Blog
/
Cloud
/
September 25, 2025

Introducing the Industry’s First Truly Automated Cloud Forensics Solution

The launch of Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation marks a breakthrough moment for cloud security, bringing automated forensic investigations — once reserved for the largest organizations and specialized DFIR teams — to security teams of every size.
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
Paul Bottomley
Director of Product Management | Darktrace
Default blog image
25
Sep 2025

Why Cloud Investigations Fail Today

Cloud investigations have become one of the hardest problems in modern cybersecurity. Traditional DFIR tools were built for static, on-prem environments, rather than dynamic and highly scalable cloud environments, containing ephemeral workloads that disappear in minutes. SOC analysts are flooded with cloud security alerts with one-third lacking actionable data to confirm or dismiss a threat[1], while DFIR teams waste 3-5 days requesting access and performing manual collection, or relying on external responders.

These delays leave organizations vulnerable. Research shows that nearly 90% of organizations suffer some level of damage before they can fully investigate and contain a cloud incident [2]. The result is a broken model: alerts are closed without a complete understanding of the threat due to a lack of visibility and control, investigations drag on, and attackers retain the upper hand.

For SOC teams, the challenge is scale and clarity. Analysts are inundated with alerts but lack the forensic depth to quickly distinguish real threats from noise. Manual triage wastes valuable time, creates alert fatigue, and often forces teams to escalate or dismiss incidents without confidence — leaving adversaries with room to maneuver.

For DFIR teams, the challenge is depth and speed. Traditional forensics tools were built for static, on-premises environments and cannot keep pace with ephemeral workloads that vanish in minutes. Investigators are left chasing snapshots, requesting access from cloud teams, or depending on external responders, leading to blind spots and delayed response.

That’s why we built Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation, the first automated forensic solution designed specifically for the speed, scale, and complexities of the cloud. It addresses both sets of challenges by combining automated forensic evidence capture, attacker timeline reconstruction, and cross-cloud scale. The solution empowers SOC analysts with instant clarity and DFIR teams with forensic depth, all in minutes, not days. By leveraging the very nature of the cloud, Darktrace makes these advanced capabilities accessible to security teams of all sizes, regardless of expertise or resources.

Introducing Automated Forensics at the Speed and Scale of Cloud

Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation transforms cloud investigations by capturing, processing, and analyzing forensic evidence of cloud workloads, instantly, even from time-restricted ephemeral resources. Triggered by a detection from any cloud security tool, the entire process is automated, providing accurate root cause analysis and deep insights into attacker behavior in minutes rather than days or weeks. SOC and DFIR teams no longer have to rely on manual processes, snapshots, or external responders, they can now leverage the scale and elasticity of the cloud to accelerate triage and investigations.

Seamless Integration with Existing Detection Tools

Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation does not require customers to replace their detection stack. Instead, it integrates with cloud-native providers, XDR platforms, and SIEM/SOAR tools, automatically initiating forensic capture whenever an alert is raised. This means teams can continue leveraging their existing investments while gaining the forensic depth required to validate alerts, confirm root cause, and accelerate response.

Most importantly, the solution is natively integrated with Darktrace / CLOUD, turning real-time detections of novel attacker behaviors into full forensic investigations instantly. When Darktrace / CLOUD identifies suspicious activity such as lateral movement, privilege escalation, or abnormal usage of compute resources, Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation automatically preserves the underlying forensic evidence before it disappears. This seamless workflow unites detection, response, and investigation in a way that eliminates gaps, accelerates triage, and gives teams confidence that every critical cloud alert can be investigated to completion.

Figure 1: Integration with Darktrace / CLOUD – this example is showing the ability to pivot into the forensic investigation associated with a compromised cloud asset

Automated Evidence Collection Across Hybrid and Multi-Cloud

The solution provides automated forensic acquisition across AWS, Microsoft Azure, GCP, and on-prem environments. It supports both full volume capture, creating a bit-by-bit copy of an entire storage device for the most comprehensive preservation of evidence, and triage collection, which prioritizes speed by gathering only the most essential forensic artifacts such as process data, logs, network connections, and open file contents. This flexibility allows teams to strike the right balance between speed and depth depending on the investigation at hand.

Figure 2: Ability to acquire forensic data from Cloud, SaaS and on-prem environments

Automated Investigations, Root Cause Analysis and Attacker Timelines

Once evidence is collected, Darktrace applies automation to reconstruct attacker activity into a unified timeline. This includes correlating commands, files, lateral movement, and network activity into a single investigative view enriched with custom threat intelligence such as IOCs. Detailed investigation reporting including an investigation summary, an overview of the attacker timeline, and key events. Analysts can pivot into detailed views such as the filesystem view, traversing directories or inspecting file content, or filter and search using faceted options to quickly narrow the scope of an investigation.

