darktrace's SOC detected and stopped a Business Email Compromise in a customer's SaaS environment.

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

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Jul 2023

What is Business Email Compromise (BEC)?

Business Email Compromise (BEC) is the practice of tricking an organization into transferring funds or sensitive data to a malicious actor.

Although at face value this type of attack may not carry the same gravitas as the more blockbuster, cloak-and-dagger type of attack such as ransomware [1], the costs of BEC actually dwarf that of ransomware [2]. Moreover, among UK organizations that reported a cyber breach in 2023, attacks related to BEC – namely phishing attacks, email impersonation, attempted hacking of online back accounts, and account takeover – were reported as the most disruptive, ahead of ransomware and other types of cyber-attack [3].

What makes a BEC attack successful?

BEC attacks are so successful and damaging due to the difficulty of detection for traditional security systems, along with their ease of execution. BEC does not require much technical sophistication to accomplish; rather, it exploits humans’ natural trust in known correspondents, via a phishing email for example, to induce them to perform a certain action.

How does a BEC attack work?

BEC attacks typically begin with a phishing email to an employee of an organization. Traditional email gateways may be unable to block the initial phishing email, as the email often appear to have been sent by a known correspondent, or it may contain minimal payload content.

The recipient’s interaction with the initial phishing email will likely result in the attacker gaining access to the user’s identity. Once access is obtained, the attacker may abuse the identity of the compromised user to obtain details of the user’s financial relations to the rest of the organization or its customers, eventually using these details to conduct further malicious email activity, such as sending out emails containing fraudulent wire transfer requests. Today, the continued growth in adoption of services to support remote working, such as cloud file storage and sharing, means that the compromise of a single user’s email account can also grant access to a wide range of corporate sensitive information.

How to protect against BEC attacks

The rapid uptake of cloud-based infrastructure and software-as-a-service (SaaS) outpaces the adoption of skills and expertise required to secure it, meaning that security teams are often less prepared to detect and respond to cloud-based attacks.

Alongside the adoption of security measures that specialize in anomaly-based detection and autonomous response, like Darktrace DETECT™ and Darktrace RESPOND™, it is extremely beneficial for organizations to have an around the clock security operations center (SOC) in place to monitor and investigate ongoing suspicious activity as it emerges.

In June 2023, Darktrace’s SOC alerted a customer to an active BEC attack within their cloud environment, following the successful detection of suspicious activity by Darktrace’s AI, playing a fundamental role in thwarting the attack in its early stages.

Darktrace Mitigates BEC Attack

Figure 1: Screenshot of the SaaS Console showing location information for the compromised SaaS account. The ability to visualize the distance between these two locations enables a SOC Analyst to deduce that the simultaneous activity from London and Derby may represent impossible travel’.

It was suspected the attack began with a phishing email, as on the previous day the user had received a highly anomalous email from an external sender with which the organization had not previously communicated. However, the customer had configured Darktrace/Email™ in passive mode, which meant that Darktrace was not able to carry out any RESPOND actions on this anomalous email to prevent it from landing in the user’s inbox. Despite this, Darktrace/Apps was able to instantly detect the subsequent unusual login to the customer’s SaaS environment; its anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to recognize the anomalous behavior even though the malicious email had successfully reached the user.

Following the anomalous ExpressVPN login, Darktrace detected further account anomalies originating from another ExpressVPN IP (45.92.229[.]195), as the attacker accessed files over SharePoint. Notably, Darktrace identified that the logins from ExpressVPN IPs were performed with the software Chrome 114, however, activity from the legitimate account owner prior to these unusual logins was performed using the software Chrome 102. It is unusual for a user to be using multiple browser versions simultaneously, therefore in addition to the observed impossible travel, this further implied the presence of different actors behind the simultaneous account activity.

Figure 2: Screenshot of the Event Log for the compromised SaaS account, showing simultaneous login and file access activity on the account from different browser versions, and thus likely from different devices.

