August 2, 2023

Darktrace's Detection of Ransomware & Syssphinx

Read how Darktrace identified an attack technique by the threat group, Syssphinx. Learn how Darktrace's quick identification process can spot a threat.

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

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

Aug 2023

Introduction

As the threat of costly cyber-attacks continues represent a real concern to security teams across the threat landscape, more and more organizations are strengthening their defenses with additional security tools to identify attacks and protect their networks. As a result, malicious actors are being forced to adapt their tactics, modify existing variants of malicious software, or utilize entirely new variants.

Symantec recently released an article about Syssphinx, the financially motivated cyber threat group previously known for their point-of-sale attacks. Syssphinx attempts to deploy ransomware on customer networks via a modified version of their ‘Sardonic’ backdoor. Such activity highlights the ability of threat actors to alter the composition and presentation of payloads, tools, and tactics.

Darktrace recently detected some of the same indicators suggesting a likely Syssphinx compromise within the network of a customer trialing the Darktrace DETECT™ and RESPOND™ products. Despite the potential for variations in the construction of backdoors and payloads used by the group, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to stitch together a detailed account of compromise activity and identify the malicious activity prior to disruptive events on the customer’s network.

What is Syssphinx?

Syssphinx is a notorious cyber threat entity known for its financially motivated compromises. Also referred to as FIN8, Syssphinx has been observed as early as 2016 and is largely known to target private sector entities in the retail, hospitality, insurance, IT, and financial sectors.^[1]

Although Syssphinx primarily began focusing on point-of-sale style attacks, the activity associated with the group has more recently incorporated ransomware variants into their intrusions in a potential bid to further extract funds from target organizations.^[2]

Syssphinx Sardonic Backdoor

Given this gradual opportunistic incorporation of ransomware, it should not be surprising that Syssphinx has slowly expanded its repertoire of tools. When primarily performing point-of-sale compromises, the group was known for its use of point-of-sale specific malwares including BadHatch, PoSlurp/PunchTrack, and PowerSniff/PunchBuggy/ShellTea.^[3]

However, in a seeming response to updates in detection systems while using previous indicators of compromise (IoCs), Syssphinx began to modify its BadHatch malware. This resulted in the use of a C++ derived backdoor known as “Sardonic”, which has the ability to aggregate host credentials, spawn additional command sessions, and deliver payloads to compromised devices via dynamic-link library (DLL).^[4],[5]

Analysis of the latest version of Sardonic reveals further changes to the malware to elude detection. These shifts include the implementation of the backdoor in the C programming language, and additional over-the-network communication obfuscation techniques.[6]

During the post-exploitation phase, the group tends to rely on “living-off-the-land” tactics, whereby an attacker utilizes tools already present within the organization’s digital environment to avoid detection. Syssphinx seems to utilize system-native tools such as PowerShell and the Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) interface.^[7] It is also not uncommon to see Windows-based vulnerability exploits employed on compromised devices. This has been observed by researchers who have examined previous iterations of Syssphinx backdoors.^[8] Syssphinx also appears to exhibit elements of strategic patience and discipline in its operations, with significant time gaps in operations noted by researchers. During this time, it appears likely that updates and tweaks were applied to Syssphinx payloads.

Compromise Details

In late April 2023, Darktrace identified an active compromise on the network of a prospective customer who was trialing Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND. The customer, a retailer in EMEA with hundreds of tracked devices, reached out to the Darktrace Analyst team via the Ask the Expert (ATE) service for support and further investigation, following the encryption of their server and backup data storage in an apparent ransomware attack. Although the encryption events fell outside Darktrace’s purview due to a limited set up of trial appliances, Darktrace was able to directly track early stages of the compromise before exfiltration and encryption events began. If a full deployment had been set up and RESPOND functionality had been configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace may have helped mitigate such encryption events and would have aided in the early identification of this ransomware attack.

Initial Intrusion and Establishment of Command and Control (C2) Infrastructure

As noted by security researchers, Syssphinx largely relies on social engineering and phishing emails to deliver its backdoor payloads. As there were no Darktrace/Email™ products deployed for this customer, it would be difficult to directly observe the exact time and manner of initial payload delivery related to this compromise. This is compounded by the fact that the customer had only recently began using Darktrace’s products during their trial period. Given the penchant for patience and delay by Syssphinx, it is possible that the intrusion began well before Darktrace had visibility of the organization’s network.

