Blog
/
AI
/
April 17, 2025

AI Uncovered: Introducing Darktrace Incident Graph Evaluation for Security Threats (DIGEST)

Discover how Darktrace’s new DIGEST model enhances Cyber AI Analyst by using GNNs and RNNs to score and prioritize threats with expert-level precision before damage is done.
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
Margaret Cunningham, PhD
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
man looking at computer screenDefault blog image
17
Apr 2025

DIGEST advances how Cyber AI Analyst scores and prioritizes incidents. Trained on over a million anonymized incident graphs, our model brings deeper context to severity scoring by analyzing how threats are structured and how they evolve. DIGEST assesses threats as an expert, before damage is done. For more details beyond this overview, please read our Technical Research Paper.

Darktrace combines machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches using a multi-layered, multi-method approach. The result is an AI system that continuously ingests data from across an organization’s environment, learns from it, and adapts in real time. DIGEST adds a new layer to this system, specifically to our Cyber AI Analyst, the first and most experienced AI Analyst in cybersecurity, dedicated to refining how incidents are scored and prioritized. DIGEST improves what your team uses to focus on what matters the most first.

To build DIGEST, we combined Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to interpret incident structure with Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) to analyze how incidents evolve over time. This pairing allows DIGEST to reliably determine the potential severity of an incident even at an early stage to give the Cyber AI Analyst a critical edge in identifying high-risk threats early and recognizing when activity is unlikely to escalate.

DIGEST works locally in real-time regardless of whether your Darktrace deployment is on prem or in the cloud, without requiring data to be sent externally for decisions to be made. It was built to support teams in all environments, including those with strict data controls and limited connectivity.

Our approach to AI is unique, drawing inspiration from multiple disciplines to tackle the toughest cybersecurity challenges. DIGEST demonstrates how a novel application of GNNs and RNNs improves the prioritization and triage of security incidents. By blending interdisciplinary expertise with innovative AI techniques, we are able to push the boundaries of what’s possible and deliver it where it is needed most. We are eager to share our findings to accelerate progress throughout the broader field of AI development.

DIGEST: Pattern, progression, and prioritization

Most security incidents start quietly. A device contacting an unusual domain. Credentials are used at unexpected hours. File access patterns shift. The fundamental challenge is not always detecting these anomalies but knowing what to address first. DIGEST gives us this capability.

To understand DIGEST, it helps to start with Cyber AI Analyst, a critical component of our Self-Learning AI system and a front-line triage partner in security investigations. It combines supervised and unsupervised machine learning (ML) techniques, natural language processing (NLP), and graph-based reasoning to investigate and summarize security incidents.

DIGEST was built as an additional layer of analysis within Cyber AI Analyst. It enhances its capabilities by refining how incidents are scored and prioritized, helping teams focus on what matters most more quickly. For a general view of the ML and AI methods that power Darktrace products, read our AI Arsenal whitepaper. This paper provides insights regarding the various approaches we use to detect, investigate, and prioritize threats.

Cyber AI Analyst is constantly investigating alerts and produces millions of critical incidents every year. The dynamic graphs produced by Cyber AI Analyst investigations represent an abstract understanding of security incidents that is fully anonymized and privacy preserving. This allowed us to use the Call Home and aianalyst.darktrace.com services to produce a dataset comprising the broad structure of millions of incidents that Cyber AI analyst detected on customer deployments, without containing any sensitive data. (Read our technical research paper for more details about our dataset).

The dynamic graphs from Cyber AI Analyst capture the structure of security incidents where nodes represent entities like users, devices or resources, and edges represent the multitude of relationships between them. As new activity is observed, the graph expands, capturing the progression of incidents over time. Our dataset contained everything from benign administrative behavior to full-scale ransomware attacks.

Unique data, unmatched insights

Key terms

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): A type of neural network designed to analyze and interpret data structured as graphs, capturing relationships between nodes.

Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs): A type of neural network designed to model sequences where the order of events matters, like how activity unfolds in a security incident.

