Blog
/
Network
/
October 14, 2024

How Triada Affects Banking and Communication Apps

Explore the intricacies of the Triada Trojan and its targeting of communication and banking apps. Learn how to safeguard against this threat.
Written by
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
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
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
14
Oct 2024

The rise of android malware

Recently, there has been a significant increase in malware strains targeting mobile devices, with a growing number of Android-based malware families, such as banking trojans, which aim to steal sensitive banking information from organizations and individuals worldwide.

These malware families attempt to access users’ accounts to steal online banking credentials and cookies, bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA), and conduct automatic transactions to steal funds [1]. They often masquerade as legitimate software or communications from social media platforms to compromise devices. Once installed, they use tactics such as keylogging, dumping cached credentials, and searching the file system for stored passwords to steal credentials, take over accounts, and potentially perform identity theft [1].

One recent example is the Antidot Trojan, which infects devices by disguising itself as an update page for Google Play. It establishes a command-and-control (C2) channel with a server, allowing malicious actors to execute commands and collect sensitive data [2].

Despite these malware’s ability to evade detection by standard security software, for example, by changing their code [3], Darktrace recently detected another Android malware family, Triada, communicating with a C2 server and exfiltrating data.

Triada: Background and tactics

First surfacing in 2016, Triada is a modular mobile trojan known to target banking and financial applications, as well as popular communication applications like WhatsApp, Facebook, and Google Mail [4]. It has been deployed as a backdoor on devices such as CTV boxes, smartphones, and tablets during the supply chain process [5]. Triada can also be delivered via drive-by downloads, phishing campaigns, smaller trojans like Leech, Ztorg, and Gopro, or more recently, as a malicious module in applications such as unofficial versions of WhatsApp, YoWhatsApp, and FM WhatsApp [6] [7].

How does Triada work?

Once downloaded onto a user’s device, Triada collects information about the system, such as the device’s model, OS version, SD card space, and list of installed applications, and sends this information to a C2 server. The server then responds with a configuration file containing the device’s personal identification number and settings, including the list of modules to be installed.

After a device has been successfully infected by Triada, malicious actors can monitor and intercept incoming and outgoing texts (including two-factor authentication messages), steal login credentials and credit card information from financial applications, divert in-application purchases to themselves, create fake messaging and email accounts, install additional malicious applications, infect devices with ransomware, and take control of the camera and microphone [4] [7].

For devices infected by unofficial versions of WhatsApp, which are downloaded from third-party app stores [9] and from mobile applications such as Snaptube and Vidmate , Triada collects unique device identifiers, information, and keys required for legitimate WhatsApp to work and sends them to a remote server to register the device [7] [12]. The server then responds by sending a link to the Triada payload, which is downloaded and launched. This payload will also download additional malicious modules, sign into WhatsApp accounts on the target’s phone, and request the same permissions as the legitimate WhatsApp application, such as access to SMS messages. If granted, a malicious actor can sign the user up for paid subscriptions without their knowledge. Triada then collects information about the user’s device and mobile operator and sends it to the C2 server [9] [12].

How does Triada avoid detection?

Triada evades detection by modifying the Zygote process, which serves as a template for every application in the Android OS. This enables the malware to become part of every application launched on a device [3]. It also substitutes system functions and conceals modules from the list of running processes and installed apps, ensuring that the system does not raise the alarm [3]. Additionally, as Triada connects to a C2 server on the first boot, infected devices remain compromised even after a factory reset [4].

Triada attack overview

Across multiple customer deployments, devices were observed making a large number of connections to a range of hostnames, primarily over encrypted SSL and HTTPS protocols. These hostnames had never previously been observed on the customers’ networks and appear to be algorithmically generated. Examples include “68u91.66foh90o[.]com”, “92n7au[.]uhabq9[.]com”, “9yrh7.mea5ms[.]com”, and “is5jg.3zweuj[.]com”.

External Sites Summary Graph showing the rarity of the hostname “92n7au[.]uhabq9[.]com” on a customer network.
Figure 1: External Sites Summary Graph showing the rarity of the hostname “92n7au[.]uhabq9[.]com” on a customer network.

Most of the IP addresses associated with these hostnames belong to an ASN associated with the cloud provider Alibaba (i.e., AS45102 Alibaba US Technology Co., Ltd). These connections were made over a range of high number ports over 1000, most commonly over 30000 such as 32091, which Darktrace recognized as extremely unusual for the SSL and HTTPS protocols.

Screenshot of a Model Alert Event log showing a device connecting to the endpoint “is5jg[.]3zweuj[.]com” over port 32091.
Figure 2: Screenshot of a Model Alert Event log showing a device connecting to the endpoint “is5jg[.]3zweuj[.]com” over port 32091.

On several customer deployments, devices were seen exfiltrating data to hostnames which also appeared to be algorithmically generated. This occurred via HTTP POST requests containing unusual URI strings that were made without a prior GET request, indicating that the infected device was using a hardcoded list of C2 servers.

Screenshot of a Model Alert Event Log showing the device posting the string “i8xps1” to the hostname “72zf6.rxqfd[.]com.
Figure 3: Screenshot of a Model Alert Event Log showing the device posting the string “i8xps1” to the hostname “72zf6.rxqfd[.]com.
Screenshot of a Model Alert Event Log showing the device posting the string “sqyjyadwwq” to the hostname “9yrh7.mea5ms[.]com”.
Figure 4: Screenshot of a Model Alert Event Log showing the device posting the string “sqyjyadwwq” to the hostname “9yrh7.mea5ms[.]com”.

These connections correspond with reports that devices affected by Triada communicate with the C2 server to transmit their information and receive instructions for installing the payload.

A number of these endpoints have communicating files associated with the unofficial WhatsApp versions YoWhatsApp and FM WhatsApp [11] [12] [13] . This could indicate that the devices connecting to these endpoints were infected via malicious modules in the unofficial versions of WhatsApp, as reported by open-source intelligence (OSINT) [10] [12]. It could also mean that the infected devices are using these connections to download additional files from the C2 server, which could infect systems with additional malicious modules related to Triada.

Moreover, on certain customer deployments, shortly before or after connecting to algorithmically generated hostnames with communicating files linked to YoWhatsApp and FM WhatsApp, devices were also seen connecting to multiple endpoints associated with WhatsApp and Facebook.

Figure 5: Screenshot from a device’s event log showing connections to endpoints associated with WhatsApp shortly after it connected to “9yrh7.mea5ms[.]com”.

These surrounding connections indicate that Triada is attempting to sign in to the users’ WhatsApp accounts on their mobile devices to request permissions such as access to text messages. Additionally, Triada sends information about users’ devices and mobile operators to the C2 server.

The connections made to the algorithmically generated hostnames over SSL and HTTPS protocols, along with the HTTP POST requests, triggered multiple Darktrace models to alert. These models include those that detect connections to potentially algorithmically generated hostnames, connections over ports that are highly unusual for the protocol used, unusual connectivity over the SSL protocol, and HTTP POSTs to endpoints that Darktrace has determined to be rare for the network.

Conclusion

Recently, the use of Android-based malware families, aimed at stealing banking and login credentials, has become a popular trend among threat actors. They use this information to perform identity theft and steal funds from victims worldwide.

Across affected customers, multiple devices were observed connecting to a range of likely algorithmically generated hostnames over SSL and HTTPS protocols. These devices were also seen sending data out of the network to various hostnames via HTTP POST requests without first making a GET request. The URIs in these requests appeared to be algorithmically generated, suggesting the exfiltration of sensitive network data to multiple Triada C2 servers.

This activity highlights the sophisticated methods used by malware like Triada to evade detection and exfiltrate data. It underscores the importance of advanced security measures and anomaly-based detection systems to identify and mitigate such mobile threats, protecting sensitive information and maintaining network integrity.

Credit to: Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Security Analyst) and Anna Gilbertson (Cyber Security Analyst).

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Model Alert Coverage

Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTS to Rare Hostname

Anomalous Connections / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Expired SSL

Compromise / DGA Beacon

Compromise / Domain Fluxing

Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Compromise / Unusual Connections to Rare Lets Encrypt

Unusual Activity / Unusual External Activity

‍

AI Analyst Incident Coverage

Unusual Repeated Connections to Multiple Endpoints

Possible SSL Command and Control

Unusual Repeated Connections

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Ioc – Type - Description

  • is5jg[.]3zweuj[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 68u91[.]66foh90o[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 9yrh7[.]mea5ms[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 92n7au[.]uhabq9[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 4a5x2[.]fs4ah[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • jmll4[.]66foh90o[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • mrswd[.]wo87sf[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • lptkw[.]s4xx6[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • ya27fw[.]k6zix6[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • w0g25[.]66foh90o[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • kivr8[.]wd6vy[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • iuwe64[.]ct8pc6[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • qefgn[.]8z0le[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • a6y0x[.]xu0h7[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • wewjyw[.]qb6ges[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • vx9dle[.]n0qq3z[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 72zf6[.]rxqfd[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • dwq[.]fsdw4f[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • tqq6g[.]66foh90o[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 1rma1[.]4f8uq[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 0fdwa[.]7j3gj[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 5a7en[.]1e42t[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • gmcp4[.]1e42t[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • g7190[.]rt14v[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • goyvi[.]2l2wa[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • zq6kk[.]ca0qf[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • sv83k[.]bn3avv[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 9sae7h[.]ct8pc6[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • jpygmk[.]qt7tqr[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • av2wg[.]rt14v[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • ugbrg[.]osz1p[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • hw2dm[.]wtws9k[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • kj9atb[.]hai8j1[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • pls9b[.]b0vb3[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8rweau[.]j7e7r[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • wkc5kn[.]j7e7r[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • v58pq[.]mpvflv[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • zmai4k[.]huqp3e[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • eajgum[.]huqp3e[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • mxl9zg[.]kv0pzv[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • ad1x7[.]mea5ms[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • ixhtb[.]s9gxw8[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • vg1ne[.]uhabq9[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • q5gd0[.]birxpk[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • dycsw[.]h99n6[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • a3miu[.]h99n6[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • qru62[.]5qwu8b5[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 3eox8[.]abxkoop[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 0kttj[.]bddld[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • gjhdr[.]xikuj[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • zq6kk[.]wm0hd[.]com - Hostname - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.219[.]234 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.244[.]205 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.243[.]182 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.240[.]127 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.219.123[.]139 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.219.196[.]124 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.217[.]73 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.251[.]253 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.194[.]254 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.251[.]34 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 8.222.216[.]105 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 47.245.83[.]167 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 198.200.54[.]56 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 47.236.113[.]126 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • 47.241.47[.]128 - IP Address - Triada C2 Endpoint
  • /iyuljwdhxk - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /gvuhlbzknh - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /sqyjyadwwq - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /cncyz3 - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /42k0zk - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /75kdl5 - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /i8xps1 - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /84gcjmo - URI - Triada C2 URI
  • /fkhiwf - URI - Triada C2 URI

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Technique Name - Tactic - ID - Sub-Technique of

Data Obfuscation - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1001

Non-Standard Port - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1571

Standard Application Layer Protocol - COMMAND AND CONTROL ICS - T0869

Non-Application Layer Protocol - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1095

Masquerading - EVASION ICS - T0849

Man in the Browser - COLLECTION - T1185

Web Protocols - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 -T1071

External Proxy - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1090.002 - T1090

Domain Generation Algorithms - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1568.002 - T1568

Web Services - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1583.006 - T1583

DNS - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.004 - T1071

Fast Flux DNS - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1568.001 - T1568

One-Way Communication - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1102.003 - T1102

Digital Certificates - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1587.003 - T1587

References

[1] https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/cyber-security/what-is-trojan/what-is-a-banking-trojan/

[2] https://cyberfraudcentre.com/the-rise-of-the-antidot-android-banking-trojan-a-comprehensive-guide

[3] https://www.zimperium.com/glossary/banking-trojans/

[4] https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-is-triada-malware/

[5] https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/malware-infected-devices-retailers/

[6] https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/24926-triada-trojan-android

[7] https://securelist.com/malicious-whatsapp-mod-distributed-through-legitimate-apps/107690/

[8] https://securityboulevard.com/2024/02/impact-of-badbox-and-peachpit-malware-on-android-devices/

[9] https://threatpost.com/custom-whatsapp-build-malware/168892/

[10] https://securelist.com/triada-trojan-in-whatsapp-mod/103679/

[11] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/is5jg.3zweuj.com/relations

[12] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/92n7au.uhabq9.com/relations

[13] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/68u91.66foh90o.com/relations

Written by
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
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
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst

Botnet Behind the Camera: Mirai Katana Activity on a Video Recording Device

OT
•
September 2, 2026
Parvatha Ananthakannan
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
Network
•
August 6, 2026

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

A new UK AI Security Institute report shows autonomous AI agents independently developing novel attack chains, adapting when detected, and targeting humans and other AI systems. As agents become embedded across the enterprise, behavioral anomaly detection will be critical to securing the new attack surface they create.
Adam Stevens
Senior Director of Product
Read more
Network
•
July 27, 2026

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

Darktrace detected a multi-stage ransomware intrusion from its earliest stages, identifying reconnaissance, privilege escalation, lateral movement, command-and-control communications, and data exfiltration before encryption occurred. This analysis highlights how behavioral detection exposed attacker activity using legitimate tools and infrastructure, providing multiple opportunities for early intervention and containment.
Alexandra Evzona
Cyber Analyst
Read more
Network
•
July 1, 2026

9 Stages of Ransomware & How AI Responds

Discover the 9 stages of ransomware attacks and how AI responds at each stage. Learn how you can protect your business from cyber threats.
The Darktrace Community
Read more

Blog

/

AI

/

September 17, 2026

The Problem of Re-defining Human Value in the Agentic Age

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Newsfeeds are constantly informing us about the rapid escalation of agentic AI systems. These systems move far beyond simple machine-based computations, and  the focused, defined and bounded assistance that most AI systems started out as.

The next evolution of AI will harness the agentic properties of orchestration, automation, and heightened value-chains in IT, taking on the burden of workflow management, not just workflow delivery.

In nearly all of these instances, promises are made such as ‘this will free up human time’ or ‘this will allow people to focus on higher-order strategy’. However that message is delivered, one thing is clear: in ceding the orchestration and management of work to increasingly sophisticated AI agents and agentic systems, human value will be elevated to a particular and specific layer: the ability to judge its outputs.  As AI takes on more tasks, humans should be able to focus on a higher level of governance; making sure the decisions that AI offers us are ethical, responsible and worthwhile.  

But there are two major problems with that approach.

This blog discusses the problem of how Agentic systems are re-shaping how we review information, where we fit in, and when we make decisions.  It also discusses the problem of how the increased flow of confident, generated information affects the way we make judgement.  This blog considers how human judgement needs to adapt, and how a behavioral defense approach – using techniques pioneered by Darktrace – can help us do that.

The challenge of knowing where human judgement belongs

As we confer more automated decision-making to agentic systems, it might look increasingly less like ‘granting permissions’, and more like ‘surrendering authority’.  

The judgement layer for AI-generated work is not a fixed boundary. We have become used to the idea of a ‘human in the loop’ (HITL) and, historically, relationships between humans and IT systems were reasonably clear and bounded.  Computer and software systems were programmed to carry out certain tasks or automated functions, and humans could control the gates and decision points where actions were undertaken. Even across highly complex computational workflows, human interaction was a controllable node within the process; we were able to configure and regulate. But in the agentic age, where that human interaction sits, and what it can influence shifts every time AI systems are granted autonomy.  

This leads us to the first problem: if humans are moving themselves (or are being moved) into the ‘judgement’ part of the value chain, exactly where and when do we exercise that judgement?  

Humans are no longer the sole shepherds of computer-based or software-controlled outputs.  We are at times at least one step further (and slower) behind the new agentic shepherds.  We might also be blind to what they are doing.  Not only might we be removed and blind to the actions of our AI shepherds, but with the challenge of unknown, unapproved AI systems operating beyond our control, humans might not even know that our work is being shepherded by an AI at all.  Simply put, with the advent of greater levels of autonomy and orchestration, humans are at risk of not even knowing where to apply our newly-extended powers of strategic judgement.

Shadow AI – the use of unapproved AI systems or processes – is a growing threat to the role of effective governance and oversight. Shadow AI isn't just the AI you can't see. Its the AI you already know about being used in an unapproved way. The ability to generate effective oversight of the AI systems you use (or that are used on your behalf) will be increasingly important to ensure that human judgement in the AI value chain is effective, and deliberately placed.

The problem of what makes good judgement

The second problem lies in how flawed human judgement can be.  Humans are historically, notoriously, and, sometimes dangerously, unreliable when it comes to exercising judgement.  Humans are prone to the worst kinds of bias, the seduction of malign influence, and the sometimes-overwhelming urge to succeed. AI has long had a known flaw of operating with sycophancy, providing outputs that tend to agree with or flatter the human user.  But as AI grows ever more effective, there is a risk of both hyper-enablement (where humans increasingly and knowingly enable AI despite potential harm), as well as the greater risk of suggestion. Both of these aspects could skew the newly-elevated input of human judgement.

Imagine a highly competent AI system that has just orchestrated and managed a dizzying array of processes and workflows.  The AI is designed to present the human decision-maker with recommendations; based on analysis, comparison and other programmed factors.  This is where the human judgement layer is enabled.  But what if that judgement is summarily diffused by an AI-based recommendation that emulates the decision, provides plausible but unattractive alternatives, then suggests (or, worse, directs) the human end-user to take a particular course of action.

The risk here is that you are given a recommendation, tailored to your preferences (which the AI has learned, or which you have divulged), and which appears to make perfect sense.  It appears to be a well-weighted recommendation, with sound arguments that tap into our inherent biases or inclinations so that a specific decision-path is followed. With the growth of agentic systems specifically designed to match user profiles (from Cowork agents to ‘digital twin’ models), the likelihood of agentic influence could badly skew human judgement or, at the least, devalue the proposition that humans are taking a higher-layer of strategic control over AI-based decisions.

If AI convincingly recommends something that may be problematic, it can be difficult to discern both accurate data, and the context required to make the right judgement.

Given the two problems described above, the job of exercising valuable human judgement in the agentic age can draw down to these two questions:

  • When should humans intervene in the agentic process?  
  • How can we make the best possible judgement calls?

What humans contribute that AI cannot

For all the flaws that make human judgement unreliable, people have the edge over even the most sophisticated and powerful AI systems when it comes to issues such as ethics and social context.  An AI system can, with startling granularity, rank the value of adopting a new business proposal: offering predictive metrics on costs, returns, market value, time-to-deliver operations, conformance with legal registers, etc.  But it can’t tell if the business proposal is ethically sound, or if the business venture will potentially affect groups outside of the analyzed proposal. It can’t tell you if the CEO has a ‘bad feeling’ about this effort.  It can’t tell you if this is the right thing to do.  

The ability to add social context, balance complex interpersonal dynamics, understand nuance, and to go beyond what seems economically reasonable is where human judgement can add value.  

Human judgement is difficult to encapsulate in metrics. And the way we train our development may need to adapt too. Rather than building up a gradual, experiential knowledge base, we should think about training the skill of judgement itself; especially for an agentic age.

How behavioral security strengthens AI governance

If this all feels like a vicious circle (‘I need AI help to make good judgements’ / ‘AI can twist what I need to judge’) it needn’t be. The key to this is having a defense-in-depth approach, with tools that can actually help.

This is precisely where behavioral security becomes important. The complex and nuanced way that humans exercise judgement is often rooted in our ability to recognize behavior that doesn't look right. We may not always be able to articulate it immediately, but we can often identify when an action, recommendation, or outcome feels inconsistent with the context around it. As AI systems take on more responsibility across the decision chain, preserving that ability to recognize meaningful deviations becomes increasingly important.

Darktrace’s / SECURE AI is designed to do exactly that. It applies behavioral security to AI ecosystems, helping organizations understand how people, AI tools, identities, and agents interact across the business. By learning the patterns of normal AI usage and surfacing activity that deviates from those patterns, it provides security teams with the context needed to investigate risk, understand unusual behavior, and make informed governance decisions. Rather than relying solely on predefined rules or assumptions, this behavioral understanding helps organizations distinguish between expected AI activity and behavior that warrants closer scrutiny.

This matters because we are already in an era of information overload. If humans are expected to elevate their value through strategic judgement, the ability to do this without being overwhelmed by data (good or bad) will be critical.  

We need the ability to discern when we're being misled by AI, and whether our judgement calls are being made on the basis of accurate, contextual information. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides that additional layer of defensive security for activity we cannot easily see. Whether it is suspected Shadow AI or skewed recommendations, the net result is a protected organization, where users can more effectively use AI to make positive judgements.

For those where that judgement is a critical skill (both individuals, as well as those working in security teams), improving our metacognition - the ability to understand information in a broader context - will supercharge the value of human judgement. When those judgements are grounded in context rather than assumptions we have better information to make sound decisions.

Conclusion

Human judgement is a skill that is honed over time and experience.  Darktrace’s / SECURE AI employs the same principles, but at machine-speed. Rather than influencing or directing, Darktrace / SECURE AI offers AI-enabled assurance; providing human-based judgement with the right context to make a balanced decision.  

What we judge can be valued by the legitimacy of its outputs. For AI, those outputs are valued on the speed and accuracy of the information provided.  Increasingly for humans, the value of our outputs will be based on the validity of our judgement, and how we justify our decisions in ways that engineer confidence.  

Humans often know more than we can express, while AI is prone to expressing more than it truly understands. Humans can bridge the context AI often fails to appreciate. When that judgement is supported by relevant, impartial AI systems, this is the future space where good AI governance will be exercised.

‍

Discover Darktrace / SECURE AI.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jason Lusted
AI Governance Advisor

Blog

/

AI

/

September 4, 2026

Darktrace Advances Incident Investigation and AI-Agent Security with OpenAI Daybreak Models

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Earlier this year, Darktrace joined OpenAI’s Daybreak Defense Network to explore how their cyber capabilities can be integrated within Darktrace products and services to transform how security teams move from signal to action.

At the heart of this work is Darktrace's behavioral understanding of customer environments and identification of complex security incidents, combined with OpenAI models that can add context to help explain why an incident matters and its potential impact on the business. By bringing these capabilities into defensive workflows security teams already use, the goal is to give defenders not just greater visibility, but the context and guidance they need to act with confidence.

Since joining the program, we've been working with OpenAI to explore how these capabilities can address specific security challenges for defenders.

The problem we're solving

Attackers continue to change how they operate, including by using AI to increase the speed and scale of some techniques. Security teams are already managing a large volume of alerts, and the question isn't just what's happening, but how it could affect the organization. Even when an incident is fully investigated and correlated, technical severity alone doesn't tell a security team how much it actually matters to the business. That same challenge extends to internal AI adoption. As organizations adopt more AI systems and agents, security teams need visibility into their behavior, access and activity, along with the broader business context needed to identify and investigate potential risk.

Darktrace's Adaptive AI™ builds a detailed, organization-specific picture of what's normal for each environment, and uses that picture to investigate threats and identify complex security activity across domains. OpenAI's models can build on Darktrace's correlated, technically prioritized incidents by adding context that can help defenders understand what may be at stake.

What we're building

Our work is focused on two areas: supporting security investigation and response, and helping defenders identify risky behavior across enterprise AI systems and agents.

The first aligns Darktrace's behavioral understanding with OpenAI models to support  security investigation and prioritization. Darktrace's Adaptive AI continuously learns the unique patterns of normal behavior within each customer it protects, creating a deep, organization-specific understanding of its digital estate. When unusual activity emerges, OpenAI's models can draw on that context to help analysts investigate the incident, understand its significance and assess potential business consequences — reducing the need to manually assemble context from fragmented signals.

Second, we are exploring how these capabilities can support AI-agent and runtime security through Darktrace / SECURE AI™. OpenAI’s Daybreak models can build on the detections and visibility Darktrace / SECURE AI provides, connecting signals across a customer's environment and help defenders identify potentially risky behavior involving AI systems and agents. Activity that might appear isolated can instead be connected with related signals, helping defenders investigate the broader context and determine appropriate remediation.

Darktrace brings deep cybersecurity expertise, an evolving understanding of each customer's environment, and AI-driven identification of threats across the digital estate. Through the Daybreak Defense Network, Darktrace is exploring how OpenAI models can augment those capabilities in defensive security workflows — supporting incident investigation and response and improving visibility into AI-agent and runtime risk.

These capabilities are still in development, and we're excited to continue building on this work.

To learn more about how Darktrace continues to innovate to meet today's most pressing security challenges, register for our upcoming launch broadcast here.

Continue reading
About the author
Dr. Tim Bazalgette
Chief AI Officer, Darktrace
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI