Blog
/
OT
/
April 16, 2026

Inside ZionSiphon: Darktrace’s Analysis of OT Malware Targeting Israeli Water Systems

Darktrace analysis reveals ZionSiphon, an OT‑focused malware targeting Israeli water treatment and desalination systems. The malware combines privilege escalation, persistence, USB propagation, and ICS scanning with sabotage capabilities aimed at chlorine and pressure controls, highlighting growing experimentation with politically motivated critical ‑infrastructure attacks against industrial operational technologies globally.
Written by
Calum Hall
Technical Content Researcher
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
Calum Hall
Technical Content Researcher
zionsiphonDefault blog image
16
Apr 2026

What is ZionSiphon?

Darktrace recently analyzed a malware sample, which identifies itself as ZionSiphon. This sample combines several familiar host-based capabilities, including privilege escalation, persistence, and removable-media propagation, with targeting logic themed around water treatment and desalination environments.

This blog details Darktrace’s investigation of ZionSiphon, focusing on how the malware identifies targets, establishes persistence, attempts to tamper with local configuration files, and scans for Operational Technology (OT)-relevant services on the local subnet. The analysis also assesses what the code suggests about the threat actor’s intended objectives and highlights where the implementation appears incomplete.

Function “ZionSiphon()” used by the malware author.
Figure 1: Function “ZionSiphon()” used by the malware author.

ZionSiphon targets and motivations

Israel-Focused Targeting and Messaging‍

The clearest indicators of intent in this sample are its hardcoded Israel-focused targeting checks and the strong political messaging found in some strings in the malware’s binary.

In the class initializer, the malware defines a set of IPv4 ranges, including “2.52.0.0-2.55.255.255”, “79.176.0.0-79.191.255.255”, and “212.150.0.0-212.150.255.255”, indicating that the author intended to restrict execution to a narrow range of addresses. All of the specified IP blocks are geographically located within Israel.

The malware obfuscates the IP ranges by encoding them in Base64.
Figure 2: The malware obfuscates the IP ranges by encoding them in Base64.

The ideological motivations behind this malware are also seemingly evident in two Base64-encoded strings embedded in the binary. The first (shown in Figure 1) is:

“Netanyahu = SW4gc3VwcG9ydCBvZiBvdXIgYnJvdGhlcnMgaW4gSXJhbiwgUGFsZXN0aW5lLCBhbmQgWWVtZW4gYWdhaW5zdCBaaW9uaXN0IGFnZ3Jlc3Npb24uIEkgYW0gIjB4SUNTIi4=“, which decodes to “In support of our brothers in Iran, Palestine, and Yemen against Zionist aggression. I am "0xICS".

The second string, “Dimona = UG9pc29uaW5nIHRoZSBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIG9mIFRlbCBBdml2IGFuZCBIYWlmYQo=“, decodes to “Poisoning the population of Tel Aviv and Haifa”.  These strings do not appear to be used by the malware for any operational purpose, but they do offer an indication of the attacker’s motivations. Dimona, referenced in the second string, is an Israeli city in the Negev desert, primarily known as the site of the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center.

The Dimona string as it appears in the decompiled malware, with the Base64-decoded text.
Figure 3: The Dimona string as it appears in the decompiled malware, with the Base64-decoded text.

The hardcoded IP ranges and propaganda‑style text suggest politically motivated intent, with Israel appearing to be a likely target.

Water and desalination-themed targeting?

The malware also includes Israel-linked strings in its target list, including “Mekorot, “Sorek”, “Hadera”, “Ashdod”, “Palmachim”, and “Shafdan”. All of the strings correspond to components of Israel’s national water infrastructure: Mekorot is Israel’s national water company responsible for managing the country’s water system, including major desalination and wastewater projects. Sorek, Hadera, Ashdod, and Palmachim are four of Israel’s five major seawater desalination plants, each producing tens of millions of cubic meters of drinking water annually. Shafdan is the country’s central wastewater treatment and reclamation facility. Their inclusion in ZionSiphon’s targeting list suggests an interest in infrastructure linked to Israel’s water sector.

Strings in the target list, all related to Israel and water treatment.
Figure 4: Strings in the target list, all related to Israel and water treatment.