The Cyber AI Analyst dataset used to train DIGEST reflects over a decade of work in AI paired with unmatched expertise in cybersecurity. Prior to training DIGEST on our incident graph data set, we performed rigorous data preprocessing to ensure to remove issues such as duplicate or ill-formed incidents. Additionally, to validate DIGEST’s outputs, expert security analysts assessed and verified the model’s scoring.

Transforming data into insights requires using the right strategies and techniques. Given the graphical nature of Cyber AI Analyst incident data, we used GNNs and RNNs to train DIGEST to understand incidents and how they are likely to change over time. Change does not always mean escalation. DIGEST’s enhanced scoring also keeps potentially legitimate or low-severity activity from being prioritized over threats that are more likely to get worse. At the beginning, all incidents might look the same to a person. To DIGEST, it looks like the beginning of a pattern.

As a result, DIGEST enhances our understanding of security incidents by evaluating the structure of the incident, probable next steps in an incident’s trajectory, and how likely it is to grow into a larger event.

To illustrate these capabilities in action, we are sharing two examples of DIGEST’s scoring adjustments from use cases within our customers’ environments.

First, Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of a ransomware attack, and Figure 2 shows how DIGEST scored incident progression of that ransomware attack. At hour two, DIGEST’s score escalated to 95% well before observation of data encryption. This means that prior to seeing malicious encryption behaviors, DIGEST understood the structure of the incident and flagged these early activities as high-likelihood precursors to a severe event. Early detection, especially when flagged prior to malicious encryption behaviors, gives security teams a valuable head start and can minimize the overall impact of the threat, Darktrace Autonomous Response can also be enabled by Cyber AI Analyst to initiate an immediate action to stop the progression, allowing the human security team time to investigate and implement next steps.

Graph representation of a ransomware attack
Figure 1: Graph representation of a ransomware attack
Timeline of DIGEST incident score escalation. Note that timestep does not equate to hours, the spike in score to 95% occurred approximately 2 hours into the attack, prior to data encryption.
Figure 2:  Timeline of DIGEST incident score escalation. Note that timestep does not equate to hours, the spike in score to 95% occurred approximately 2 hours into the attack, prior to data encryption.

In contrast, our second example shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrates how DIGEST’s analysis of an incident can help teams avoid wasting time on lower risk scenarios. In this instance, Figure 3 illustrates a graph of unusual administrative activity, where we observed connection to a large group of devices. However, the incident score remained low because DIGEST determined that high risk malicious activity was unlikely. This determination was based on what DIGEST observed in the incident's structure, what it assessed as the probable next steps in the incident lifecycle and how likely it was to grow into a larger adverse event.

Graph representation of unusual admin activity connecting to a large group of devices.
Figure 3: Graph representation of unusual admin activity connecting to a large group of devices.
Timeline of DIGEST incident scoring, where the score remained low as the unusual event was determined to be low risk.
Figure 4: Timeline of DIGEST incident scoring, where the score remained low as the unusual event was determined to be low risk.

These examples show the value of enhanced scoring. DIGEST helps teams act sooner on the threats that count and spend less time chasing the ones that do not.

The next phase of advanced detection is here

Darktrace understands what incidents look like. We have seen, investigated, and learned from them at scale, including over 90 million investigations in 2024. With DIGEST, we can share our deep understanding of incidents and their behaviors with you and triage these incidents using Cyber AI Analyst.

Our ability to innovate in this space is grounded in the maturity of our team and the experiences we have built upon in over a decade of building AI solutions for cybersecurity. This experience, along with our depth of understanding of our data, techniques, and strategic layering of AI/ML components has shaped every one of our steps forward.

With DIGEST, we are entering a new phase, with another line of defense that helps teams prioritize and reason over incidents and threats far earlier in an incident’s lifecycle. DIGEST understands your incidents when they start, making it easier for your team to act quickly and confidently.

DIGEST is available in Darktrace 6.3, along with a new embedding model – DEMIST-2 – designed to provide reliable, high-accuracy detections for critical security use cases.

[related-resource]

Want to learn more?

If you are curious about the details of DIGEST’s dataset, model design, training, experiments, and model deployment, read our technical brief.

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
Margaret Cunningham, PhD
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 8, 2026

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

ai security stackDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

AI adoption outpaces most security programs’ ability to adapt.  That gap is now one of the most consequential sources of cyber risk facing enterprises. As organizations embed generative and agentic AI into development workflows, business operations, and security tooling itself, the question is no longer whether AI will introduce risk. The question is whether organizations understand where that risk actually lives and how to manage it operationally.  

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

  1. The upcoming Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI from NIST
  1. The Five Eyes government guidance on the careful adoption of agentic AI services

Taken together, they point to a critical conclusion. AI security cannot be reduced to model hardening or prompt filtering. It requires a defense in depth strategy that treats AI as both a new attack surface and a force multiplier for defense, while accounting for how AI fundamentally changes scale, speed, and autonomy.  

Recent threat research suggests that today's cyber risk is driven less by initial compromise and more by an adversary's ability to blend into normal operations over time. AI systems create the same exposure in a new form: more autonomy, more scale, and more opportunities for risky behavior to blend into normal operations.

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

The NIST profile organizes AI risk across three inseparable focus areas that span all cybersecurity functions, Secure, Defend and Thwart. These areas are not sequential. They exist simultaneously and must be addressed together.

Secure

This treats AI as an attack surface. It includes models, prompts, agents, pipelines, training and inference data, retrieval augmented generation corpora, and the AI supply chain itself. AI systems are opaque, probabilistic, and non-deterministic by design. Some vulnerabilities are inherent in how models are trained or how data is sourced. Traditional patching does not fully mitigate these risks. This is also where many enterprises are weakest today and, critically, where many security programs stop.  

Defend

This is AI as a defensive force multiplier. AI can improve detection speed, scale, correlation, and response, but only if the right models are used and operationalized correctly. Machine-speed behavior-based detection, response and containment becomes critical in defending non-deterministic systems. Accuracy, explainability, governance, testing, validation, and integration into SOC workflows matter as much as capability. Without those controls, hallucination risk, over automation, and misplaced trust become security risks themselves.  

Thwart

This treats AI as an adversarial accelerant. Threat actors are already using AI to generate targeted social engineering attacks, deepfakes, malware, and autonomous attack agents. Asymmetric warfare is highlighting faster vulnerability discovery and exploitation with a lag on patch development, testing and deployment.  

How this looks in practice

Darktrace researchers observed scaled, automated exploitation of the React2Shell vulnerability within days of disclosure. A vulnerable cloud asset was exploited in under 120 seconds of being deployed. Darktrace research team observed an AI/LLM-generated malware sample used in exploitation activity tied to React2Shell. The significance isn't novelty. It is that AI lowers the barrier to producing usable offensive tooling and compresses the time between experimentation and deployment.  

Tactics are getting more and more creative in order to string together steps of an attack kill chain. This creates a dependency on behavior-based detection, autonomous investigation, autonomous containment, training, resilience investment, and recovery planning across the entire enterprise.

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

The Five Eyes guidance on agentic AI highlights material changes to the cyber risk profile of an organization. Unlike generative AI systems that produce content for human consumption, agentic AI systems reason, plan, and act autonomously across tools, data, and environments. That autonomy, combined with access to real systems, amplifies the impact of traditional cyber failures and introduces new system level risks that are difficult to predict, observe, and contain.  

Risk in agentic systems does not live in the model alone. It emerges from interactions between models, prompts, memory, tools, APIs, identities, privileges, inter-agent trust relationships, and human assumptions baked into design. Vulnerabilities are often introduced through data, connectors, natural language interfaces, protocols, and drift by design.

In supply-chain incidents, attackers did not need sophisticated exploits to scale impact. They abused trusted systems built for automation and implicit access. Agentic AI inherits that model. Once a system can act across tools, data, and workflows, compromise propagates through trust relationships that were never designed for machine autonomy.