However, beginning on April 30, 2023, at 07:17:31 UTC, Darktrace observed the domain controller dc01.corp.XXXX making repeated SSL connections to the endpoint 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. In addition to the multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags for this endpoint, the construction of the domain parallels that of the initial domain used to deliver a backdoor, as noted by Symantec in their analysis (37-10-71-215[.]nip[.]io). This activity likely represented the initial beaconing being performed by the compromised device. Additionally, an elevated level of incoming external data over port 443 was observed during this time, which may be associated with the delivery of the Sardonic backdoor payload. Given the unusual use of port 443 to perform SSH connections later seen in the kill chain of this attack, this activity could also parallel the employment of embedded backdoor payloads seen in the latest iteration of the Sardonic backdoor noted by Symantec.

Figure 1: Graph of the incoming external data surrounding the time of the initial establishment of command and control communication for the domain controller. As seen in the graph, the spike in incoming external data during this time may parallel the delivery of Syssphinx Sardonic backdoor.

Regardless, the domain controller proceeded to make repeated connections over port 443 to the noted domain.

Figure 2: Breach event log for the domain controller making repeated connections over port 443 to the rare external destination endpoint in constitute the establishment of C2 communication.

Internal Reconnaissance/Privilege Escalation

Following the establishment of C2 communication, Darktrace detected numerous elements of internal reconnaissance. On Apr 30, 2023, at 22:06:26 UTC, the desktop device desktop_02.corp.XXXX proceeded to perform more than 100 DRSGetNCChanges requests to the aforementioned domain controller. These commands, which are typically implemented over the RPC protocol on the DRSUAPI interface, are frequently utilized in Active Directory sync attacks to copy Active Directory information from domain controllers. Such activity, when not performed by new domain controllers to sync Active Directory contents, can indicate malicious domain or user enumeration, credential compromise or Active Directory enumeration.

Although the affected device made these requests to the previously noted domain controller, which was already compromised, such activity may have further enabled the compromise by allowing the threat actor to transfer these details to a more easily manageable device.

The device performing these DRSGetNCChanges requests would later be seen performing lateral movement activity and making connections to malicious endpoints.

Figure 3: Breach log highlighting the DRS operations performed by the corporate device to the destination domain controller. Such activity is rarely authorized for devices not tagged as administrative or as domain controllers.

Execution and Lateral Movement

At 23:09:53 UTC on April 30, 2023, the original domain server proceeded to make multiple uncommon WMI calls to a destination server on the same subnet (server01.corp.XXXX). Specifically, the device was observed making multiple RPC calls to IWbem endpoints on the server, which included login and ExecMethod (method execution) commands on the destination device. This destination device later proceeded to conduct additional beaconing activity to C2 endpoints and exfiltrate data.

Figure 4: Breach log for the domain controller performing WMI commands to the destination server during the lateral movement phase of the breach.

Similarly, beginning on May 1, 2023, at 00:11:09 UTC, the device desktop_02.corp.XXXX made multiple WMI requests to two additional devices, one server and one desktop, within the same subnet as the original domain controller. During this time, desktop_02.corp.XXXX also utilized SMBv1, an outdated and typically non-compliant version communication protocol, to write the file rclone.exe to the same two destination devices. Rclone.exe, and its accompanying bat file, is a command-line tool developed by IT provider Rclone, to perform file management tasks. During this time, Darktrace also observed the device reading and deleting an unexpected numeric file on the ADMIN$ of the destination server, which may represent additional defense evasion techniques and tool staging.

Figure 5: Event log highlighting the writing of rclone.exe using the outdated SMBv1 communication protocol.

Figure 6: SMB logs indicating the reading and deletion of numeric string files on ADMIN$ shares of the destination devices during the time of the rclone.exe SMB writes. Such activity may be associated with tool staging and could indicate potential defense evasion techniques.

Given that the net loader sample analyzed by Symantec injects the backdoor into a WmiPrvSE.exe process, the use of WMI operations is not unexpected. Employment of WMI also correlates with the previously mentioned “living-off-the-land” tactics, as WMI services are commonly used for regular network and system administration purposes. Moreover, the staging of rclone.exe, a legitimate file management tool, for data exfiltration underscores attempts to blend into existing and expected network traffic and remain undetected on the customer’s network.

Data Exfiltration and Impact

Initial stages of data exfiltration actually began prior to some of the lateral movement events described above. On April 30, 2023, 23:09:47 the device server01.corp.XXXX, transferred nearly 11 GB of data to 173.44[.]141[.]47, as well as to the rare external IP address 170.130[.]55[.]77, which appears to have served as the main exfiltration destination during this compromise. Furthermore, the host made repeated connections to the same external IP associated with the initial suspicious beaconing activity (173.44[.]141[.]47) over SSL.

While the data exfiltration event unfolded, the device, server01.corp.XXXX, made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215, which featured URIs requesting the rclone.exe and rclone.bat files. This IP address was directly involved in the sample analyzed by Symantec. Furthermore, one of the devices that received the SMB file writes of rclone.exe and the WMI commands from desktop_02.corp.XXXX also performed SSL beaconing to endpoints associated with the compromise.

Between 01:20:45 - 03:31:41 UTC on May 1, 2023, a Darktrace detected a series of devices on the network performing a repeated pattern of activity, namely external connectivity followed by suspicious file downloads and external data transfer operations. Specifically, each affected device made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215 for rclone files. The devices proceeded to download the executable and/or binary files, and then transfer large amounts of data to the aforementioned endpoints, 170.130[.]55[.]77 and or 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. Although the devices involved in data exfiltration utilized port 443 as a destination port, the connections actually used the SSH protocol. Darktrace recognized this behavior as unusual as port 443 is typically associated with the SSL protocol, while port 22 is reserved for SSH. Therefore, this activity may represent the threat actor’s attempts to remain undetected by security tools.

This unexpected use of SSH over port 443 also correlates with the descriptions of the new Sardonic backdoor according to threat researchers. Further beaconing and exfiltration activity was performed by an additional host one day later whereby the device made suspicious repeated connections to the aforementioned external hosts.

Figure 7: Connection details highlighting the use of port 443 for SSH connections during the exfiltration events.

In total, nine separate devices were involved in this pattern of activity. Five of these devices were labeled as ‘administrative’ devices according to their hostnames. Over the course of the entire exfiltration event, the attackers exfiltrated almost 61 GB of data from the organization’s environment.

Figure 8: Graph showing the levels of external data transfer from a breach device for one day on either side of the breach time. There is a large spike in such activity during the time of the breach that underscores the exfiltration events.

In addition to the individual anomaly detections by DETECT, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an autonomous investigation into the unusual behavior carried out by affected devices, connecting and collating multiple security events into one AI Analyst Incident. AI Analyst ensures that Darktrace can recognize and link the individual steps of a wider attack, rather than just identifying isolated incidents. While traditional security tools may mistake individual breaches as standalone activity, Darktrace’s AI allows it to provide unparalleled visibility over emerging attacks and their kill chains. Furthermore, Cyber AI Analyst’s instant autonomous investigations help to save customer security teams invaluable time in triaging incidents in comparison with human teams who would have to commit precious time and resources to conduct similar pattern analysis.

In this specific case, AI Analyst identified 44 separate security events from 18 different devices and was able to tie them together into one incident. The events that made up this AI Analyst Incident included:

Possible SSL Command and Control
Possible HTTP Command and Control
Unusual Repeated Connections
Suspicious Directory Replication ServiceActivity
Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
SMB Write of Suspicious File
Suspicious File Download
Unusual External Data Transfer
Unusual External Data Transfer to MultipleRelated Endpoints

Figure 9: Cyber AI Incident log highlighting multiple unusual anomalies and connecting them into one incident.

Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode on the network of this prospective customer, it would have been able to take rapid mitigative action to block the malicious external connections used for C2 communication and subsequent data exfiltration, ideally halting the attack at this stage. As previously discussed, the limited network configuration of this trial customer meant that the encryption events unfortunately took place outside of Darktrace’s scope. When fully configured on a customer environment, Darktrace DETECT can identify such encryption attempts as soon as they occur. Darktrace RESPOND, in turn, would be able to immediately intervene by applying preventative actions like blocking internal connections that may represent file encryption, or limiting potentially compromised devices to a previously established pattern of life, ensuring they cannot carry out any suspicious activity.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations posed by the customer’s trial configuration, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect malicious activity associated with Syssphinx and track it across multiple stages of the kill chain.

Darktrace’s ability to identify the early stages of a compromise and various steps of the kill chain, highlights the necessity for machine learning-enabled, anomaly-based detection. In the face of threats such as Syssphinx, that exhibit the propensity to recast backdoor payloads and incorporate on “living-off-the-land” tactics, signatures and rules-based detection may not prove as effective. While Syssphinx and other threat groups will continue to adopt new tools, methods, and techniques, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is uniquely positioned to meet the challenge of such threats.

Appendix

DETECT Model Breaches Observed

• Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

• Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation

• Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

• Compliance / SMB Drive Write

• Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

• Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

• Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

• Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints

• Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

• Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity

• Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

• Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

• Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

• Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

‍

AI Analyst Incidents Observed

• Possible SSL Command and Control

• Possible HTTP Command and Control

• Unusual Repeated Connections

• Suspicious Directory Replication Service Activity

• Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

• SMB Write of Suspicious File

• Suspicious File Download

• Unusual External Data Transfer

• Unusual External Data Transfer to Multiple Related Endpoints

IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

37.10[.]71[.]215 – IP – C2 + payload endpoint

173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io – Hostname – C2 – payload

173.44[.]141[.]47 – IP – C2 + potential payload

170.130[.]55[.]77 – IP – Data exfiltration endpoint

Rclone.exe – Exe File – Common data tool

Rclone.bat – Script file – Common data tool

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Command and Control

T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

T1071.001 – Web protocols

T1573 – Encrypted channels

T1573.001 – Symmetric encryption

T1573.002 – Asymmetric encryption

T1571 – Non-standard port

T1105 – Ingress tool transfer

Execution

T1047 – Windows Management Instrumentation

Credential Access‍

T1003 – OS Credential Dumping

T1003.006 – DCSync

Lateral Movement

T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer

T1021 - Remote Services

T1021.002 - SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021.006 – Windows Remote Management

Exfiltration

T1048 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol

T1048.001 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

References

^[1] https://cyberscoop.com/syssphinx-cybercrime-ransomware/

^[2] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

^[3] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fin8-deploys-alphv-ransomware-using-sardonic-malware-variant/

^[4] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

^[5] https://thehackernews.com/2023/07/fin8-group-using-modified-sardonic.html

^[6] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

^[7] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

^[8] https://www.mandiant.com/resources/blog/windows-zero-day-payment-cards

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Malware Research Lead

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Proactive Security

June 2, 2026

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

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.”

‍

About the author

Mariana Pereira

VP, Field CISO

Blog

Proactive Security

June 1, 2026

Defend What You Trust: Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Cyber Defense

Modern attacks don’t always announce themselves, follow obvious patterns, or rely on known malware. Often, they move quietly inside trusted systems, authenticated sessions, and everyday behavior.

They don’t break in. They blend in.

That’s why an AI-powered defense is essential. It turns invisible signals into actionable insights at a scale neither analysts nor traditional tools can achieve alone.

Confidence is creating risk

One of the most dangerous assumptions in cybersecurity today is that strong controls equal strong protection.

Multi-factor authentication (MFA), for example, is widely viewed as a foundational safeguard. But as the CISO for a professional sports organization explains, that confidence can be misplaced. “A lot of organizations assume that once you have MFA, those accounts are safe. That’s not true.”

In one instance, his team identified a sophisticated attack where a threat actor bypassed MFA entirely, not by breaking it, but by going around it. A user’s authenticated session was hijacked and re-used, allowing the attacker to impersonate them without triggering traditional controls.

“Darktrace picked up that a session had been re-injected by the hacker, and we were able to block it right away,” he explains.

Attackers anticipate what we miss

Even well-trained users can become entry points.

“An email bypassed our existing security tools,” shares the VP of IT at a U.S.-based risk management services provider. “The user missed one signal and entered their credentials into a malicious site. That’s what the bad guys count on.”

The organization responded quickly, but not before damage was done. Crucially, this occurred while Darktrace was in “watch mode,” before autonomous response was fully enabled. “Darktrace would have seen that and shut it down immediately,” he notes.

Mistakes and oversights like misconfigurations, forgotten machines, and missed patches can create serious vulnerabilities.

The CIO of a utility services organization shares an instance when Darktrace detected a breach to a client’s network via their ZTNA VPN due to misconfigured MFA. “Darktrace alerted us and autonomously blocked the scanning, preventing what could have been a ransomware-type incident.”

The most dangerous threats are already inside

The Head of Security at a global business services provider knows firsthand how blind spots can persist inside environments. His team uncovered evidence of dormant ransomware artifacts sitting unnoticed within a company’s environment ¬¬– long before modern detection was in place.

“During a routine file transfer, Darktrace flagged the suspicious activity, identified the ransomware, and immediately quarantined the server,” he recalls. While the attack was never executed, the implication was significant: the risk existed long before it was finally detected.

Cyber threats are also successful because they take advantage of normal human behavior, exploiting moments of cognitive overload, urgency, and trust.

The Executive Director of IT and Business Applications at a pharmaceutical lab describes the time Darktrace flagged an employee logging into Microsoft 365 from Singapore, despite him being physically located in the U.S. Darktrace immediately cut off his access and within minutes revealed that the employee’s son was using a VPN to play a video game.

While the threat was benign, it demonstrated the strength of AI to use contextual information to detect threats other tools miss. The information also saved security analysts hours of investigation and minimized downtime for the employee. “That level of precision and speed isn’t just convenient, it’s game changing.”

“Unusual” behavior is the new red flag

Detecting modern threats requires an understanding of what “normal” looks like and recognizing when something subtly deviates.

One security leader at an AI technology enterprise described a scenario in which an employee connected to a proxy service in China. The service itself was legitimate, and although traditional tools didn’t flag it, the behavior was unusual for that user specifically.

“That’s what Darktrace picked up on. The activity turned out to be benign, but without visibility into behavioral deviations, it could just as easily have been something more serious.”

AI shifts defense from reaction to anticipation

These stories point to a fundamental shift by cyber attackers, both tactically and strategically. Because traditional security tools were built to detect what’s already known, modern attacks are often:

Credential-based, not malware-based
Behavioral, not signature-based
Subtle, not overt

They may operate within the boundaries of what appears normal, exploiting what organizations trust, not what they block:

Trusted sessions
Legitimate services
Human error

This is where AI is changing the equation. Rather than relying on predefined rules or known threat signatures, AI can:

Establish a baseline of normal behavior
Detect subtle anomalies in real time
Act autonomously to contain potential threats

Resilience, not perfection, is the new security standard

As these frontline experiences show, the organizations that lead are those that move beyond reactive defense and embrace AI as a core part of their strategy.

It eliminates the blind spots and uncertainty, says the CISO of a professional sports organization. “If you lack visibility, you’re not managing risk, you’re assuming it. AI gives you the actionable insights needed to turn uncertainty into control.”

And it provides the speed and agility that are vital when seconds matter, says the Executive Director of IT and Business Applications. “When Darktrace alerted us at 3:00 am to a ransomware attack, it had already quarantined the affected systems, blocked the attacker’s access, and provided us with the critical details and time needed to investigate. That action likely saved us hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.”

The modern SOC has become a cornerstone of enterprise resilience, responsible for protecting data and operational continuity while enabling digital growth and innovation. For today’s security professional, that means success is no longer measured by what they keep out, but by what they protect: revenue, reputation, and trust.

‍

About the author

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Darktrace's Detection of Ransomware & Syssphinx

Darktrace's Detection of Ransomware & Syssphinx

Introduction

What is Syssphinx?

Syssphinx Sardonic Backdoor

Compromise Details

Initial Intrusion and Establishment of Command and Control (C2) Infrastructure

Internal Reconnaissance/Privilege Escalation

Execution and Lateral Movement

Data Exfiltration and Impact

Conclusion

Appendix

IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

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

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Darktrace named a Leader in the 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Network Detection and Response (NDR) For the Second Consecutive Year

When Open Source Is Weaponized: Analysis of a Trojanized 7 Zip Installer

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Blog

Proactive Security

June 2, 2026

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

A real attack, built on trust and context

What the attackers were trying to do

Where Darktrace made the difference

Precision over disruption

Blog

Proactive Security

June 1, 2026

Defend What You Trust: Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Cyber Defense

They don’t break in. They blend in.

Attackers anticipate what we miss

The most dangerous threats are already inside

“Unusual” behavior is the new red flag

AI shifts defense from reaction to anticipation

Resilience, not perfection, is the new security standard