Beyond geographic targeting, the sample contains a second layer of environment-specific checks aimed at water treatment and desalination systems. In the function ”IsDamDesalinationPlant()”, the malware first inspects running process names for strings such as “DesalPLC”, “ROController”, “SchneiderRO”, “DamRO”, “ReverseOsmosis”, “WaterGenix”, “RO_Pump”, “ChlorineCtrl”, “WaterPLC”, “SeaWaterRO”, “BrineControl”, “OsmosisPLC”, “DesalMonitor”, “RO_Filter”, “ChlorineDose”, “RO_Membrane”, “DesalFlow”, “WaterTreat”, and “SalinityCtrl”. These strings are directly related to desalination, reverse osmosis, chlorine handling, and plant control components typically seen in the water treatment industry.

The filesystem checks reinforce this focus. The code looks for directories such as “C:\Program Files\Desalination”, “C:\Program Files\Schneider Electric\Desal”, “C:\Program Files\IDE Technologies”, “C:\Program Files\Water Treatment”, “C:\Program Files\RO Systems”, “C:\Program Files\DesalTech”, “C:\Program Files\Aqua Solutions”, and “C:\Program Files\Hydro Systems”, as well as files including “C:\DesalConfig.ini”, “C:\ROConfig.ini”, “C:\DesalSettings.conf”, “C:\Program Files\Desalination\system.cfg”, “C:\WaterTreatment.ini”, “C:\ChlorineControl.dat”, “C:\RO_PumpSettings.ini”, and “C:\SalinityControl.ini.”

Malware Analysis

Privilege Escalation

The “RunAsAdmin” function from the malware sample.
Figure 5: The “RunAsAdmin” function from the malware sample.


The malware’s first major action is to check whether it is running with administrative rights. The “RunAsAdmin()” function calls “IsElevated()”, which retrieves the current Windows identity and checks whether it belongs to the local Administrators group. If the process is already elevated, execution proceeds normally.

The “IsElevated” function as seen in the sample.
Figure 6: The “IsElevated” function as seen in the sample.


If not, the code waits on the named mutex and launches “powershell.exe” with the argument “Start-Process -FilePath <current executable> -Verb RunAs”, after which it waits for that process to finish and then exits. ‍

Persistence and stealth installation

Registry key creation.
Figure 7: Registry key creation.

Persistence is handled by “s1()”. This routine opens “HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run”, retrieves the current process path, and compares it to “stealthPath”. If the current file is not already running from that location, it copies itself to the stealth path and sets the copied file’s attributes to “hidden”.

The code then creates a “Run” value named “SystemHealthCheck” pointing to the stealth path. Because “stealthPath” is built from “LocalApplicationData” and the hardcoded filename “svchost.exe”, the result is a user-level persistence mechanism that disguises the payload under a familiar Windows process name. The combination of a hidden file and a plausible-sounding autorun value suggests an intent to blend into ordinary Windows artifacts rather than relying on more complex persistence methods.

Target determination

The malware’s targeting determination is divided between “IsTargetCountry()” and “IsDamDesalinationPlant()”. The “IsTargetCountry()” function retrieves the local IPv4 address, converts it to a numeric value, and compares it against each of the hardcoded ranges stored in “ipRanges”. Only if the address falls within one of these ranges does the code move on to next string-comparison step, which ultimately determines whether the country check succeeded.

The main target validation function.
Figure 8: The main target validation function.
The “IsTargetCountry” function.
Figure 9 : The “IsTargetCountry” function.


“IsDamDesalinationPlant()” then assesses whether the host resembles a relevant OT environment. It first scans running process names for the hardcoded strings previously mentioned, followed by checks for the presence of any of the hardcoded directories or files. The intended logic is clear: the payload activates only when both a geographic condition and an environment specific condition related to desalination or water treatment are met.

Figure. 10: An excerpt of the list of strings used in the “IsDamDesalinationPlant” function

Why this version appears dysfunctional

Although the file contains sabotage, scanning, and propagation functions, the current sample appears unable to satisfy its own target-country checking function even when the reported IP falls within the specified ranges. In the static constructor, every “ipRanges” entry is associated with the same decoded string, “Nqvbdk”, derived from “TnF2YmRr”. Later, “IsTargetCountry()” (shown in Figure 8) compares that stored value against “EncryptDecrypt("Israel", 5)”.

