Blog
/
/
August 26, 2020

Emotet Resurgence: Email & Network Defense Insights

Explore how Darktrace's defense in depth strategy combats Emotet's resurgence in email and network layers, ensuring robust cybersecurity.
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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Written by
Dan Fein
VP, Product
Default blog image
26
Aug 2020

The Emotet banking malware first emerged in 2014, and has since undergone multiple iterations. Emotet seeks to financially profit from a range of organizations by spreading rapidly from device to device and stealing sensitive financial information.

Darktrace’s AI has detected the return of this botnet after a five month absence. The new Spamware campaign has hit multiple industries through highly sophisticated phishing emails, containing either URLs linking to the download of a macro-containing Microsoft Word document or an attachment of the document itself. This iteration uses new variants of infrastructure and malware that were unknown to threat intelligence lists – thus easily bypassing static, rule-based defenses.

In this blog post, we investigate the attack from two angles. The first documents a case where Emotet successfully infiltrated a company’s network, where it was promptly detected and alerted on by the Enterprise Immune System. We then explore two customers who had extended Darktrace’s Cyber AI coverage to the inbox. While these organizations were also targeted by this latest Emotet campaign, the malicious email containing the Emotet payload was identified and blocked by Antigena Email.

Case study one: Detecting Emotet in the network

Figure 1: A timeline of the attack

This first case study looks at a large European organization spanning multiple industries, including healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing. Darktrace’s AI was monitoring over 2500 devices when the organization became a victim of this new wave of Emotet.

The attack entered the business via a phishing email that fell outside of Darktrace’s scope in this particular deployment, as the customer had not yet activated Antigena Email. Either a malicious link or a macro-embedded Word document in the email directed a device to the malicious payload.

Darktrace’s Enterprise Immune System witnessed SSL connections to a 100% rare external IP address, and detected a Kernel crash on the device shortly afterwards, indicating potential exploitation.

Following these actions, the desktop began to beacon to multiple external endpoints using self-signed or invalid SSL certificates. The observed endpoints had previously been associated with Trickbot C2 servers and the Emotet malware. The likely overall dwell time – that is the length of time an attacker has free reign in an environment before they are eradicated – was in this instance around 24 hours, with most of the activity taking place on July 23.

The device then made a large number of new and unusual internal connection attempts over SMB (port 445) to 97 internal devices during a one-hour period. The goal was likely lateral movement, possibly with the intention to infect other devices, download additional malware, and send out more spam emails.

Darktrace’s AI had promptly alerted the security team to the initial rare connections, but when the device attempted lateral movement it escalated the severity of the alert. The security team was able to remediate the situation before further damage was done, taking the desktop offline.

This overview of the infected device shows the extent of the anomalous behavior, with over a dozen Darktrace detections firing in quick succession.

Figure 2: A graph showing unusual activity in combination with the large number of model breaches on July 23

Figure 3: A list of all model breaches occurring over a small time on the compromised device

Case study two: Catching Emotet in the email environment

While Darktrace’s Enterprise Immune System allows us to visualize the attack within the network, Antigena Email has also identified the Emotet phishing campaign in many other customer environments and stopped the attack before the payload could be downloaded.

One European organization was hit by multiple phishing emails associated with Emotet. These emails use a number of tactics, including personalized subject lines, malicious attachments, and hidden malicious URLs. However, Darktrace’s AI recognized the emails as highly anomalous for the organization and prevented them from reaching employees’ inboxes.

Figure 4: A snapshot of Antigena Email’s user interface. The subject line reads ‘Notice of transfer.’

Despite claiming to be from CaixaBank, a Spanish financial services company, Antigena Email revealed that the email was actually sent from a Brazilian domain. The email also contained a link that was hidden behind text suggesting it would lead to a CaixaBank domain, but Darktrace recognized this as a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient. Antigena Email is unique in its ability to gather insights from across the broader business, and it leveraged this ability to reveal that the link in fact led to a WordPress domain that Darktrace’s AI identified as 100% rare for the business. This would not have been possible without a unified security platform analyzing and comparing data across different parts of the organization.

Figure 5: The malicious links contained in the email

The three above links surfaced by Darktrace are all associated with the Emotet malware, and prompt the user to download a Word file. This document contains a macro with instructions for downloading the actual virus payload.

Another email targeting the same organization contained a header suggesting it was from Vietnam. The sender had never been in any previous correspondence across the business, and the single, isolated link within the email was also revealed to be a 100% rare domain. The website displayed when visiting the domain imitates a legitimate printing business, but appears hastily made and contained a similar malicious payload.

In both cases, Darktrace’s AI recognized these as phishing attempts due to its understanding of normal communication patterns and behavior for the business and held the emails back from the inbox, preventing Emotet from entering the next phase of the attack life cycle.

Case study three: A truly global campaign

Darktrace has seen Emotet in attacks targeting customers around the world, with one of the most recent campaigns aimed at a food production and distribution company in Japan. This customer received six Emotet emails across July 29 and July 30. The senders spoofed Japanese names and some existing Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi. Antigena Email successfully detected and actioned these emails, recognizing the spoofing indicators, ‘unspoofing’ the emails, and converting the attachments.

Figure 6: A second Emotet email targeting an organization in Japan

Revealing a phish

Both the subject line and the filename translate to “Regarding the invoice,” followed by a number and the date. The email imitated a well-known Japanese company (三菱食品(株)), with ‘藤沢 昭彦’ as a common Japanese name and the appended ‘様’ serving a similar function to ‘Sir’ or ‘Dr,’ in a clear attempt to mimic a legitimate business email.

A subsequent investigation revealed that the sender’s location was actually Portugal, and the hash values of Microsoft Word attachments were consistent with Emotet. Crucially, at the time of the attack, these file hashes were not publicly associated with any malicious behavior and so could not have been used for initial detection.

Figure 7: Antigena Email shows critical metrics revealing the true source of the email

Surfacing further key metrics behind the email, Antigena Email revealed that the true sender was using a GMO domain name. GMO is a Japanese cloud-hosting company that offers cheap web email services.

Figure 8: Antigena Email reveals the anomalous extensions and mimes

The details of the attachment show that both the extension and mime type is anomalous in comparison to documents this customer commonly exchanges by email.

Figure 9: Antigena Email detects the attempt at inducement

Antigena Email’s models are able to recognize topic anomalies and inducement attempts in emails, regardless of the language they are written in. Despite this email being written in Japanese, Darktrace’s AI was still able to reveal the attempt at inducement, giving the email a high score of 85.

Figure 10: The six successive Emotet emails

The close proximity in which these emails were sent and the fact they all contained URLs consistent with Emotet suggests that they are likely part of the same campaign. Different recipients received the emails from different senders in an attempt to bypass traditional security tools, which are trained to deny-list an individual sender once it is recognized as bad.

A defense in depth

This new campaign and the comeback of the Emotet malware has shown the need for defense in depth – or having multiple layers of security across the different areas of a business, including email, network, cloud and SaaS, and beyond.

Historically, defense in depth has led companies to adopt myriad point solutions, which can be both expensive and challenging to manage. Security leaders are increasingly abandoning point solutions in favor of a single security platform, which not only makes handling the security stack easier and more efficient, but creates synergies between different parts of the platform. Data can be analyzed across different sources and insights drawn from different areas of the organization, helping detect sophisticated attacks that might attempt to exploit a business’ siloed approach to security.

A single platform ultimately reduces the friction for security teams while allowing for effective, company-wide incident investigation. And when a platform approach leverages AI to understand normal behavior rather than looking for ‘known bad’, it can detect unknown and emerging threats – and help prevent damage from being done.

Thanks to Darktrace analyst Beverly McCann for her insights on the above threat find.

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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Written by
Dan Fein
VP, Product

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 7, 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