ブログ
/
Network
/
March 22, 2024

What are Botnets and How Darktrace Uncovers Them

Learn how Darktrace detected and implemented defense protocols against Socks5Systemz botnet before any threat to intelligence had been published.
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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
22
Mar 2024

What are botnets?

Although not a recent addition to the threat landscape, botnets persist as a significant concern for organizations, with many threat actors utilizing them for political, strategic, or financial gain. Botnets pose a particularly persistent threat to security teams; even if one compromised device is detected, attackers will likely have infected multiple devices and can continue to operate. Moreover, threat actors are able to easily replace the malware communication channels between infected devices and their command-and-control (C2) servers, making it incredibly difficult to remove the infection.

Botnet example: Socks5Systemz

One example of a botnet recently investigated by the Darktrace Threat Research team is Socks5Systemz. Socks5Systemz is a proxy-for-rent botnet, whereby actors can rent blocks of infected devices to perform proxying services.  Between August and November 2023, Darktrace detected indicators of Socks5Systemz botnet compromise within a cross-industry section of the customer base. Although open-source intelligence (OSINT) research of the botnet only appeared in November 2023, the anomaly-based approach of Darktrace DETECT™ allowed it to identify multiple stages of the network-based activity on affected customer systems well before traditional rules and signatures would have been implemented.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ complemented DETECT’s successful identification of Socks5Systemz activity on customer networks, playing a pivotal role in piecing together the seemingly separate events that comprised the wider compromise. This allowed Darktrace to build a clearer picture of the attack, empowering its customers with full visibility over emerging incidents.

In the customer environments highlighted in this blog, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not configured to operate autonomously. As a result, Socks5Systemz attacks were able to advance through their kill chains until customer security teams acted upon Darktrace’s detections and began their remediation procedures.

What is Socks5Systemz?

The Socks5Systemz botnet is a proxy service where individuals can use infected devices as proxy servers.

These devices act as ‘middlemen’, forwarding connections from malicious actors on to their intended destination. As this additional connectivity conceals the true origin of the connections, threat actors often use botnets to increase their anonymity. Although unauthorized proxy servers on a corporate network may not appear at first glance to be a priority for organizations and their security teams, complicity in proxy botnets could result in reputational damage and significant financial losses.

Since it was first observed in the wild in 2016, the Socks5Systemz botnet has grown steadily, seemingly unnoticed by cyber security professionals, and has infected a reported 10,000 devices worldwide [1]. Cyber security researchers noted a high concentration of compromised devices in India, with lower concentrations of devices infected in the United States, Latin America, Australia and multiple European and African countries [2]. Renting sections of the Socks5Systemz botnet costs between 1 USD and 4,000 USD, with options to increase the threading and time-range of the rentals [2]. Due to the lack of affected devices in Russia, some threat researchers have concluded that the botnet’s operators are likely Russian [2].

Darktrace’s Coverage of Socks5Systemz

The Darktrace Threat Research team conducted investigations into campaign-like activity across the customer base between August and November 2023, where multiple indicators of compromise (IoCs) relating to the Socks5Systemz proxy botnet were observed. Darktrace identified several stages of the attack chain described in static malware analysis by external researchers. Darktrace was also able to uncover additional IoCs and stages of the Socks5Systemz attack chain that had not featured in external threat research.

Delivery and Execution

Prior research on Socks5Systemz notes how the malware is typically delivered via user input, with delivery methods including phishing emails, exploit kits, malicious ads, and trojanized executables downloaded from peer-to-peer (P2P) networks [1].

Threat actors have also used separate malware loaders such as PrivateLoader and Amadey deliver the Socks5Systemz payload. These loaders will drop executable files that are responsible for setting up persistence and injecting the proxy bot into the infected device’s memory [2]. Although evidence of initial payload delivery did not appear during its investigations, Darktrace did discover IoCs relating to PrivateLoader and Amadey on multiple customer networks. Such activity included HTTP POST requests using PHP to rare external IPs and HTTP connections with a referrer header field, indicative of a redirected connection.