The “EncryptDecrypt” function
Figure 11: The “EncryptDecrypt” function

As implemented, “EncryptDecrypt("Israel", 5)” does not produce “Nqvbdk”, it produces a different string. This function seems to be a basic XOR encode/decode routine, XORing the string “Israel” with value of 5. Because the resulting output does not match “Nqvbdk” the comparison always fails, even when the host IP falls within one of the specified ranges. As a result, this build appears to consistently determine that the device is not a valid target. This behavior suggests that the version is either intentionally disabled, incorrectly configured, or left in an unfinished state. In fact, there is no XOR key that would transform “Israel” into “Nqvbdk” using this function.‍

Self-destruct function

The “SelfDestruct” function
Figure 12: The “SelfDestruct” function

If IsTargetCountry() returns false, the malware invokes “SelfDestruct()”. This routine removes the SystemHealthCheck value from “HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run”, writes a log file to “%TEMP%\target_verify.log” containing the message “Target not matched. Operation restricted to IL ranges. Self-destruct initiated.” and creates the batch file “%TEMP%\delete.bat”. This file repeatedly attempts to delete the malware’s executable, before deleting itself.

Local configuration file tampering

If the malware determines that the system it is on is a valid target, its first action is local file tampering. “IncreaseChlorineLevel()” checks a hardcoded list of configuration files associated with desalination, reverse osmosis, chlorine control, and water treatment OT/Industrial Control Systems (ICS).  As soon as it finds any one of these file present, it appends a fixed block of text to it and returns immediately.

The block of text appended to relevant configuration files.
Figure 13: The block of text appended to relevant configuration files.

The appended block of text contains the following entries: “Chlorine_Dose=10”, “Chlorine_Pump=ON”, “Chlorine_Flow=MAX”, “Chlorine_Valve=OPEN”, and “RO_Pressure=80”. Only if none of the hardcoded files are found does the malware proceed to its network-based OT discovery logic.

OT discovery and protocol logic

This section of the code attempts to identify devices on the local subnet, assign each one a protocol label, and then attempt protocol-specific communication. While the overall structure is consistent across protocols, the implementation quality varies significantly.

Figure 14: The ICS scanning function.

The discovery routine, “UZJctUZJctUZJct()”, obtains the local IPv4 address, reduces it to a /24 prefix, and iterates across hosts 1 through 255. For each host, it probes ports 502 (Modbus), 20000 (DNP3), and 102 (S7comm), which the code labels as “Modbus”, “DNP3”, and “S7” respectively if a valid response is received on the relevant port.

The probing is performed in parallel. For every “ip:port” combination, the code creates a task and attempts a TCP connection. The “100 ms” value in the probe routine is a per-connection timeout on “WaitOne(100, ...)”, rather than a delay between hosts or protocols. In practice, this results in a burst of short-lived OT-focused connection attempts across the local subnet.

Protocol validation and device classification

When a connection succeeds, the malware does not stop at the open port. It records the endpoint as an “ICSDevice” with an IP address, port, and protocol label. It then performs a second-stage validation by writing a NULL byte to the remote stream and reading the response that comes back.

For Modbus, the malware checks whether the first byte of the reply is between 1 and 255, for DNP3, it checks whether the first two bytes are “05 64”, and for S7comm, it checks whether the first byte is “03”. These checks are not advanced parsers, but they do show that the author understood the protocols well enough to add lightweight confirmation before sending follow-on data.

The Modbus read request along with unfinished code for additional protocols.
Figure 15: The Modbus read request along with unfinished code for additional protocols.  

The most developed OT-specific logic is the Modbus-oriented path. In the function “IncreaseChlorineLevel(string targetIP, int targetPort, string parameter)”, the malware connects to the target and sends “01 03 00 00 00 0A”. It then reads the response and parses register values in pairs. The code then uses some basic logic to select a register index: for “Chlorine_Dose”, it looks for values greater than 0 and less than 1000; for “Turbine_Speed”, it looks for values greater than 100.

The Modbus command observed in the sample (01 03 00 00 00 0A) is a Read Holding Registers request. The first byte (0x01) represents the unit identifier, which in traditional Modbus RTU specifies the addressed slave device; in Modbus TCP, however, this value is often ignored or used only for gateway routing because device addressing is handled at the IP/TCP layer.

The second byte (0x03) is the Modbus function code indicating a Read Holding Registers request. The following two bytes (0x00 0x00) specify the starting register address, indicating that the read begins at address zero. The final two bytes (0x00 0A) define the number of registers to read, in this case ten consecutive registers. Taken together, the command requests the contents of the first ten holding registers from the target device and represents a valid, commonly used Modbus operation.