Figure 3: Automated Investigation view surfacing the most significant attacker activity, which is contextualized with Alarm information

Forensics for Containers and Ephemeral Assets

Investigating containers and serverless workloads has historically been one of the hardest challenges for DFIR teams, as these assets often disappear before evidence can be preserved. Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation captures forensic evidence across managed Kubernetes cloud services, even from distroless or no-shell containers, AWS ECS and other environments, ensuring that ephemeral activity is no longer a blind spot. For hybrid organizations, this extends to on-premises Kubernetes and OpenShift deployments, bringing consistency across environments.

Figure 4: Container investigations – this example is showing the ability to capture containers from managed Kubernetes cloud services

SaaS Log Collection for Modern Investigations

Beyond infrastructure-level data, the solution collects logs from SaaS providers such as Microsoft 365, Entra ID, and Google Workspace. This enables investigations into common attack types like business email compromise (BEC), account takeover (ATO), and insider threats — giving teams visibility into both infrastructure-level and SaaS-driven compromise from a single platform.

Figure 5: Ability to import logs from SaaS providers including Microsoft 365, Entra ID, and Google Workspace

Proactive Vulnerability and Malware Discovery

Finally, the solution surfaces risk proactively with vulnerability and malware discovery for Linux-based cloud resources. Vulnerabilities are presented in a searchable table and correlated with the attacker timeline, enabling teams to quickly understand not just which packages are exposed, but whether they have been targeted or exploited in the context of an incident.

Figure 6: Vulnerability data with pivot points into the attacker timeline

Cloud-Native Scale and Performance

Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation uses a cloud-native parallel processing architecture that spins up compute resources on demand, ensuring that investigations run at scale without bottlenecks. Detailed reporting and summaries are automatically generated, giving teams a clear record of the investigation process and supporting compliance, litigation readiness, and executive reporting needs.

Scalable and Flexible Deployment Options

Every organization has different requirements for speed, control, and integration. Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation is designed to meet those needs with two flexible deployment models.

  • Self-Hosted Virtual Appliance delivers deep integration and control across hybrid environments, preserving forensic data for compliance and litigation while scaling to the largest enterprise investigations.
  • SaaS-Delivered Deployment provides fast time-to-value out of the box, enabling automated forensic response without requiring deep cloud expertise or heavy setup.

Both models are built to scale across regions and accounts, ensuring organizations of any size can achieve rapid value and adapt the solution to their unique operational and compliance needs. This flexibility makes advanced cloud forensics accessible to every security team — whether they are optimizing for speed, integration depth, or regulatory alignment

Delivering Advanced Cloud Forensics for Every Team

Until now, forensic investigations were slow, manual, and reserved for only the largest organizations with specialized DFIR expertise. Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation changes that by leveraging the scale and elasticity of the cloud itself to automate the entire investigation process. From capturing full disk and memory at detection to reconstructing attacker timelines in minutes, the solution turns fragmented workflows into streamlined investigations available to every team.

Whether deployed as a SaaS-delivered service for fast time-to-value or as a self-hosted appliance for deep integration, Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation provides the features that matter most: automated evidence capture, cross-cloud investigations, forensic depth for ephemeral assets, and root cause clarity without manual effort.

With Darktrace / Forensic Acquisition & Investigation, what once took days now takes minutes. Now, forensic investigations in the cloud are faster, more scalable, and finally accessible to every security team, no matter their size or expertise.

[related-resource]

Sources: [1], [2] Darktrace Report: Organizations Require a New Approach to Handle Investigations in the Cloud

Additional Resources

Darktrace Innovation Launch: Automated Cloud Forensics

Discover the industry's first truly automated cloud forensics solution in this live broadcast with experts from AWS and Forrester.

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
Paul Bottomley
Director of Product Management | Darktrace

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 8, 2026

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

ai security stackDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

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

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

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

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

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

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

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

Secure

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

Defend

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

Thwart

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

How this looks in practice

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

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

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

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

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

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

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:  

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

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

Behavioral risk  

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

Structural risk  

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

Accountability

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

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

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

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

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

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

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

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

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

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

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

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

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

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

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

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

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

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

Blog

/

AI

/

July 6, 2026

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

ai security nistDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

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

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

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

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

The question then is what fills that gap?

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

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

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

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

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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