However, additional adjacent activity that may suggest initial user execution and was observed during Darktrace’s investigations. For example, an infected device on one deployment made a HTTP GET request to a rare external domain with a “.fun” top-level domain (TLD) for a PDF file. The URI also appears to have contained a client ID. While this download and HTTP request likely corresponded to the gathering and transmission of further telemetry data and infection verification [2], the downloaded PDF file may have represented a malicious payload.

Advanced Search log details highlighting a device infected by Socks5Systemz downloading a suspicious PDF file.
Figure 1: Advanced Search log details highlighting a device infected by Socks5Systemz downloading a suspicious PDF file.

Establishing C2 Communication  

Once the proxy bot has been injected into the device’s memory, the malware attempts to contact servers owned by the botnet’s operators. Across several customer environments, Darktrace identified infected devices attempting to establish connections with such C2 servers. First, affected devices would make repeated HTTP GET requests over port 80 to rare external domains; these endpoints typically had “.ua” and “.ru” TLDs. The majority of these connection attempts were not preceded by a DNS host lookup, suggesting that the domains were already loaded in the device’s cache memory or hardcoded into the code of running processes.

Figure 2: Breach log data connections identifying repeated unusual HTTP connections over port 80 for domains without prior DNS host lookup.

While most initial HTTP GET requests across investigated incidents did not feature DNS host lookups, Darktrace did identify affected devices on a small number of customer environments performing a series of DNS host lookups for seemingly algorithmically generated domains (DGA). These domains feature the same TLDs as those seen in connections without prior DNS host lookups.  

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst data indicating a subset of DGAs queried via DNS by infected devices.

These DNS requests follow the activity reported by researchers, where infected devices query a hardcoded DNS server controlled by the threat actor for an DGA domain [2]. However, as the bulk of Darktrace’s investigations presented HTTP requests without a prior DNS host lookup, this activity indicates a significant deviation from the behavior reported by OSINT sources. This could indicate that multiple variations of the Socks5Systemz botnet were circulating at the time of investigation.

Most hostnames observed during this time of investigation follow a specific regular expression format: /[a-z]{7}\.(ua|net|info|com|ru)/ or /[a-z0-9]{15}\.(ua)/. Darktrace also noticed the HTTP GET requests for DGA domains followed a consistent URI pattern: /single.php?c=<STRING>. The requests were also commonly made using the “Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 9.0; en-US)” user agent over port 80.

This URI pattern observed during Darktrace’s investigations appears to reflect infected devices contacting Socks5Systemz C2 servers to register the system and details of the host, and signal it is ready to receive further instructions [2]. These URIs are encrypted with a RC4 stream cipher and contain information relating to the device’s operating system and architecture, as well as details of the infection.

The HTTP GET requests during this time, which involved devices made to a variety a variety of similar DGA domains, appeared alongside IP addresses that were later identified as Socks5Systemz C2 servers.

Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst investigation details highlighting HTTP GET activity whereby RC4 encrypted data is sent to proxy C2 domains.

However, not all affected devices observed by Darktrace used DGA domains to transmit RC4 encoded data. Some investigated systems were observed making similar HTTP GET requests over port 80, albeit to the external domain: “bddns[.]cc”, using the aforementioned Mozilla user agent. During these requests, Darktrace identified a consistent URI pattern, similar to that seen in the DGA domain GET requests: /sign/<RC4 cipher text>.  

Darktrace DETECT recognized the rarity of the domains and IPs that were connected to by affected devices, as well as the usage of the new Mozilla user agent.  The HTTP connections, and the corresponding Darktrace DETECT model breaches, parallel the analysis made by external researchers: if the initial DGA DNS requests do not return a valid C2 server, infected devices connect to, and request the IP address of a server from, the above-mentioned domain [2].

Connection to Proxy

After sending host and infection details via HTTP and receiving commands from the C2 server, affected devices were frequently observed initiating activity to join the Sock5Systemz botnet. Infected hosts would first make HTTP GET requests to an IP identified as Socks5Systemz’s proxy checker application, usually sending the URI “proxy-activity.txt” to the domain over the HTTP protocol. This likely represents an additional validation check to confirm that the infected device is ready to join the botnet.

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing HTTP GET requests over port 80 to the Socks5Systemz Proxy Checker Application.

Following the final validation checks, devices would then attempt TCP connections to a range of IPs, which have been associated with BackConnect proxy servers, over port 1074. At this point, the device is able to receive commands from actors who login to and operate the corresponding BackConnect server. This BackConnect server will transmit traffic from the user renting the segment of the botnet [2].

Darktrace observed a range of activity associated with this stage of the attack, including the use of new or unusual user agents, connections to suspicious IPs, and other anomalous external connectivity which represented a deviation from affected devices’ expected behavior.

Additional Activities Following Proxy Addition

The Darktrace Threat Research team found evidence of the possible deployment of additional malware strains during their investigation into devices affected by Socks5Systemz. IoCs associated with both the Amadey and PrivateLoader loader malware strains, both of which are known to distribute Socks5Systemz, were also observed on affected devices. Additionally, Darktrace observed multiple infected systems performing cryptocurrency mining operations around the time of the Sock5Systemz compromise, utilizing the MinerGate protocol to conduct login and job functions, as well as making DNS requests for mining pools.

While such behavior would fall outside of the expected activity for Socks5Systemz and cannot be definitively attributed to it, Darktrace did observe devices affected by the botnet performing additional malicious downloads and operations during its investigations.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection enabled it to effectively identify and alert for malicious Socks5Systemz botnet activity long before external researchers had documented its IoCs and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).  

In fact, Darktrace not only identified multiple distinct attack phases later outlined in external research but also uncovered deviations from these expected patterns of behavior. By proactively detecting emerging threats through anomaly detection rather than relying on existing threat intelligence, Darktrace is well positioned to detect evolving threats like Socks5Systemz, regardless of what their future iterations might look like.

Faced with the threat of persistent botnets, it is crucial for organizations to detect malicious activity in its early stages before additional devices are compromised, making it increasingly difficult to remediate. Darktrace’s suite of products enables the swift and effective detection of such threats. Moreover, when enabled in autonomous response mode, Darktrace RESPOND is uniquely positioned to take immediate, targeted actions to contain these attacks from the onset.

Credit to Adam Potter, Cyber Security Analyst, Anna Gilbertson, Cyber Security Analyst

Appendices

DETECT Model Breaches

  • Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint
  • Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
  • Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / DGA Beacon
  • Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
  • Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
  • Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing
  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)
  • Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)
  • Device / New User Agent
  • Device / New User Agent and New IP

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

  • Possible HTTP Command and Control
  • Possible HTTP Command and Control to Multiple Endpoints
  • Unusual Repeated Connections
  • Unusual Repeated Connections to Multiple Endpoints
  • Multiple DNS Requests for Algorithmically Generated Domains

Indicators of Compromise

IoC - Type - Description

185.141.63[.]172 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

193.242.211[.]141 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

109.230.199[.]181 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

109.236.88[.]134 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

217.23.5[.]14 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Proxy Checker App

88.80.148[.]8 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

88.80.148[.]219 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

185.141.63[.]4 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

185.141.63[.]2 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

195.154.188[.]211 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

91.92.111[.]132 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

91.121.30[.]185 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

94.23.58[.]173 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

37.187.148[.]204 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

188.165.192[.]18 - IP Address - Socks5Systemz Backconnect Endpoint

/single.php?c=<RC4 data hex encoded> - URI - Socks5Systemz HTTP GET Request

/sign/<RC4 data hex encoded> - URI - Socks5Systemz HTTP GET Request

/proxy-activity.txt - URI - Socks5Systemz HTTP GET Request

datasheet[.]fun - Hostname - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

bddns[.]cc - Hostname - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

send-monitoring[.]bit - Hostname - Socks5Systemz C2 Endpoint

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Command and Control

T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

T1071.001 – Web protocols

T1568 – Dynamic Resolution

T1568.002 – Domain Generation Algorithms

T1132 – Data Encoding

T1132 – Non-Standard Encoding

T1090 – Proxy

T1090.002 – External Proxy

Exfiltration

T1041 – Exfiltration over C2 channel

Impact

T1496 – Resource Hijacking

References

1. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/socks5systemz-proxy-service-infects-10-000-systems-worldwide/

2. https://www.bitsight.com/blog/unveiling-socks5systemz-rise-new-proxy-service-privateloader-and-amadey

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
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Proactive Security

/

June 2, 2026

Stopping Stealth Attacks with Precision: How Núclea Prevented a Breach Without Disruption

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Núclea is a Brazilian data and technology company that supports the country’s financial system by delivering digital services exclusively to banks and financial institutions. Operating in an environment where trust, availability, and data integrity are critical, the company faces a threat landscape that has evolved rapidly—particularly with the rise of AI-driven cyberattacks.

Brazil has experienced a wave of successful cyber incidents targeting financial institutions, many of them enabled by insiders or compromised credentials. The result was a noticeable shift in attacker strategy: instead of focusing on end customers, threat actors began targeting the institutions and platforms that underpin the financial ecosystem itself.

“Attacks became far more directed and contextual,” explains Guilherme, who leads incident response within Núclea’s security platform engineering team. “They weren’t noisy or obviously malicious—they were precise, patient, and designed to blend into normal operations.”

That precision was on full display in January 2026, when Núclea faced one of the most convincing phishing attacks the team had seen.

A real attack, built on trust and context

The attack began with a seemingly routine email.

It was sent from a real Brazilian government institution, using legitimate infrastructure and valid credentials that were later confirmed to have been compromised. Núclea had an established, ongoing relationship with this organization, and the email’s language, tone, and subject matter aligned perfectly with the type of communication the recipient team handled every day.

Attached to the email was a PDF document containing content that looked entirely legitimate.

The problem? A single URL embedded inside that PDF.

“The message itself was correct. The sender was real. The context was familiar. Even the document content made sense,” Guilherme explains. “There was just one small element that didn’t belong.”

That small detail was enough to initiate a full attack chain.

What the attackers were trying to do

If clicked, the URL would have downloaded a malicious payload designed to:

  • Collect information about the user and device
  • Identify where the system was located within the financial ecosystem
  • Install remote access tools to maintain control
  • Deploy an infostealer to extract sensitive data
  • Execute anti-forensic scripts to erase traces of the intrusion

In other words, it was a carefully engineered operation designed for persistence and stealth, not immediate disruption.

The attack also employed urgency—a classic social engineering technique. When the link didn’t open as expected, employees requested assistance from the security team, insisting the document was important and needed to be accessed quickly.

This is precisely the kind of scenario where traditional security tools struggle: almost everything about the interaction is legitimate.

Where Darktrace made the difference

Instead of blocking the entire message or relying on known indicators of compromise, Darktrace focused on behavioral context.

Darktrace recognized:

  • That the sending organization was normally trusted
  • That the communication pattern matched historical behavior
  • That the PDF content itself was not suspicious

But it also identified that the URL embedded within the document deviated from established behavioral patterns.

Rather than disrupting business operations, Darktrace took precise action: it rewrote the URL, preventing the malicious download while leaving the rest of the email untouched.

“When we analyzed it afterward, it became clear how dangerous the attack would have been,” says Guilherme. “But it never progressed—because Darktrace acted at exactly the right point.”

Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the payload’s malicious intent. The attack never succeeded.

Precision over disruption

For Núclea, this incident reinforced a critical lesson: modern attacks don’t always look malicious—they hide within normal activity.

“What stands out to me is the precision,” Guilherme says. “Darktrace doesn’t rely on big, obvious signals. It’s effective in situations that fall outside the standard patterns we all know.”