If a plausible register is found, the malware builds a six-byte Modbus write using function code “6” (Write)” and sets the value to 100 for “Chlorine_Dose”, or 0 for any other parameter. If no plausible register is found, it falls back to using hardcoded write frames. In the main malware path, however, the code only calls this function with “Chlorine_Dose".

If none of the ten registers meets the expected criteria, the malware does not abandon the operation. Instead, it defaults to a set of hardcoded Modbus write frames that specify predetermined register addresses and values. This behavior suggests that the attacker had only partial knowledge of the target environment. The initial register-scanning logic appears to be an attempt at dynamic discovery, while the fallback logic ensures that a write operation is still attempted even if that discovery fails.

Incomplete DNP3 and S7comm Logic

The DNP3 and S7comm branches appear much less complete. In “GetCommand()”, the DNP3 path returns the fixed byte sequence “05 64 0A 0C 01 02”, while the S7comm path returns “03 00 00 13 0E 00”. Neither sequence resembles a fully formed command for the respective protocol.

In the case of the S7comm section, the five byte‑ sequence found in the malware sample (05 00 1C 22 1E) most closely matches the beginning of an S7comm parameter block, specifically the header of a “WriteVar (0x05)” request, which is the S7comm equivalent of a Modbus register write operation. In the S7comm protocol, the first byte of a parameter block identifies the function code,  but the remaining bytes in this case do not form a valid item definition. A vaild S7 WriteVar parameter requires at least one item and a full 11-byte variable-specification structure. By comparison this 5‑ byte array is far too short to be a complete or usable command.

The zero item count (0x00) and the trailing three bytes appear to be either uninitialized data or the beginning of an incomplete address field. Together, these details suggest that the attacker likely intended to implement S7 WriteVar functionality, like the Modbus function, but left this portion of the code unfinished.

The DNP3 branch of the malware also appears to be only partially implemented. The byte sequence returned by the DNP3 path (05 64 0A 0C 01 02) begins with the correct two‑byte DNP3 link‑layer sync header (0x05 0x64) and includes additional bytes that resemble the early portion of a link‑layer header. However, the sequence is far too short to constitute a valid DNP3 frame. It lacks the required destination and source address fields, the 16‑bit CRC blocks, and any application‑layer payload in which DNP3 function code would reside. As a result, this fragment does not represent a meaningful DNP3 command.

The incomplete S7 and DNP3 fragments suggest that these protocol branches were still in a developmental or experimental state when the malware was compiled. Both contain protocol‑accurate prefixes, indicating an intent to implement multi‑protocol OT capabilities, however for reasons unknow, these sections were not fully implemented or could not be completed prior to deployment.

USB Propagation

The malware also includes a removable-media propagation mechanism. The “sdfsdfsfsdfsdfqw()” function scans for drives, selects those identified as removable, and copies the hidden payload to each one as “svchost.exe” if it is not already present. The copied executable is marked with the “Hidden” and “System” attributes to reduce visibility.

The malware then calls “CreateUSBShortcut()”, which uses “WScript.Shell” to create .lnk files for each file in the removable drive root. Each shortcut’s TargetPath is set to the hidden malware copy, the icon is set to “shell32.dll, 4” (this is the windows genericfile icon), and the original file is hidden. Were a victim to click this “file,” they would unknowingly run the malware.

Figure 14:The creation of the shortcut on the USB device.

Key Insights

ZionSiphon represents a notable, though incomplete, attempt to build malware capable of malicious interaction with OT systems targeting water treatment and desalination environments.

While many of ZionSiphon’s individual capabilities align with patterns commonly found in commodity malware, the combination of politically motivated messaging, Israel‑specific IP targeting, and an explicit focus on desalination‑related processes distinguishes it from purely opportunistic threats. The inclusion of Modbus sabotage logic, filesystem tampering targeting chlorine and pressure control, and subnet‑wide ICS scanning demonstrates a clear intent to interact directly with industrial processes controllers and to cause significant damage and potential harm, rather than merely disrupt IT endpoints.