Darktrace identified that the files observed during this anomalous activity referenced financial information and personnel schedules, suggesting that the attacker was performing internal reconnaissance to gather information about sensitive internal company procedures, in preparation for further fraudulent financial activity.

Although the actions taken by the attacker were mostly passive, Darktrace/Apps chained together the multiple anomalies to understand that this pattern of activity was indicative of movement along the cyber kill chain. The multiple model breaches generated by the ongoing unusual activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model breach that was escalated to Darktrace’s SOC as the customer had subscribed to Darktrace’s Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service. Enhanced Monitoring models detect activities that are more likely to be indicative of compromise.

Subsequently, Darktrace’s SOC triaged the activity detected on the SaaS account and sent a PTN alert to the customer, advising urgent follow up action. The encrypted alert contained relevant technical details of the incident that were summarized by an expert Darktrace Analyst, along with recommendations to the customer’s internal SOC team to take immediate action. Upon receipt and validation of the alert, the customer used Darktrace RESPOND to perform a manual force logout and block access from the external ExpressVPN IP.

Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode, it would have immediately taken action to disable the account after ongoing anomalies were detected from it. However, as the customer only had RESPOND configured in the manual human confirmation model, the expertise of Darktrace’s SOC team was critical in enabling the customer to react and prevent further escalation of post-compromise activity. Evidence of further attempts to access the compromised account were observed hours after RESPOND actions were taken, including failed login attempts from another rare external IP, this time associated with the VPN service NordVPN.

Figure 3: Timeline of attack and response actions from Darktrace SOC and Darktrace RESPOND.

Because the customer had subscribed to Darktrace’s PTN service, they were able to further leverage the expertise of Darktrace’s global team of cyber analysts and request further analysis of which files were accessed by the legitimate account owner versus the attacker. This information was shared securely within the same Customer Portal ticket that was automatically opened on behalf of the customer when the PTN was alerted, allowing the customer’s security team to submit further queries and feedback, and request assistance to further investigate this alert within Darktrace. A similar service called Ask the Expert (ATE) exists for customers to draw from the expertise of Darktrace’s analysts at any time, not just when PTNs are alerted.

Conclusion

The growing prevalence and impact of BEC attacks amid the shift to cloud-based infrastructure means that already stretched internal security teams may not have the sufficient human capacity to detect and respond to these threats.

Darktrace’s round-the-clock SOC thwarted a BEC attack that had the potential to result in significant financial and reputational damage to the legal services company, by alerting the customer to high priority activity during the early stages of the attack and sharing actionable insights that the customer could use to prevent further escalation. Following the confirmed compromise, the support and in-depth analysis provided by Darktrace’s SOC on the files accessed by the attacker enabled the customer to effectively report this breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office, to maintain compliance with UK data protection regulations. [4].

Although the attacker used IP addresses that were local to the customer’s country of operations and did not perform overtly noisy actions during reconnaissance, Darktrace was able to identify that this activity deviated from the legitimate user’s typical pattern of life, triggering model breaches at each stage of the attack as it progressed from initial access to internal reconnaissance. While Darktrace RESPOND triggered an action that would have prevented the attack autonomously, the customer’s configuration meant that Darktrace’s SOC had an even more significant role in alerting the customer directly to take manual action.

Credit to: Sam Lister, Senior Analyst, for his contributions to this blog.

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT/Apps Models Breached:

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use
SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active
SaaS / Unusual Activity / Activity from Multiple Unusual IPs
SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities
SaaS / Access / Suspicious Login Attempt
SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login (Enhanced Monitoring Model)

Darktrace RESPOND/Apps Models Breached:

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Unusual Activity Block
Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic	Techniques
Reconnaissance	• T1598 – Phishing for Information
Initial Access	• T1078.004 – Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts
Collection	• T1213.002 – Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint

References

[1] Rand, D. (2022, November 10). Why Business Email Compromise Costs Companies More Than Ransomware Attacks. Retrieved from Tanium: https://www.tanium.com/blog/whybusiness-email-compromise-costs-companies-more-than-ransomware-attacks/

[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2022). 2022 IC3 Report. Retrieved from IC3.gov: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2022_IC3Report.pdf

[3] Department for Science, Innovation & Technology. (2023, April 19). Cyber security breaches survey 2023. Retrieved from gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber-security-breaches-survey-2023/cybersecurity-breaches-survey-2023

[4] ICO. (2023). Personal data breaches: a guide. Retrieved from Information Commissioner's Office: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/personal-data-breach/personal-data-breaches-a-guide/#whatbreachesdo

執筆者

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Nicole Wong

Cyber Security Analyst

Malware Research Lead

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

May 14, 2026

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Darktrace have identified activity consistent with Chinese-nexus operations, a Twill Typhoon-linked campaign targeting customer environments, primarily within the Asia-Pacific & Japan (APJ) region

Beginning in late September 2025, multiple affected hosts were observed making requests to domains impersonating content delivery networks (CDNs), including infrastructure masquerading as Yahoo- and Apple-affiliated services. Across these cases, Darktrace identified a consistent behavioral execution pattern: the retrieval of legitimate binaries alongside malicious Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs), enabling sideloading and execution of a modular .NET-based Remote Access Trojan (RAT) framework.

The activity aligns with patterns described in Darktrace’s previous Chinese-nexus operations report, Crimson Echo. In this case, observed modular intrusion chains built on legitimate software, and staged payload delivery. Threat actors retrieve legitimate binaries alongside configuration files and malicious DLLs to enable sideloading of a .NET-based RAT.

Observed Campaign

Across cases, the same ordered sequence appears: retrieval of a legitimate executable, (2) retrieval of a matching .config file, (3) retrieval of the malicious

DLL, (4) repeated DLL downloads over time, and (5) command-and-control (C2) communication. The .config file retrieves a malicious binary, while the legitimate binary provides a legitimate process to run it in.

Darktrace assesses with moderate confidence that this activity aligns with publicly reported Twill Typhoon tradecraft. The observed use of FDMTP, DLL sideloading, and overlapping infrastructure is consistent with previously observed operations, though not unique to a single actor. While initial access was not directly observed, previous Twill Typhoon campaigns have typically involved spear-phishing.

What Darktrace Observed

Since late September 2025, Darktrace has observed multiple customer environments making HTTP GET requests to infrastructure presenting as “CDN” endpoints for well-known platforms (including Yahoo and Apple lookalikes). Across cases, the affected hosts retrieved legitimate executables, then matching .config files (same base filename), then DLLs intended for sideloading. The sequencing of a legitimate binary + configuration + DLL has been previously observed in campaigns linked to China-nexus threat actors.

In several cases, affected hosts also issued outbound requests to a /GetCluster endpoint, including the protocol=Dotnet-Tcpdmtp parameter. This activity was repeatedly followed by retrieval of DLL content that was subsequently used for search-order hijacking within legitimate processes.

In the September–October 2025 cases, Darktrace alerting commonly surfaced early-stage registration and C2 setup behaviors, followed by retrieval of a DLL (e.g., Client.dll) from the same external host, sometimes repeatedly over multiple days, consistent with establishing and maintaining the execution chain.

In April 2026, a finance-sector endpoint initiated a series of GET requests to yahoo-cdn[.]it[.]com, first fetching legitimate binaries (including vshost.exe and dfsvc.exe), then repeatedly retrieving associated configuration and DLL components (including dfsvc.exe.config and dnscfg.dll) over an 11-day window. The use of both Visual Studio hosting and OneClick (dfsvc.exe) paths are used to ensure the malware can run in the targeted environment.

Technical Analysis

Initial staging and execution

While the initial access method is unknown, Darktrace security researchers identified multiple archives containing the malware.

A representative example includes a ZIP archive (“test.zip”) containing:

A legitimate executable: biz_render.exe (Sogou Pinyin IME)
A malicious DLL: browser_host.dll

Contained within the zip archive named “test.zip” is the legitimate binary “biz_render.exe”, a popular Chinese Input Method Editor (IME) Sogou Pinyin.

Alongside the legitimate binary is a malicious DLL named “browser_host.dll”. As the legitimate binary loads a legitimate DLL named “browser_host.dll” via LoadLibraryExW, the malicious DLL has been named the same to sideload the malicious DLL into biz_render.exe. By supplying a malicious DLL with an identical name, the actor hijacks execution flow, enabling the payload to execute within a trusted process.

Figure 1: Biz_render.exe loading browser_host.dll.

The legitimate binary invokes the function GetBrowserManagerInstance from the sideloaded “browser_host.dll”, which then performs XOR-based decryption of embedded strings (key 0x90) to resolve and dynamically load mscoree.dll.

The DLL uses the Windows Common Language Runtime (CLR) to execute managed .NET code inside the process rather than relying solely on native binaries. During execution, the loader loads a payload directly into memory as .NET assemblies, enabling an in-memory execution.

C2 Registration

A GET request is made to:

GET /GetCluster?protocol=DotNet-TcpDmtp&tag={0}&uid={1}

with the custom header:

Verify_Token: Dmtp

This returns Base64-encoded and gzip-compressed IP addresses used for subsequent communication.

Staged payload retrieval

Subsequent activity includes retrieval of multiple components from yahoo-cdn.it[.]com. The following GET requests are made:

/dfsvc.exe

/dnscfg.dll

/dfsvc.exe.config

/vhost.exe

/Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll

/config.etl

ClickOnce and AppDomain hijacking

Dfsvc.exe is the legitimate Windows ClickOnce Engine, part of the .NET framework used for updating ClickOnce Applications. Accompanying dfsvc.exe is a legitimate dfsvc.exe.config file that is used to store configuration data for the application. However, in this instance the malware has replaced the legitimate dfsvc.exe.config with the one retrieved from the server in: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319.

Additionally, vhost.exe the legitimate Visual Studio hosting process is retrieved from the server, along with “Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll” and “config.etl”. The DLL is used to decrypt the AES encrypted payload in config.etl and load it. The encrypted payload is dnscfg.dll, which can be loaded into vshost instead of dfsvc, and may be used if the environment does not support .NET.

The malicious configuration disables logging, forces the application to load dnscfg.dll from the remote server, and uses a custom AppDomainManager to ensure the DLL is executed during initialization of dfsvc.exe. To ensure persistence, a scheduled task is added for %APPDATA%\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\dfsvc.exe.

Core payload

The DLL dnscfg.dll is a .NET binary named Client.TcpDmtp.dll. The payload is a heavily obfuscated backdoor that generates its logic at runtime and communicates with the command and control (C2) over custom TCP, DMTP (Duplex Message Transport Protocol) and appears to be an updated version of FDMTP to version 3.2.5.1

The payload:

Uses cluster-based resolution (GetHostFromCluster)
Implements token validation
Enters a persistent execution loop (LoopMessage)
Supports structured remote tasking over DMTP

Once connected, the malware enters a persistent loop (LoopMessage), enabling it to receive commands from the remote server.

Rather than referencing values directly, they are retrieved through containers that are resolved at runtime. String values are stored in an encrypted byte array (_0) and decrypted by a custom XOR-based string decryption routine (dcsoft). The lower 16 bits of the provided key are XORed with 0xA61D (42525) to derive the initial XOR key, while subsequent bits define the string length and offset into the encrypted byte array. Each character is reconstructed from two encrypted bytes and XORed with the incrementing key value, producing the plaintext string used by the payload.

Embedded in the resources section are multiple compressed binaries, the majority of which are library files. The only exceptions are client.core.dll and client.dmtpframe.dll.

Modular framework and plugins

The payload embeds multiple compressed libraries, notably:

client.core.dll
client.dmtpframe.dll

Client.core.dll is a core library used for system profiling, C2 communication and plugin execution. The implant has the functionality to retrieve information including antivirus products, domain name, HWID, CLR version, administrator status, hardware details, network details, operating system, and user.

Additionally, the component is responsible for loading plugins, with support for both binary and JSON-based plugin execution. This allows plugins to receive commands and parameters in different formats depending on the task being performed.

The framework handles details such as plugin hashes, method names, task identifiers, caller tracking, and argument processing, allowing plugins to be executed consistently within the environment. In addition to execution management, the library also provides plugins with access to common runtime functionality such as logging, communication, and process handling.

client.dmtpframe.dll handles:

DMTP communication
Heartbeats and reconnection
Plugin persistence via registry:

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\IME\{id}

Client.dmtpframe.dll is built on the TouchSocket DMTP networking library and continues to manage the remote plugins. The DLL implements remote communication features including heartbeat maintenance, reconnection handling, RPC-style messaging, SSL support, and token-based verification. The DLL also has the ability to add plugins to the registry under HKCU/Software/Microsoft/IME/{id} for persistence.

Plugins observed

While the full set of plugins remains unknown, researchers were able to identify four plugins, including:

Persist.WpTask.dll - used to create, remove and trigger scheduled Windows tasks remotely.
Persist.registry.dll - used to manage registry persistence with the ability to create, and delete registry values, along with hidden persistence keys.
Persist.extra.dll - used to load and persist the main framework.‍
Assist.dll - used to remotely retrieve files or commands, as well as manipulate system processes.

Figure 10: Plugins stored in IME registry.

Figure 11: Obfuscated script in plugin resources.

Persist.extra.dll is a module that is used to load a script “setup.log” to load and persist the main framework. Stored within the resources section of the binary is an obfuscated script that creates a .NET COM object that is added to the registry key HKCU\Software\Classes\TypeLib\ {9E175B61-F52A-11D8-B9A5-505054503030} \1.0\1\Win64 for persistence. After deobfuscating this script, another DLL is revealed named “WindowsBase.dll”.

The binary checks in with icloud-cdn[.]net every five minutes, retrieves a version string, downloads an encrypted payload named checksum.bin, saves it locally as C:\ProgramData\USOShared\Logs\checksum.etl, decrypts it with AES using the hardcoded key POt_L[Bsh0=+@0a., and loads the decrypted assembly directly from memory via Assembly.Load(byte[]). The version.txt file acts as an update marker so it only re-downloads when the remote version changes, while the mutex prevents duplicate instances.

Checksum.etl is decrypted with AES and loaded into memory, loading another .NET DLL named “Client.dll”. This binary is the same as “dnscfg.dll” mentioned at the start and allows the threat actors to update the main framework based on the version.

Conclusion

Across cases, Darktrace consistently observed the following sequence:

Retrieval of legitimate executables
Retrieval of DLLs for sideloading
C2 registration via /GetCluster

This approach is consistent with broader China-nexus tradecraft. As outlined in Darktrace’s Crimson Echo report, the stable feature of this activity is behavioral. Infrastructure rotates and payloads can change, but the execution model persists. For defenders, the implication is straightforward: detection anchored to individual indicators will degrade quickly. Detection anchored to a behavioral sequence offer a far more durable approach.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead), Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

‍

Appendices

A detailed list of detection models and triggered indicators is provided alongside IoCs.

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Test.zip - fc3959ebd35286a82c662dc81ca658cb

Dnscfg.dll - b2c8f1402d336963478f4c5bc36c961a

Client.TcpDmtp.dll - c52b4a16d93a44376f0407f1c06e0b

Browser_host.dll - c17f39d25def01d5c87615388925f45a

Client.DmtpFrame.dll - 482cc72e01dfa54f30efe4fefde5422d

Persist.Extra - 162F69FE29EB7DE12B684E979A446131

Persist.Registry - 067FBAD4D6905D6E13FDC19964C1EA52

Assist - 2CD781AB63A00CE5302ED844CFBECC27

Persist.WpTask - DF3437C88866C060B00468055E6FA146

Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.Utilities.Sync.dll - c650a624455c5222906b60aac7e57d48

www.icloud-cdn[.]net

www.yahoo-cdn.it[.]com

154.223.58[.]142[AP8] [EF9]

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

T1106 – Native API

T1053.005 - Scheduled Task

T1546.16 - Component Object Model Hijacking

T1547.001 - Registry Run Keys

T1511.001 - Dynamic Link Library Injection

T1622 – Debugger Evasion

T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

T1574.001 - Hijack Execution Flow: DLL

T1620 – Reflective Code Loading

T1082 – System Information Discovery

T1007 – System Service Discovery

T1030 – System Owner/User Discovery

T1071.001 - Web Protocols

T1027.007 - Dynamic API Resolution

T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol

Darktrace Model Alerts

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

· Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

· Compromise / Agent Beacon to New Endpoint

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

· Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

· Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)

· Compromise / Repeating Connections Over 4 Days

· Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Device / Increased External Connectivity

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Blog

AI

May 12, 2026

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

Why higher education is a different cybersecurity battlefield

After four decades in IT, now serving as both CIO and CISO, I’ve learned one simple truth: cybersecurity is never “done.” It’s a constant game of cat and mouse. Criminals evolve. Technologies advance. Regulations expand. But in higher education, the challenge is uniquely complex.

Unlike a bank or a military installation, we can’t lock down networks to a narrow set of approved applications. Higher education environments are open by design. Students collaborate globally, faculty conduct cutting-edge research, and administrators manage critical operations, all of which require seamless access to the internet, global networks, cloud platforms, and connected systems.

Combine that openness with expanding regulatory mandates and tight budgets, and the balancing act becomes clear.

Threat actors don’t operate under the same constraints. Often well-funded and sponsored by nation-states with significant resources, they’re increasingly organized, strategic, and innovative.

That sophistication shows up in the tactics we face every day, from social engineering and ransomware to AI-driven impersonation attacks. We’re dealing with massive volumes of data, countless signals, and a very small window between detection and damage.

No human team, no matter how talented or how numerous, can manually sift through that noise at the speed required.

Discovering a force multiplier

Nothing in cybersecurity is 100% foolproof. I never “set it and forget it.” But for institutions balancing rising threats and finite resources, the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™ offers something incredibly valuable: peace of mind through speed and scale.

It closes the gap between detection and response in a way humans can’t possibly match. At the speed of light, it can quarantine, investigate, and contain anomalous activity.

I’ve purchased and deployed Darktrace three separate times at three different institutions because I’ve seen firsthand what it can do and what it enables teams like mine to achieve.

I first encountered Darktrace while serving as CIO for a large multi-campus college system. What caught my attention was Darktrace's Self-Learning AI, and its ability to learn what "normal" looked like across our network. Instead of relying solely on static signatures or rigid rules, Darktrace built a behavioral baseline unique to our environment and alerted us in real time when something simply didn’t look right.

In higher education, where strict lockdowns aren’t realistic, that behavioral model made all the difference. We deployed it across five campuses, and the impact was immediate. Operating 24/7, Darktrace surfaced threats in ways our team couldn’t replicate manually.

Over time, the Darktrace platform evolved alongside the changing threat landscape, expanding into intrusion prevention, cloud visibility, and email security. At subsequent institutions, including Washington College, Darktrace was one of my first strategic investments.

Revealing the hidden threat other tools missed

One of the most surprising investigations of my career involved a data leak. Leadership suspected sensitive information from high-level meetings was being exposed, but our traditional tools couldn’t provide any answers.

Using Darktrace’s deep network visibility, down to packet-level data, we traced unusual connections to our CCTV camera system, which had been configured with a manufacturer’s default password. A small group of employees had hacked into the CCTV cameras, accessed audio-enabled recordings from boardroom meetings, and stored copies locally.

No other tool in our environment could have surfaced those connections the way Darktrace did. It was a clear example of why using AI to deeply understand how your organization, systems, and tools normally behave, matters: threats and risks don’t always look the way we expect.

Elevating a D-rating into a A-level security program

When I arrived at my last CISO role, the institution had recently experienced a significant ransomware attack. Attackers located data which informed their setting ransom demands to an amount they knew would likely result in payment. It was a sobering example of how calculated and strategic modern cybercriminals have become.

Third-party cyber ratings reflected that reality, with a D rating.

To raise the bar, we implemented a comprehensive security program and integrated layered defenses; -deploying state of the art tools and methods- across the environment, with Darktrace at its core.

After a 90-day learning period to establish our behavioral baseline, we transitioned the platform into fully autonomous mode. In a single 30-day span, Darktrace conducted more than 2,500 investigations and autonomously resolved 92% of all false positives.

For a small team, that’s transformative. Instead of drowning in alerts, my staff focused on less than 200 meaningful cases that warranted human review.

Today, we maintain a perfect A rating from third-party assessors and have remained cybersafe.

Peace of mind isn’t about complacency

The effect of Darktrace as a force multiplier has a real human impact.

With the time reclaimed through automation, we expanded community education programs and implemented simulated phishing exercises. Through sustained training and awareness efforts, we reduced social engineering susceptibility from nearly 45% to under 5%.

On a personal level, Darktrace allows me to sleep better at night and take time off knowing we have intelligent systems monitoring and responding around the clock. For any CIO or CISO carrying institutional risk on their shoulders, that matters.

The next era: AI vs. AI

A new chapter in cybersecurity is unfolding as adversaries leverage AI to enhance scale, speed, and believability. Phishing campaigns are more personalized, impersonation attempts are more precise, and deepfake video technology, including live video, is disturbingly authentic. At the same time, organizations are rapidly adopting AI across their own environments —from GenAI assistants to embedded tools to autonomous agents. These systems don’t operate within fixed rules. They act across email, cloud, SaaS, and identity systems, often with broad permissions, and their behavior can evolve over time in ways that are difficult to predict or control.

That creates a new kind of security challenge. It’s not just about defending against AI-powered threats but understanding and governing how AI behaves within your environment, including what it can access, how it acts, and where risk begins to emerge.

From my perspective, this is a natural next step for Darktrace.

Darktrace brings a level of maturity and behavioral understanding uniquely suited to the complexity of AI environments. Self-Learning AI learns the normal patterns of each business to interpret context, uncover subtle intent, and detect meaningful deviations without relying on predefined rules or signatures. Extending into securing AI by bringing real-time visibility and control to GenAI assistants, AI agents, development environments and Shadow AI, feels like the logical evolution of what Darktrace already does so well.

Just as importantly, Darktrace is already built for dynamic, cross-domain environments where risk doesn’t sit in a single tool or control plane. In higher education, activity already spans multiple systems and, with AI, that interconnection only accelerates.

Having deployed Darktrace multiple times, I have confidence it’s uniquely positioned to lead in this space and help organizations adopt AI with greater visibility and control.

‍

---

Since authoring this blog, Irving Bruckstein has transitioned to the role of Chief Executive Officer of the Cyberaigroup.

About the author

Irving Bruckstein

CEO CyberAIgroup

あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI

唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ

デモを予約

How Darktrace SOC Thwarted a BEC Attack

What is Business Email Compromise (BEC)?

What makes a BEC attack successful?

How does a BEC attack work?

How to protect against BEC attacks

Darktrace Mitigates BEC Attack

Conclusion

Appendices

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

ブログをお楽しみ頂けましたか？

More in this series

How email-delivered prompt injection attacks can target enterprise AI – and why it matters

Darktrace Unites Human Behavior and Threat Detection Across Email, Slack, Teams, and Zoom

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

Blog

Network

May 14, 2026

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Observed Campaign

What Darktrace Observed

Technical Analysis

Initial staging and execution

C2 Registration

Staged payload retrieval

ClickOnce and AppDomain hijacking

Core payload

Modular framework and plugins

Plugins observed

Conclusion

Appendices

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques

Darktrace Model Alerts

Blog

AI

May 12, 2026

Resilience at the Speed of AI: Defending the Modern Campus with Darktrace

Why higher education is a different cybersecurity battlefield

Discovering a force multiplier

Revealing the hidden threat other tools missed

Elevating a D-rating into a A-level security program

Peace of mind isn’t about complacency

The next era: AI vs. AI

‍