Building resilience in a high trust ecosystem

For Núclea, cybersecurity is not just a defensive measure—it’s a business enabler.

Availability failures or successful breaches in the financial ecosystem can have immediate, large-scale consequences, from financial loss to reputational damage. Preventing those outcomes protects not just Núclea, but its partners and customers as well.

“Cyber resilience means keeping the business running—even under attack,” Guilherme explains. “And that requires people, processes, and technology working together.”

As AI continues to accelerate both attacks and defenses, the role of security is evolving. Precision, behavioral understanding, and intelligent automation are no longer optional—they’re essential.

“The easy days were yesterday,” Guilherme says. “The challenges ahead are bigger. We need to be prepared—internally and with partners that help us build resilience.”

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

AI

/

June 1, 2026

効率化の裏にあるリスク:AI導入が製造現場にもたらす見えない脆弱性

Default blog imageDefault blog image

AIエージェントが製造業に与える影響

製造業界のセキュリティチームやIT担当者は、生産を守り、稼働時間を維持し、重要資産を保護するという絶え間ないプレッシャー下にあります。そしてAIは非常に大きなチャンスとともに、新たなサイバーリスクももたらしています。製造業全体で、AIはワークフローや意思決定に組み込まれつつあり、自律型AIエージェントが従業員やシステムに代わって行動する場面が増えています。

エージェント型システムは独立して行動できるため強力ですが、その同じ自律性がサイバーリスク、運用上のリスクも生み出します。エージェントは広範な権限を持ち、複雑なタスクの実行、意思決定、ツールや外部システムとのやり取りを、ほとんどまたは全く人間の介入なしに行うことができます。

あらかじめ定義されたタスクを実行する従来のAIモデルとは異なり、AIエージェントは高度なテクニックを使用して人間の意思決定プロセスを模倣することにより、新たな課題に動的に適応し、また自らの判断に基づいて意思決定し、アクションを実行します。彼らは業務の上では従業員のように見えますが、人間が持つ判断力、倫理観、または行動の結果に対する恐れが欠けています。これは、サイバー犯罪者によって簡単に操られる可能性があることを意味しており、OTネットワーク全体に埋め込まれたAIエージェントは、データ漏洩をはるかに超える脅威を生み出します。たとえば、BMWでは、AI は溶接プロセスのエラーの発生を識別するのに使われています。同社のスパータンバーグ(米サウスカロライナ州)の工場では、すべてのSUVフレーム上の300-400個のスタッドの溶接をAIが監視し、スタッドの配置間違いや欠陥を検知し直ちに修正します。このAIシステムが破損すれば壊滅的な品質管理問題につながる恐れがあります。

製造全体にエージェント型AIシステムを導入することについて多くのセキュリティチームはさまざまな懸念を示しています。ダークトレースの行ったAIサイバーセキュリティの現状調査では、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの78%が従業員によるAIエージェントの利用に懸念を抱いており、これは彼らの最も大きな危惧でした。それに続く問題点が従業員によるCopilotやChatGPT等の生成AIツールの使用であり、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの76%が懸念を抱いていました。これらのツールがますます多くのビジネスデータやプロセスにアクセスし、組織内でより多くの自律性を持つようになるにつれ、エージェントのアクティビティがほとんど可視化されていない現在、セキュリティチームにおいては機密データの露出(60%)や偶発的なポリシーおよび規制違反(59%)への懸念が高まっています。

外部からのAIによる脅威も急激に進化

製造業を変革しているのと同じAIの能力が、サイバー攻撃の形も変貌させています。

AIにより攻撃者は偵察を自動化し、標的をより高度に絞り込み、リアルタイムで適応できるようになっています。かつては人手による作業と時間を要していたことが、今では継続的かつ大規模に実行できるようになりました。そして、製造業はすでにその影響を実感しています。当社が調査した製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの76%は、すでにAIを活用した脅威の影響を受けており、90%がAIによってソーシャルエンジニアリング攻撃の成功率が高まっていると回答しています。

また、攻撃のテクニック自体も進化しています。製造業界全体で、AIを利用した攻撃の経路の多様化に対する懸念が高まっています。特にリアルタイムで進化する適応型マルウェアについて、調査対象の製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの半数近く(49%)が懸念しており、これは全産業の平均よりも9%高い数値です。AIを使った適応型マルウェアに続くその他の懸念には次が含まれます:

  • 自動化された脆弱性スキャンとエクスプロイトチェイニング(48%):Anthropicの新しいMythos AIモデルにより脆弱性探索が深刻化する中で、この問題は一層差し迫ったものとなっています。
  • 超パーソナライズされたフィッシングキャンペーン(46%):フィッシングは依然としてハッカーの主力兵器の1つであり、AIによってフィッシングメールはより説得力が高く検知困難なものとなり、その効果は増幅されました。

これは単に攻撃の量の増加だけでなく、攻撃の展開につれて静的な防御が対応できるよりも速く進化する脅威への変化なのです。

こうした認識が高まっているにもかかわらず、製造業の多くはまだこの変化に対応する準備ができていません。半数以上(51%)がAI駆動の脅威への準備が十分にできていないと回答し、AIの導入を管理する正式なポリシーを持っている組織はわずか37%でした。  

可視性、コンテキスト、およびガードレールを通じてAIのセキュリティを確保

これらの問題に対処するためにAIイノベーションを遅らせる必要はありません。それには、AIと同じスピードと規模で動作できる、これまでとは異なるアプローチのセキュリティが必要です。具体的には、製造業がAIの力を活用する上で、次の3つの優先課題が浮上しています。

可視性はすべての土台  

AIがどこで使用されているか、何にアクセスできるか、そしてITおよびOT環境にわたってどのように動作するかを理解する必要があります。それがなければ、リスクを測定したり管理したりすることはできません。ダークトレースの調査において、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの91%が、AIを信頼する前に、それがどのように意思決定を行うかを理解する必要があると回答したのは当然のことです。OT環境においてこのことはさらに重要です。稼働の中断は安全や環境、財務、および評判に大きな影響を及ぼすからです。

可視性をアクションにつなげるにはコンテキストが必要  

AIによって形作られる環境において、正常とされる挙動は絶えず変化します。つまり、脅威を検知するにはビヘイビアベースのアプローチが必要なのです。組織全体で生活パターンを理解し、わずかな逸脱をリアルタイムに検知すること- これは従来のセキュリティとリスク管理に対するアプローチからの根本的な変化です。

エージェントからの露出を防ぐガードレール  

AIシステムがより大きな責任を担うようになるなかで、組織はAIが何をできるか、そしていつ独立して行動できるかについて、明確な境界を設ける必要があります。これらのコントロールは何かがあってから適用されるのではなく、システム自体に組み込んでおかなければなりません。  

製造業のITおよびOT環境におけるAIエージェントのセキュリティ

エージェント型AIの出現は製造業を変革し、次世代のオペレーションを支える一方で、脅威ランドスケープも一変させています。これは単なる脅威の増加ではなく、自律型システムへの移行、挙動の絶え間ない変化、そしてマシンスピードで進行するリスクです。AIを活用しつつリスクを管理するという課題に取り組む組織にとって、可視性、コンテキスト、ガードレールはセキュリティの基盤となります。

Darktraceはこの基盤を実現することにより、製造業の安全なAIアプローチ構築を支援します。ITおよびOT環境全体を可視化し、異常なアクティビティに対するリアルタイムの検知および対応を提供することにより、従業員が使用するプロンプトや構築するエージェントから、それらのエージェントの環境全体での動作に至るまで、AIアクティビティの理解を可能にします。これにより、AIの導入を拡大する製造業はコントロールを犠牲にすることなくイノベーションの基盤を構築することができます。

Continue reading
About the author
Dr. Oakley Cox-Robinson
Senior Director of Product
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