At the same time, numerous implementation flaws, most notably the dysfunctional country‑validation logic and the placeholder DNP3 and S7comm components, suggest that analyzed version is either a development build, a prematurely deployed sample, or intentionally defanged for testing purposes. Despite these limitations, the overall structure of the code likely indicates a threat actor experimenting with multi‑protocol OT manipulation, persistence within operational networks, and removable‑media propagation techniques reminiscent of earlier ICS‑targeting campaigns.

Even in its unfinished state, ZionSiphon underscores a growing trend in which threat actors are increasingly experimenting with OT‑oriented malware and applying it to the targeting of critical infrastructure. Continued monitoring, rapid anomaly detection, and cross‑visibility between IT and OT environments remain essential for identifying early‑stage threats like this before they evolve into operationally viable attacks.

Credit to Calum Hall (Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

References

1.        https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/07c3bbe60d47240df7152f72beb98ea373d9600946860bad12f7bc617a5d6f5f/details

Written by
Calum Hall
Technical Content Researcher
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
Calum Hall
Technical Content Researcher

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Network
•
June 24, 2026
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches
May 20, 2026
2
What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders
Feb 26, 2026
3
Journey of a Threat: How Multi-Layered AI Works in Darktrace / EMAIL
May 26, 2026
4
How to Evaluate AI Vendors: 5 Key categories for AI Adoption
May 27, 2026
5
Darktrace Unites Human Behavior and Threat Detection Across Email, Slack, Teams, and Zoom
Mar 24, 2026

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
OT
•
June 11, 2026

Protecting Stadiums & Events with AI

A stadium during a major sporting event is simultaneously a city, a broadcast hub, a transport node, a public safety space, and a national symbol. That makes them attractive not just to criminals, but to politically motivated and state‑aligned threat actors willing to plan years ahead. With the 2026 FIFA World Cup spanning three nations and dozens of host cities, those challenges – and the AI now amplifying them – have never carried higher stakes.
Karim Benslimane
VP, Field CISO
Read more
OT
•
June 9, 2026

Healthcare’s OT Cybersecurity Gap: Why Hospitals Must Make the Same Security Investments as Regulated Critical Infrastructures

Healthcare organizations rely on OT and IoMT more than ever. Learn why OT cybersecurity expertise, visibility, and governance are critical to reducing operational risk and strengthening cyber resilience.
Daniel Simonds
Director of Operational Technology
Read more
OT
•
May 19, 2026

Data Center Security: Improving Visibility and Threat Detection Across IT, OT, and IoT

Modern data centers now operate as highly interconnected IT, OT, and IoT environments, creating new cybersecurity risks that traditional siloed security tools struggle to detect. This blog explores how IT/OT convergence expands the attack surface, why visibility gaps emerge, and how behavioral AI-driven security helps organizations detect and contain threats before operational disruption occurs.
Daniel Simonds
Director of Operational Technology
Read more

Blog

/

Email

/

June 26, 2026

How Darktrace Transformed Cybersecurity at Our Health Center: A CIO’s Perspective

Default blog imageDefault blog image

How Darktrace Transformed Cybersecurity at Our Health Center: A CIO’s Perspective

In my role as CIO, I bring years of experience leading IT for healthcare organizations. I’ve seen firsthand the unique cybersecurity challenges that nonprofit health centers face: limited budgets, small IT teams, and the constant pressure to prioritize patient care over technology investments. Yet, the threat landscape for health is relentless, and the stakes for protecting patient data and ensuring operational continuity have never been higher. It’s a balancing act.

The search for a better solution

Like many nonprofits, organizations I work at start with Microsoft’s security stack. The discounted pricing for nonprofits makes it an obvious choice, and Microsoft Defender provided a solid foundation for endpoint and email security. However, I quickly realized that relying on a single vendor, even one as robust as Microsoft, left gaps in our defenses. Cybersecurity is never one-size-fits-all, which is why my preference was to layer an additional solution on top of our native security to improve our security posture.

Teams needed a solution that could layer seamlessly on top of Microsoft, without adding complexity or draining limited resources. That’s when I found Darktrace. I had heard of their reputation after seeing how other organizations used Darktrace to secure their infrastructure and was impressed by their AI-native, agentless approach and agreed to a proof of value (POV).

Our goal was to elavate Microsoft with an additional layer of intelligence- one that could seamlessly integrate, operate autonomously, and support a small team without increasing overhead. We turned to Darktrace because its AI-native, agentless approach offered a fundamentally different way to detect and respond to threats, learning our environment in real time and filling gaps that traditional tools can miss. With a quick POV, we were able to validate how effectively Darktrace works alongside Microsoft to deliver a more complete and resilient security architecture.

Why Darktrace stood out

From the start, Darktrace differentiated itself in several critical ways:

  • Deep visibility: Unlike other solutions that rely simply on host-based monitoring with endpoint agents, Darktrace operates passively at the network layer and integrates via APIs for email and identity security. This gave full visibility into network traffic that we previously didn’t have, going beyond our existing endpoint-based tools without adding additional maintenance overhead for our small IT team.
  • AI-native from the ground up: Darktrace wasn’t just layering AI on top of an existing product; it was built with AI at its core. Their autonomous detection and response to threats immediately reduced the need for constant human supervision. In a world where cyber-attacks are increasingly sophisticated and subtle, having an AI that learns our environment and adapts in real time is invaluable.
  • Comprehensive coverage: We started with a POV focused on email security, but quickly expanded to full deployment across our entire infrastructure. Darktrace’s products now protect our email, network, and identity layers, providing visibility and defense against lateral movement and abnormal behavior that traditional tools often miss.

Integration and workflow: Smooth and simple

One of the most impressive aspects of Darktrace is how easy it was to integrate into an existing environment. For network security, it was as simple as plugging an appliance into our top-of-rack switch – no downtime, no complex configuration. For email and identity, API integrations meant we could be up and running in hours, not weeks.

This simplicity extended to day-to-day operations. Our IT team received regular security reports, and any time we had questions or needed to adjust policies, Darktrace’s support team was there with white-glove service. Their responsiveness- even in the middle of the night- gave us confidence that we had true partners, not just a vendor.

Real-world impact: Threats stopped, time saved

The results spoke for themselves. During the time with Darktrace, I did not experience any security incidents. The team slept better at night knowing that Darktrace was monitoring for anomalies and proactively blocking suspicious activity, alerting us even before we noticed anything was wrong.

A memorable example was during an Electronic Health Record (EHR) upgrade, when my team forgot to adjust the policy in advance. Darktrace’s autonomous response was so effective that it blocked our upgrade activities- proof that nothing, not even internal changes, could slip by unnoticed. This level of vigilance meant that ransomware, data exfiltration attempts, or insider threats would be detected and contained before causing harm.

While I can’t share specific ROI numbers, the value was clear: we’ve avoided costly breaches, reduced the time spent investigating alerts, and eliminated the performance drag of agent-based tools. With Darktrace layered on top of Microsoft, I’ve hit the right balance of maximum protection with minimal spending. The cost of Darktrace / EMAIL was competitive, especially when factoring in the included Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service, which provides expert human oversight on top of the AI.

Key differentiators over the competition

  • Extending visibility beyond the endpoint: Traditional host-based monitoring solutions, such as EDR, play a critical role in securing individual devices. By adding a network detection and response (NDR) layer, we gained visibility into activity across our wider digital environment, surfacing threats that move laterally, operate between devices, or bypass endpoint controls. Darktrace also stood out for its ability to learn our normal patterns of behavior and identify subtle deviations in real time, not just known indicators of compromise. Because this is delivered through passive, non-disruptive monitoring, we were able to strengthen our defenses without adding complexity or impacting performance.
  • Layered security without complexity: Darktrace elevated our Microsoft foundation without creating conflicts or requiring us to disable existing protections. This layered approach maximized our security posture without adding operational burden.
  • Expert partnership: Beyond technology, Darktrace’s team acted as true partners, guiding us through deployment, providing ongoing support, and helping us interpret findings. This partnership was as valuable as the technology itself.

Advice for other nonprofits

If you’re an IT leader in a nonprofit, my advice is simple: look for solutions that are easy to deploy, intelligent in their response, and cost-effective. Don’t settle for more endpoint based tools that overlap with what you already have. Seek out a layered approach that covers your blind spots – especially at the network and email layers- at a price point that suits your organization.

Most importantly, don’t be afraid to evaluate new solutions. Even if you’re inundated with vendor pitches, you owe it to your organization to explore options that could save you time, money, and sleepless nights.

For organizations I work at, combining Microsoft’s security stack with Darktrace’s AI-native, platform struck the right balance between protection and practicality. We gained enterprise-grade security without sacrificing performance or stretching our budget. In the end, that meant more resources for what matters most: delivering care to our patients. If you’re facing similar challenges, I encourage you to consider how Darktrace could transform your security posture, and give your team the peace of mind they deserve.

For the organization I work in, combining Microsoft with Darktrace delivered a clear step-change in our security posture. Microsoft provided the foundation, while Darktrace’s behavioral intelligence added visibility into the unknown, surfacing emerging threats based on deviations in real-time activity, not just known indicators.

The result was enterprise-grade protection without added overhead, allowing us to stay focused on patient outcomes, not security operations. For organizations facing similar pressures, this layered approach offers a smarter, more efficient path to securing modern environments.

Continue reading
About the author
Mice Chen
Chief Information Security Officer

Blog

/

AI

/

June 25, 2026

Shadow AI Detection: The First Step Toward Securing AI

shadow aiDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why shadow AI is emerging  

Imagine you’re an employee under pressure, deadlines stacking up, repetitive tasks piling higher by the day. You find a free AI tool online that promises to automate the work in seconds; no approvals are needed. It feels like a simple win, paste in some data, write a quick prompt, and move faster.

But in that moment, something changed.  

Sensitive customer information is entered into a tool your organization doesn’t monitor, doesn’t govern, and can’t see and suddenly, that data is no longer where it should be, and no one knows where it’s gone.

This is the reality of Shadow AI: employees using unsanctioned AI tools to move faster, while unintentionally creating risk that exists entirely outside visibility and control.  

This is not just a one off case, research across businesses indicate that nearly half of employees report using unsanctioned AI tools, often prioritizing speed and productivity over security. Additionally, 51% of employees report connecting AI tools to work systems or apps without IT approval, creating significant operational risk where the average cost of security incidents in organizations with a high level of shadow AI usage can reach $670k.

While shadow AI is often top of mind for security professionals, it is just one component of how AI use can increase risk. Understanding and managing shadow AI use should be considered as part of a broader, comprehensive risk management strategy that aims to secure AI systems, including human and agent identities, interactions, human-AI partnerships, and behaviors operating across the digital enterprise from visibility and governance through detection, response, and recovery.  

Effective risk management calls for a layered and interdisciplinary strategy. It requires addressing issues across governance and visibility; identity, access and agent control, data security and privacy, secure MLOps / LLMOps, runtime security, behavior-based detection, autonomous response and recovery.  

This blog explores a specific governance and visibility use case linked to shadow AI and reveals the challenges it presents as well as the defensive strategies that security teams can adopt.

Why shadow AI is hard to detect  

When it comes to AI, what organizations can easily see does not always reflect the full scope of AI activity occurring within the tools, applications, and workflows used across an enterprise. As a result, organizations using traditional rule-based methods to flag unusual activity may struggle to distinguish unsanctioned AI usage from legitimate operational behavior, particularly as SaaS applications, APIs, and orchestration layers increasingly have AI embedded into normal business workflows. Identifying threats using previously observed intelligence or depending on hard to maintain allow and block lists does not provide a dynamic enough strategy to manage risk. Also, many organizations are focusing on identifying Shadow AI in their governed infrastructure, like gateways, endpoints, or SASE, which is foundational. But, organizations require visibility and Shadow AI detection across all networked infrastructure from on-prem, hybrid, data centers, and cloud infrastructure that may not have endpoint agent visibility. This uncovers the utilization of MCP, data flows, and autonomous agents across these domains.

For example, employees interact with AI assistants across approved SaaS platforms every day. However, browser extensions and other types of plug-ins can route prompts that include enterprise data to embedded AI services in ways that are not visible to the security team. AI enabled workflows may invoke multiple APIs, orchestration layers, and cloud services behind the scenes, making it difficult for traditional security tooling to determine where data is processed, stored, or retransmitted. Because much of this activity occurs within trusted browser sessions and encrypted SaaS traffic, conventional network monitoring, DLP, and application allowlisting controls often lack the context needed to accurately identify or govern these interactions

Identifying AI tools in the environment is one part of the equation. Understanding the behavior surrounding their use is where the real challenge lies. An AI application is not inherently risky, but the way users or other assets interact with it may be. Sensitive data exposure, abnormal access patterns, and misuse of AI-assisted workflows often appear legitimate in isolation and only become visible through behavioral analysis across the broader environment.  

What Shadow AI visibility does and doesn’t show

Comprehensive Shadow AI visibility allows organizations to answer several important questions:

  • What types of AI are we using? What AI platforms, agents, MCP clients/servers, and services are active across the enterprise?  
  • Who is using AI services? Which users, business units, or systems are interacting with those AI services?  
  • Is our data safe? Is sensitive or regulated data being exposed through prompts, workflows, or integrations?  
  • Are AI systems behaving as expected? Are AI systems behaving anomalously or operating outside approved governance processes?  
  • Are our AI systems under attack? Is an attacker attempting to manipulate prompts, influence agent behavior, or abuse AI-enabled workflows?

Answering these questions is foundational to broader AI governance efforts. However, it is limited to helping teams understand initial interactions and fails to offer insight into dependencies and outcomes that are critical to securing AI across an enterprise.  

Deeper visibility that includes the ability to understand dependencies and outcomes are not always available in AI security point products. Answering the questions below requires understanding runtime behavior and operational outcomes:  

  • What actions did the AI interaction trigger?  
  • What systems, applications, or data did it access? Did the AI operate beyond its intended permissions or scope?  
  • Could a low-risk interaction lead to high-risk outcomes?  
  • What is the risk and context understanding of an anomalous activity to assist in prioritization of analysis and autonomous response action?

The distinction between these two sets of questions offers two different layers of AI security. The first set of questions focuses on discovery and interaction visibility. The second set focuses on providing visibility that includes the context and outcomes that are critical for managing follow-on risks associated with obfuscated downstream activities.  

Together, these layers help organizations move beyond simply identifying AI usage toward understanding how AI behaves operationally across the enterprise.

How organizations are addressing shadow AI

Most organizations still approach shadow AI as an application control problem, relying on policies, browser restrictions, and allow/block lists. However, AI adoption is evolving faster than most governance processes can realistically keep pace with. New assistants, plugins, and embedded AI features appear continuously, creating pressure to enable business productivity while simultaneously containing risk.  

Existing governance processes were designed for a more traditional SaaS adoption cycle, where new applications could be reviewed, approved, and monitored over longer time horizons. AI adoption operates differently. New capabilities can appear overnight inside existing platforms employees already use, making it difficult for security and governance teams to maintain an accurate understanding of enterprise AI exposure. This means that many organizations are experiencing significant operational overhead, particularly in large environments where AI usage is decentralized across teams, departments, and third-party services.  

Where should organizations start when securing their AI systems?

Shadow AI identification is an on-going critical component for AI Risk/Governance Boards as well as security organizations. As organizations seek AI certifications like ISO 42001 AI Management Systems, visibility into all AI adoption from enterprise use to custom innovation and development is crucial. Shadow AI identification provides organizations with the visibility needed to decide whether an AI tool should be brought into governed environments to reduce data loss (DLP) risks or whether policies should be established and enforced to restrict their use.

As organizations rapidly innovate and adopt AI, they are taking on more and more risk. Organizations need to have a strategy in place to mitigate the assumed risk, especially with third-party adoption. Visibility, monitoring, governance enforcement, behavioral-based detection of non-deterministic systems, and autonomous investigation and containment becomes critical to mitigating the risk of AI systems.  

How Darktrace secures AI and shadow AI

Attackers are using AI to move faster, scale tactics, and make threats more adaptive and convincing. Internally, organizations are grappling with new forms of risk created by generative AI, autonomous agents, shadow AI, and increasingly complex digital environments.

Darktrace helps organizations protect both people and AI in a world where AI is now central to how business gets done. Darktrace / SECURE AI helps organizations discover and control shadow AI by surfacing unsanctioned or unexpected AI activity where it appears – including MCP detections, distinguishing misuse of legitimate tools and unapproved services, and applying policy to contain data exposure while guiding users toward sanctioned options.

Stay up to date on AI security

Sign up for the Secure AI Readiness Program here: This gives you exclusive access to the latest news on the latest AI threats, updates on emerging approaches shaping AI security, and insights into the latest innovations, including Darktrace’s ongoing work in this area.

Ready to talk with a Darktrace expert on securing AI? Register here to receive practical guidance on the AI risks that matter most to your business, paired with clarity on where to focus first across governance, visibility, risk reduction, and long-term readiness.  

Continue reading
About the author
Nicole Carignan
SVP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI