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.
No items found.
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.
No items found.
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

No items found.
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.
No items found.

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
How Empowering End Users can Improve Your Email Security and Decrease the Burden on the SOC
May 8, 2024
3
Elevating Network Security: Confronting Trust, Ransomware, & Novel Attacks
Jun 21, 2024
4
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners
Apr 9, 2024
5
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
May 13, 2024

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.
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

/

/

July 1, 2026

5 Ways AI is changing traditional security models according to modern CISOs

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The Reality of Securing AI in Motion

Traditional security tools were built for environments defined by fixed rules and predictable workflows. But AI behavior is non-deterministic. The same prompt can produce different outcomes, and risk often emerges gradually as AI behavior adapts, and permissions drift over time. This creates a constantly shifting environment where security teams are working to define control in a system that resists stability. “In AI security, yesterday's priorities can become tomorrow's blind spots. The landscape shifts that fast,” warned the SVP and Head of Technology and Cybersecurity of a real estate investment trust. Conventional approaches, which rely on establishing and maintaining a steady baseline, struggle to keep up with that level of change.

At the same time, AI adoption is accelerating across organizations, often faster than security teams can implement the controls needed to manage it. “The car is being built while it’s already on the road,” explained the CISO of a global private fund administrator. “The threats we're securing against today won't be the threats we're facing tomorrow. What kept us up three months ago looks nothing like what we're dealing with today.”

As businesses move quickly to unlock value from AI, security teams are left closing gaps in real time, while also facing adversaries who are using AI to make their attacks more scalable, adaptive, and difficult to detect. In this recent roundtable discussion of CISOs and security leaders, five themes emerged around AI cyber risk.  

1. AI agents with human access but no human judgment

In Darktrace’s 2026 State of AI Cybersecurity report, 96% of the surveyed security professionals agree that AI significantly improves the speed and efficiency with which they work. Yet, 92% admitted that they’re concerned with the security implications of the use of AI agents across their workforce.

AI agents now operate with human-level permissions across systems, acting at machine speed, orchestrating actions across platforms, and making decisions without the judgment or caution a person would apply. Unlike human users, they cannot be expected to pause and question whether a given action is appropriate.

Their identities are also difficult to inventory, govern, and audit. As agents become easier to deploy than legacy IT systems ever were, organizations are quickly losing track of what is running, what it has access to, and what it is doing. This creates a growing class of highly privileged, autonomous actors operating without the visibility or oversight that traditional identity and access controls were designed to provide.“While AI adoption is critical to running a modern business, AI alone can’t solve all our cybersecurity challenges,” said a global financial sector CISO. “We still need think critically and use human judgement. Those are two things AI can’t do.”

This lack of human judgment becomes especially risky as new architectures, such as Model Context Protocol (MCP), can expand how agents connect to data, tools, and external systems. By design, MCP enables agents to dynamically discover and interact with new resources, increasing flexibility but also introducing new pathways for unintended access, data exposure, or abuse if not properly governed.

The CISO of a fund administrator highlighted one emerging vector as an example: rogue MCP servers. “Our developers want to move quickly and bring value to the business, but technologies like these can unintentionally expose sensitive data in ways that would never have happened before.”

2. Increased digital complexity and expanded attack surface

AI activity rarely stays contained. A single prompt can trigger a chain of actions across networks, email, cloud infrastructure, SaaS platforms, endpoints, identity systems, and development environments, spanning systems that were never designed to be secured as a single, connected flow. This expands both the scale and complexity of what security teams need to monitor and defend.

Yet no single control has visibility across that entire chain. “You can’t defend effectively what you can’t see,” cautioned the private fund administrator CISO. As AI-driven activity moves fluidly across environments, gaps in coverage become inevitable, creating blind spots that attackers can exploit.

Threat actors are already capitalizing on this lack of visibility. “Threat actors have advanced their use of generative AI to launch more convincing phishing campaigns, automate social engineering, and scale attacks with greater precision down to the individual level,” said the SVP of Technology and Cybersecurity for the real estate investment trust. What was once manual and targeted can now be automated and personalized at scale, making attacks harder to detect and easier to execute.

At the same time, the pace of exploitation is accelerating. As a global CISO operating across 40+ countries described it: “Zero-day vulnerabilities are no longer zero day; it’s minus one day. By the time you get to it and address it, it’s already a problem.” By the time risk is identified, it has often already been realized.

The result is a rapidly expanding and increasingly interconnected attack surface that challenges security teams to maintain visibility, context, and control across AI-driven activity.

3. Shadow AI is already everywhere

76% of organizations now cite shadow AI as a problem, one that is spreading through organizations in ways that are hard to track and even harder to control.

Employees are experimenting with publicly available Gen AI tools. Teams are spinning up low-code automations on their own. SaaS providers are quietly embedding AI into existing products. Developers are plugging AI services directly into workflows, often without pausing to consider what that exposure means.

The result is a lack of visibility into:

  • What AI tools are being used
  • What data those tools can access
  • Where prompts and outputs are going
  • Which AI agents are interacting with enterprise systems

The SVP of Cybersecurity at a real estate investment trust described the shift: “Before, I was worried about someone sending data erroneously to their personal email. Now we have all these agents online that people are utilizing, and we’re looking at those vectors as well.” For security teams, this means operating without a complete view of how AI is being used, what it can access, and where risk may already be emerging.

4. Built-in guardrails are not enough

Organizations often assume that native AI guardrails or provider-level controls are sufficient to manage AI risk. But securing AI requires ongoing visibility, oversight, and governance, not just controls configured at deployment. "It’s a misconception that adopting AI is going to solve all your problems,” warns a global financial services CISO.

Security leaders are increasingly recognizing the limitations of these controls as:

  • Fragmented and difficult to enforce consistently across multiple AI systems, workflows, and environments
  • Ambiguous in terms of accountability due to shared responsibility for AI governance between IT, security, developers, business teams, and third-party providers
  • Limited in end-to-end oversight, leaving gaps that stretch from the initial prompt all the way through to the downstream impact of an agent's actions

Securing AI demands more than simple prompt filtering or static policy enforcement. It requires understanding intent, behavior, and context across both human and AI activity.

The next phase of cybersecurity: securing AI

To safely and responsibly adopt AI at scale, organizations need a new operational model for cybersecurity that’s capable of:

• Understanding AI behavior

• Identifying risk in real time

• Maintaining governance without slowing innovation

The CSO of a $10 billion municipal utility organization described the challenge with precision: “We have to move at the speed of innovation and risk, because both are accelerating faster than ever.”

Embrace AI with confidence with Darktrace / SECURE AI

Darktrace has introduced Darktrace / SECURE AI™, a new product within the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™  ,designed to provide enterprise-wide security for AI by applying industry leading behavioral analysis to how prompts, agents, and AI systems are used.

Darktrace / SECURE AITM delivers real-time visibility and control across Enterprise and SaaS GenAI prompts, AI agent identities, development and production environments, and Shadow AI - detecting even subtle misuse, misconfiguration, and drift that traditional, rule-based controls simply do not understand. By interpreting context and intent across humans and machines, Darktrace enables organizations to adopt AI at scale without introducing unmanaged risk

What makes this possible is Darktrace’s decade-long maturity and expertise in behavioral understanding and AI-native cybersecurity. Achieved with Self-Learning AI that has been proven across more than 10,000 organizations, Darktrace understands what “normal” looks like for a business, across its users, systems, and now AI, so that meaningful deviations can be detected and acted on before they become incidents.

With one CISO describing Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI as “a leap forward compared to other tools” and another as a “force multiplier,” the technology can interpret ambiguous interactions, understand how access accumulates over time, and recognize when behavior, human or machine, begins to drift.

“Strategically, we’re looking to gain more visibility into how AI is operating across the environment and achieve greater control over what AI should be allowed to access and do,” shared the CISO at a private fund administrator.  

“What I’ve seen from Darktrace / SECURE AI is extremely promising. I have tremendous confidence in Darktrace’s vision for where this is headed and its ability to execute on this new solution.”

‍

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community

Blog

/

Email

/

June 29, 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
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI