Blog
/
Email
/
February 24, 2025

Detecting and Containing Account Takeover with Darktrace

Account takeovers are rising with SaaS adoption. Learn how Darktrace detects deviations in user behavior and autonomously stops threats before they escalate.
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
Min Kim
Cyber Security Analyst
women on laptop in officeDefault blog image
24
Feb 2025

Thanks to its accessibility from anywhere with an internet connection and a web browser, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms have become nearly universal across organizations worldwide. However, with this growing popularity comes greater responsibility. Increased attention attracts a larger audience, including those who may seek to exploit these widely used services. One crucial factor to be vigilant about in the SaaS landscape is safeguarding internal credentials. Minimal protection on accounts can lead to SaaS hijacking, which could allow further escalations within the network.

How does SaaS account takeover work?

SaaS hijacking occurs when a malicious actor takes control of a user’s active session with a SaaS application. Attackers can achieve this through various methods, including employees using company credentials on compromised or spoofed external websites, brute-force attacks, social engineering, and exploiting outdated software or applications.

After the hijack, attackers may escalate their actions by changing email rules and using internal addresses for additional social engineering attacks. The larger goal of these actions is often to steal internal data, damage reputations, and disrupt operations.

Account takeover protection

It has become essential to have security tools capable of outsmarting potential malicious actors. Traditional tools that rely on rules and signatures may not be able to identify new events, such as logins or activities from a rare endpoint, unless they come from a known malicious source.

Darktrace relies on analysis of user and network behavior, tailored to each customer, allowing it to identify anomalous events that the user typically does not engage in. In this way, unusual SaaS activities can be detected, and unwanted actions can be halted to allow time for remediation before further escalations.

The following cases, drawn from the global customer base, illustrate how Darktrace detects potential SaaS hijack attempts and further escalations, and applies appropriate actions when necessary.

Case 1: Unusual login after a phishing email

A customer in the US received a suspicious email that seemed to be from the legitimate file storage service, Dropbox. However, Darktrace identified that the reply-to email address, hremployeepyaroll@mail[.]com, was masquerading as one associated with the customer’s Human Resources (HR) department.

Further inspection of this sender address revealed that the attacker had intentionally misspelled ‘payroll’ to trick recipients into believing it was legitimate

Furthermore, the subject of the email indicated that the attackers were attempting a social engineering attack by sharing a file related to pay raises and benefits to capture the recipients' attention and increase the likelihood of their targets engaging with the email and its attachment.

Figure 1: Subject of the phishing email.
Figure 1: Subject of the phishing email.

Unknowingly, the recipient, who believed the email to be a legitimate HR communication, acted on it, allowing malicious attackers to gain access to the account. Following this, the recipient’s account was observed logging in from a rare location using multi-factor authentication (MFA) while also being active from another more commonly observed location, indicating that the SaaS account had been compromised.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response action triggered by an anomalous email received by an internal user, followed by a failed login attempt from a rare external source.
Figure 2: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response action triggered by an anomalous email received by an internal user, followed by a failed login attempt from a rare external source.

Darktrace subsequently observed the SaaS actor creating new inbox rules on the account. These rules were intended to mark as read and move any emails mentioning the file storage company, whether in the subject or body, to the ‘Conversation History’ folder. This was likely an attempt by the threat actor to hide any outgoing phishing emails or related correspondence from the legitimate account user, as the ‘Conversation History’ folder typically goes unread by most users.

Typically, Darktrace / EMAIL would have instantly placed the phishing email in the junk folder before they reached user’s inbox, while also locking the links identified in the suspicious email, preventing them from being accessed. Due to specific configurations within the customer’s deployment, this did not happen, and the email remained accessible to the user.

Case 2: Login using unusual credentials followed by password change

In the latter half of 2024, Darktrace detected an unusual use of credentials when a SaaS actor attempted to sign into a customer’s Microsoft 365 application from an unfamiliar IP address in the US. Darktrace recognized that since the customer was located within the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region, a login from the US was unexpected and suspicious. Around the same time, the legitimate account owner logged into the customer’s SaaS environment from another location – this time from a South African IP, which was commonly seen within the environment and used by other internal SaaS accounts.

Darktrace understood that this activity was highly suspicious and unlikely to be legitimate, given one of the IPs was known and expected, while the other had never been seen before in the environment, and the simultaneous logins from two distant locations were geographically impossible.

Model alert in Darktrace / IDENTITY: Detecting a login from a different source while the user is already active from another source.
Figure 3: Model alert in Darktrace / IDENTITY: Detecting a login from a different source while the user is already active from another source.

Darktrace detected several unusual login attempts, including a successful login from an uncommon US source. Subsequently, Darktrace / NETWORK identified the device associated with this user making external connections to rare endpoints, some of which were only two weeks old. As this customer had integrated Darktrace with Microsoft Defender, the Darktrace detection was enriched by Defender, adding the additional context that the user had likely been compromised in an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing attack. AiTM phishing attacks occur when a malicious attacker intercepts communications between a user and a legitimate authentication service, potentially leading to account hijacking. These attacks are harder to identify as they can bypass security measures like MFA.

Following this, Darktrace observed the attacker using the now compromised credentials to access password management and change the account's password. Such behavior is common in account takeover incidents, as attackers seek to maintain persistence within the SaaS environment.

While Darktrace’s Autonomous Response was not fully configured on the customer’s SaaS environment, they were subscribed to the Managed Threat Detection service offered by Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC). This 24/7 service ensures that Darktrace’s analysts monitor and investigate emerging suspicious activity, informing customers in real-time. As such, the customer received notification of the compromise and were able to quickly take action to prevent further escalation.

Case 3: Unusual logins, new email rules and outbound spam

Recently, Darktrace has observed a trend in SaaS compromises involving unusual logins, followed by the creation of new email rules, and then outbound spam or phishing campaigns being launched from these accounts.

In October, Darktrace identified a SaaS user receiving an email with the subject line "Re: COMPANY NAME Request for Documents" from an unknown sender using a freemail  account. As freemail addresses require very little personal information to create, threat actors can easily create multiple accounts for malicious purposes while retaining their anonymity.

Within the identified email, Darktrace found file storage links that were likely intended to divert recipients to fraudulent or malicious websites upon interaction. A few minutes after the email was received, the recipient was seen logging in from three different sources located in the US, UK, and the Philippines, all around a similar time. As the customer was based in the Philippines, a login from there was expected and not unusual. However, Darktrace understood that the logins from the UK and US were highly unusual, and no other SaaS accounts had connected from these locations within the same week.

After successfully logging in from the UK, the actor was observed updating a mailbox rule, renaming it to ‘.’ and changing its parameters to move any inbound emails to the deleted items folder and mark them as read.

Figure 4: The updated email rule intended to move any inbound emails to the deleted items folder.

Malicious actors often use ambiguous names like punctuation marks, repetitive letters, and unreadable words to name resources, disguising their rules to avoid detection by legitimate users or administrators. Similarly, attackers have been known to adjust existing rule parameters rather than creating new rules to keep their footprints untracked. In this case, the rule was updated to override an existing email rule and delete all incoming emails. This ensured that any inbound emails, including responses to potential phishing emails sent by the account, would be deleted, allowing the attacker to remain undetected.

Over the next two days, additional login attempts, both successful and failed, were observed from locations in the UK and the Philippines. Darktrace noted multiple logins from the Philippines where the legitimate user was attempting to access their account using a password that had recently expired or been changed, indicating that the attacker had altered the user’s original password as well.

Following this chain of events, over 500 emails titled “Reminder For Document Signed Agreement.10/28/2024” were sent from the SaaS actor’s account to external recipients, all belonging to a different organization within the Philippines.

These emails contained rare attachments with a ‘.htm’ extension, which included programming language that could initiate harmful processes on devices. While inherently not malicious, if used inappropriately, these files could perform unwanted actions such as code execution, malware downloads, redirects to malicious webpages, or phishing upon opening.

Outbound spam seen from the hijacked SaaS account containing a ‘.htm’ attachment.
Figure 5: Outbound spam seen from the hijacked SaaS account containing a ‘.htm’ attachment.

As this customer did not have Autonomous Response enabled for Darktrace / IDENTITY, the unusual activity went unattended, and the compromise was able to escalate to the point of a spam email campaign being launched from the account.

In a similar example on a customer network in EMEA, Darktrace detected unusual logins and the creation of new email rules from a foreign location through a SaaS account. However, in this instance, Autonomous Response was enabled and automatically disabled the compromised account, preventing further malicious activity and giving the customer valuable time to implement their own remediation measures.

Conclusion

Whether it is an unexpected login or an unusual sequence of events – such as a login followed by a phishing email being sent – unauthorized or unexpected activities can pose a significant risk to an organization’s SaaS environment. The threat becomes even greater when these activities escalate to account hijacking, with the compromised account potentially providing attackers access to sensitive corporate data. Organizations, therefore, must have robust SaaS security measures in place to prevent data theft, ensure compliance and maintain continuity and trust.

The Darktrace suite of products is well placed to detect and contain SaaS hijack attempts at multiple stages of an attack. Darktrace / EMAIL identifies initial phishing emails that attackers use to gain access to customer SaaS environments, while Darktrace / IDENTITY detects anomalous SaaS behavior on user accounts which could indicate they have been taken over by a malicious actor.

By identifying these threats in a timely manner and taking proactive mitigative measures, such as logging or disabling compromised accounts, Darktrace prevents escalation and ensures customers have sufficient time to response effectively.

Credit to Min Kim (Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

[related-resource]

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections Case 1

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Us

SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User is Active

SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Email Rule Block (Autonomous Response)

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block (Autonomous Response)

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS User Block (Autonomous Response)

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

176.105.224[.]132 – IP address – Unusual SaaS Activity Source

hremployeepyaroll@mail[.]com – Email address – Reply-to email address

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Cloud Accounts – DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS – T1078

Outlook Rules – PERSISTENCE – T1137

Cloud Service Dashboard – DISCOVERY – T1538

Compromise Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1586

Steal Web Session Cookie – CREDENTIAL ACCESS – T1539

Darktrace Model Detections Case 2

SaaS / Compromise / SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection

SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

SaaS / Compromise / Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active

SaaS / Compromise / Login from Rare High Risk Endpoint

SaaS / Access / M365 High Risk Level Login

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block (Autonomous Response)

Antigena / SaaS / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from SaaS user Block (Autonomous Response)

List of IoCs

74.207.252[.]129 – IP Address – Suspicious SaaS Activity Source

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Cloud Accounts – DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS – T1078

Cloud Service Dashboard – DISCOVERY – T1538

Compromise Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1586

Steal Web Session Cookie – CREDENTIAL ACCESS – T1539

Darktrace Model Detections Case 3

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Outbound Email Spam

SaaS / Compromise / New Email Rule and Unusual Email Activity

SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Sender Spoof

SaaS / Email Nexus / Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage

SaaS / Email Nexus / Possible Outbound Email Spam

SaaS / Unusual Activity / Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

SaaS / Email Nexus / Suspicious Internal Exchange Activity

SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

List of IoCs

95.142.116[.]1 – IP Address – Suspicious SaaS Activity Source

154.12.242[.]58 – IP Address – Unusual Source

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Cloud Accounts – DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS – T1078

Compromise Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1586

Email Accounts – RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT – T1585

Phishing – INITIAL ACCESS – T1566

Outlook Rules – PERSISTENCE – T1137

Internal Spear phishing – LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1534

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2025.

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
Min Kim
Cyber Security Analyst

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