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:  

  • The identity control for non-human identities or autonomous agents makes it difficult to mitigate over-permissioning, limiting access, scope, and duration, as well as access hygiene
  • Agents are frequently over permissioned
  • Compromised tools inherit agent authority
  • Static secrets enable impersonation
  • Implicit trust between agents enables lateral movement

Design and configuration risks compound this, including privileges evaluated once at startup, poor segmentation, unvetted third party tools, reused authorization decisions outside their original context, and guardrail limitations.  

Behavioral risk  

Agents can optimize for goals in unsafe ways, misinterpret ambiguous intent, chain actions into unintended sequences, change behavior during evaluation, and exhibit deceptive or sycophantic responses.  

Structural risk  

Structural risk follows from agentic systems that are tightly coupled, multicomponent ecosystems. Failures can propagate across agents. Hallucinations cascade downstream. Resource exhaustion becomes systemic. Tool misuse enables indirect prompt injection and command execution. Rogue agents can poison peer agents through trust relationships.  

Accountability

Accountability becomes unclear as autonomy increases. Autonomous agents assume human identity permissions, and humans should have clear ownership of these agents, but they don’t, and this model is flawed. Decision paths are opaque and non-deterministic. Logs are fragmented and difficult to interpret. Reproducing an incident will be impossible without explicit design for observability and forensics. An agent compromise is functionally an insider threat, often with better access and fewer behavioral constraints than a human.  

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

Agentic AI runs on software, networks, identities, and data. It must be governed using the same foundational principles that have proven resilient under uncertainty, including secure by design, defense in depth, zero trust, least privilege, continuous monitoring, behavior-based advanced threat detection and containment, and incident response and recovery.

Core components to a Defense in depth Strategy for Securing the use of AI:

  • Strong, precise identity control plane to include an identity per agent (cryptographic, non‑shared)
    • Privilege monitoring and just‑in‑time access
  • Data Governance
  • Secure‑by‑default configurations
    • Security Posture Management  
    • Zero Trust principles  
  • Strong guardrails, deny‑by‑default policies, and isolation
  • Explicit instruction hierarchies and controlled context
  • Behavioral-based detection across entire enterprise to include inputs, tools, and outputs as well as AI used on the endpoint, across the network, cloud, SaaS, email, and OT
    • Runtime anomaly detection and goal‑drift detection
    • Autonomous containment to mitigate risk and minimize damage
  • Hard boundaries on autonomy and delegation
  • Testing, Evaluation, Validation and Verification  
    • Determine when autonomous action and when human in the loop
    • Adversarial training and agent‑specific testing
    • Simulation, red teaming, and chaos testing
  • Kill‑switches, rollback, and containment mechanisms
    • Forensics data captures, interpretability, autonomous containment, and remediation/recovery plans  

Until standards, tooling, and assurance methods mature, organizations should assume agentic AI systems will behave unexpectedly and design deployments around resilience, behavior-based detection, reversibility, and containment, not efficiency.

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

AI security is not model security alone. Data, pipelines, identities, and agents are first class assets. Many AI attacks succeed through standard cyber failures amplified by AI. Identity, data, and supply chain risk dominate. Behavior-based detection and response are critical, not optional. Logging, provenance, versioning, and forensics data capture of detections are mandatory because you cannot investigate or recover from AI incidents without them.  

Risk will often be visible in behavior before it is clearly defined in policy or guidance. The same pattern has been seen in pre-CVE disclosure detection, where abnormal activity appears before the industry has named or described the vulnerability. AI systems introduce that uncertainty by design.

Security leaders should prioritize controls before AI is fully deployed, avoid generic AI security checklists, integrate AI risk into existing cyber programs, and mitigate the risk of non-deterministic technology with continuous oversight, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, autonomous investigation, and autonomous containment.

Visibility has a different connotation with AI. Previously, audit logging worked for software/people, but with Generative AI-based systems, interpretability and explainability is difficult to understand, you cannot "undo" what has been done, or see the logic or control a chain of events. This is why behavioral-based detections and containment becomes critical.  

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

If an organization asked “what must be in place before scaling AI?”:

  1. AI Risk board and approval workflow
  1. IAM + PAM for all AI services and agents
  1. AI asset inventory
  1. Prompt/output DLP with sanctioned AI access – This is not just pre- and post- filters, but behavior-based detections of semantic interface as well as behavior-based analysis of output with associated risk context.  
  1. Shadow AI identification
  1. Secure MLOps – This is an entire paper itself
  1. Runtime guardrails and tool restrictions
    • Including AI Gateway/SASE/Zero trust/
  1. Runtime security with behavior-based detections
    • Complete visibility, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, risk/intent/context evaluation of anomalies, autonomous investigation and autonomous containment of all AI assets across endpoint, network, SaaS, SASE, cloud, OT, email, and messaging platforms
  1. Secure data pipelines and data governance
  1. SOC workflow changes from malicious classification workflows to behavior-based detection workflows
  1. Remediation plans for AI-related incidents  

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI  

The following outline considers governance and security tools that should be considered, well-integrated, deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. These tools and controls map to NIST’s CMF for AI.  

These considerations do not need to be implemented in order. Runtime Detect and Respond will help mitigate risk while Governance, Visibility, and Identity mature.

Category Tooling Controls
Governance & Visibility
  • AI asset inventory / AI CMDB
  • Shadow AI discovery
  • SaaS discovery
  • AI usage on non-endpoint managed systems via network or cloud telemetry
  • MCP server/client usage via protocols
  • Browser telemetry
  • Gateway or SASE telemetry
  • Establish a risk board to set up controls
  • Mandatory registration of AI systems
  • Owner, data classification, intended use, and risk tier
  • Supplier disclosure requirements
  • Risk mitigation plan for AI adoption, innovation, or development
Identity, Access & Agent Control

Non-human autonomous agents should not have the full permissions associated with a human user.

  • IAM with workload identities
  • PAM for AI service accounts
  • Secrets management with short-lived tokens
  • Zero Trust principles
  • Identity, permission, and token hygiene
  • Unique identities per model, agent, and pipeline
  • Least privilege for tools, data, and APIs
  • Explicit approval for autonomous actions
Data Security & Privacy
  • Data classification and labeling
  • Enterprise DLP across endpoint, email, network, cloud, and SaaS
  • Forensics data capture after risky detections
  • Prompt-level DLP through behavior-based semantic analysis with risk and intent context
  • Input/interface analysis for risky data requests
  • Output analysis for sensitive data
  • Data integrity evaluation
  • Retention and redaction policies for prompts and responses
Secure MLOps / LLMOps
  • Secure CI/CD with AI-specific gates
  • Model registries with approval workflows
  • Dependency, container, and artifact scanning
  • SBOM/AIBOM generation
  • IaC security scanning
  • Security posture management
  • Misconfiguration identification
  • Hardening recommendations
  • Signed models and prompts
  • Versioned datasets, configurations, logging, and controls
  • Securing data pipelines
  • Controlled promotion
  • Quality assurance
  • Adversarial testing
Runtime Security

Securing runtime goes beyond guardrails and model firewalls to include behavior-based detections, response, and containment.

  • Detection, monitoring, and SOC integration
  • Centralized visibility into prompts, outputs, and tool calls
  • AI-specific detections
  • Behavior-based detection for AI usage patterns
  • Model drift and behavior monitoring
  • Autonomous containment
  • Behavior-based detection of model inputs and outputs
  • Prompt injection detection
  • Model manipulation, including jailbreaking, poisoning, and related attacks
  • Sensitive data access attempts
  • Behavior-based detection across low-code agents, high-code agents, MCP clients and servers, endpoint, network, cloud, email, SaaS, SASE, IoT, and OT
  • Policy enforcement between users, models, tools, agents, SaaS models/tools, and MCP servers/clients
  • Risk, intent, and context evaluation for detections and response actions
Response & Recovery
  • Autonomous containment
  • AI-assisted playbooks
  • Forensics data capture for AI-related events
  • Model rollback mechanisms
  • Backup and restore for models and datasets
  • Kill switch for agents
  • Autonomous response to agents performing risky behaviors
  • Model and dataset rollback
  • Remediation plans
  • Tabletop exercises
  • Supplier coordination plans
  • Post-incident AI performance validation

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

AI changes how fast systems move, how decisions are made, and how risk propagates. It does not change the fundamentals of security. Organizations that succeed will be the ones that apply those fundamentals rigorously, assume failure, and build systems that can detect, contain, and recover when AI behaves in ways they did not anticipate. Security is not what AI is allowed to do. It is whether the organization can understand, trust, and control what AI actually does in practice.  

Take this guidance to understand different initiatives that organizations should be considering. Securing AI is the most critical component to AI safety. As organizations invest more in AI adoption, they should be investing in security in order to mitigate the risk of AI adoption. Organizations should be evaluating their governance and security stack to include well-integrated tools that are deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. While organizations mature in governance, visibility and identity access management, they should be investing in behavior-based detection and autonomous containment to mitigate AI risk.  

Continue reading
About the author
Nicole Carignan
SVP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

/

AI

/

July 6, 2026

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

ai security nistDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

As organizations adopt generative AI, many still assume that the right set of guardrails will be enough. The problem is you can’t anticipate every way these systems might be misused, abused or attacked. What NIST has done is put a mathematical foundation under that intuition.

In recent research building on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which showed that any system built on a fixed set of rules will always have gaps, NIST demonstrates that there is no finite set of guardrails that can be universally robust against adversarial prompts. In plain terms, if your defense is based on a fixed set of rules, there will always be inputs that bypass them. Not because the rules are badly written, but because the problem space is bigger than static rules can ever cover.

This is not new in cybersecurity - detection rules have always had to live with this trade-off. What is different with GenAI is the scale and shape of that problem. These systems are built on human language, and human language is not bounded. It is fluid, contextual and deliberately ambiguous. The number of ways intent can be hidden is effectively limitless. You are not defending against a defined protocol or a fixed exploit chain. You are defending against the entire expressive capacity of people.

So attempting to create a complete set of rules is the wrong starting point. It assumes the problem can be deterministically described. NIST’s work shows that it cannot. Organizations still need a way to manage AI risk, but the traditional approach of defining allowed and disallowed patterns is always going to lag behind what is actually happening. The same input can be benign in one context and risky in another, and static rules struggle to capture that distinction.

The question then is what fills that gap?

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

What's required is a shift in what you are trying to understand. Rules try to describe what should and shouldn't happen. Behavior shows you what is happening. Or to put it another way, if inputs are unbounded and adversaries adapt, the only stable signal is behavior.

In a GenAI context, that means analyzing how an AI model is being used, how prompts evolve over time, how outputs are shaped, and where AI agent interactions start to drift from what is expected. It means moving from static definitions of bad to a more dynamic understanding of intent.

Instead of trying to predict every bad prompt, you focus on identifying when behavior starts to move outside expected norms. Instead of asking whether a single input matches a rule, you ask whether the overall pattern of activity makes sense for the system and how it’s being used.

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

This does not eliminate the need for guardrails. They still play a role. But they will never address the entire problem space and are simply one part of your defense in depth approach.

NIST’s proof is useful because it makes this explicit. It removes the assumption that with enough effort, a complete rule set is achievable. It isn’t.

Once you accept that, the shift becomes unavoidable. This is no longer a problem of writing better rules, but of understanding behavior in a space where the possible inputs are effectively unbounded.

For security leaders, that changes the nature of the problem. It is less about defining what should be allowed, and more about recognizing when something is no longer consistent with expected behavior.

That does not remove the need for guardrails, but it does change their role. They set boundaries, but they do not define understanding. The gap between the two is where risk now sits.

In the end, this is what “can’t be solved with rules” really means. Rules will always leave gaps, and those gaps are not theoretical. They show up in how systems actually behave Not what we expect them to do, or what we intended them to do, but what they are doing in practice. That is where the signal is, and increasingly, that is where the security problem sits.

References:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-mathematical-proof-supports-transition-continuous-monitor-and-update

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11475847

Continue reading
About the author
Andrew Hollister
Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI