Blog
/
Network
/
August 2, 2023

Darktrace's Detection of Ransomware & Syssphinx

Read how Darktrace identified an attack technique by the threat group, Syssphinx. Learn how Darktrace's quick identification process can spot a threat.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Adam Potter
Senior Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
02
Aug 2023

Introduction

As the threat of costly cyber-attacks continues represent a real concern to security teams across the threat landscape, more and more organizations are strengthening their defenses with additional security tools to identify attacks and protect their networks. As a result, malicious actors are being forced to adapt their tactics, modify existing variants of malicious software, or utilize entirely new variants.  

Symantec recently released an article about Syssphinx, the financially motivated cyber threat group previously known for their point-of-sale attacks. Syssphinx attempts to deploy ransomware on customer networks via a modified version of their ‘Sardonic’ backdoor. Such activity highlights the ability of threat actors to alter the composition and presentation of payloads, tools, and tactics.

Darktrace recently detected some of the same indicators suggesting a likely Syssphinx compromise within the network of a customer trialing the Darktrace DETECT™ and RESPOND™ products. Despite the potential for variations in the construction of backdoors and payloads used by the group, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allowed it to stitch together a detailed account of compromise activity and identify the malicious activity prior to disruptive events on the customer’s network.

What is Syssphinx?

Syssphinx is a notorious cyber threat entity known for its financially motivated compromises.  Also referred to as FIN8, Syssphinx has been observed as early as 2016 and is largely known to target private sector entities in the retail, hospitality, insurance, IT, and financial sectors.[1]

Although Syssphinx primarily began focusing on point-of-sale style attacks, the activity associated with the group has more recently incorporated ransomware variants into their intrusions in a potential bid to further extract funds from target organizations.[2]

Syssphinx Sardonic Backdoor

Given this gradual opportunistic incorporation of ransomware, it should not be surprising that Syssphinx has slowly expanded its repertoire of tools.  When primarily performing point-of-sale compromises, the group was known for its use of point-of-sale specific malwares including BadHatch, PoSlurp/PunchTrack, and PowerSniff/PunchBuggy/ShellTea.[3]

However, in a seeming response to updates in detection systems while using previous indicators of compromise (IoCs), Syssphinx began to modify its BadHatch malware.  This resulted in the use of a C++ derived backdoor known as “Sardonic”, which has the ability to aggregate host credentials, spawn additional command sessions, and deliver payloads to compromised devices via dynamic-link library (DLL).[4],[5]

Analysis of the latest version of Sardonic reveals further changes to the malware to elude detection. These shifts include the implementation of the backdoor in the C programming language, and additional over-the-network communication obfuscation techniques. [6]

During the post-exploitation phase, the group tends to rely on “living-off-the-land” tactics, whereby an attacker utilizes tools already present within the organization’s digital environment to avoid detection. Syssphinx seems to utilize system-native tools such as PowerShell and the Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) interface.[7] It is also not uncommon to see Windows-based vulnerability exploits employed on compromised devices. This has been observed by researchers who have examined previous iterations of Syssphinx backdoors.[8] Syssphinx also appears to exhibit elements of strategic patience and discipline in its operations, with significant time gaps in operations noted by researchers. During this time, it appears likely that updates and tweaks were applied to Syssphinx payloads.

Compromise Details

In late April 2023, Darktrace identified an active compromise on the network of a prospective customer who was trialing Darktrace DETECT+RESPOND. The customer, a retailer in EMEA with hundreds of tracked devices, reached out to the Darktrace Analyst team via the Ask the Expert (ATE) service for support and further investigation, following the encryption of their server and backup data storage in an apparent ransomware attack. Although the encryption events fell outside Darktrace’s purview due to a limited set up of trial appliances, Darktrace was able to directly track early stages of the compromise before exfiltration and encryption events began. If a full deployment had been set up and RESPOND functionality had been configured in autonomous response mode, Darktrace may have helped mitigate such encryption events and would have aided in the early identification of this ransomware attack.

Initial Intrusion and Establishment of Command and Control (C2) Infrastructure

As noted by security researchers, Syssphinx largely relies on social engineering and phishing emails to deliver its backdoor payloads. As there were no Darktrace/Email™ products deployed for this customer, it would be difficult to directly observe the exact time and manner of initial payload delivery related to this compromise. This is compounded by the fact that the customer had only recently began using Darktrace’s products during their trial period. Given the penchant for patience and delay by Syssphinx, it is possible that the intrusion began well before Darktrace had visibility of the organization’s network.

However, beginning on April 30, 2023, at 07:17:31 UTC, Darktrace observed the domain controller dc01.corp.XXXX  making repeated SSL connections to the endpoint 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. In addition to the multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags for this endpoint, the construction of the domain parallels that of the initial domain used to deliver a backdoor, as noted by Symantec in their analysis (37-10-71-215[.]nip[.]io). This activity likely represented the initial beaconing being performed by the compromised device. Additionally, an elevated level of incoming external data over port 443 was observed during this time, which may be associated with the delivery of the Sardonic backdoor payload. Given the unusual use of port 443 to perform SSH connections later seen in the kill chain of this attack, this activity could also parallel the employment of embedded backdoor payloads seen in the latest iteration of the Sardonic backdoor noted by Symantec.

Figure 1: Graph of the incoming external data surrounding the time of the initial establishment of command and control communication for the domain controller. As seen in the graph, the spike in incoming external data during this time may parallel the delivery of Syssphinx Sardonic backdoor.

Regardless, the domain controller proceeded to make repeated connections over port 443 to the noted domain.

Figure 2: Breach event log for the domain controller making repeated connections over port 443 to the rare external destination endpoint in constitute the establishment of C2 communication.

Internal Reconnaissance/Privilege Escalation

Following the establishment of C2 communication, Darktrace detected numerous elements of internal reconnaissance. On Apr 30, 2023, at 22:06:26 UTC, the desktop device desktop_02.corp.XXXX proceeded to perform more than 100 DRSGetNCChanges requests to the aforementioned domain controller. These commands, which are typically implemented over the RPC protocol on the DRSUAPI interface, are frequently utilized in Active Directory sync attacks to copy Active Directory information from domain controllers. Such activity, when not performed by new domain controllers to sync Active Directory contents, can indicate malicious domain or user enumeration, credential compromise or Active Directory enumeration.

Although the affected device made these requests to the previously noted domain controller, which was already compromised, such activity may have further enabled the compromise by allowing the threat actor to transfer these details to a more easily manageable device.

The device performing these DRSGetNCChanges requests would later be seen performing lateral movement activity and making connections to malicious endpoints.

Figure 3: Breach log highlighting the DRS operations performed by the corporate device to the destination domain controller. Such activity is rarely authorized for devices not tagged as administrative or as domain controllers.

Execution and Lateral Movement

At 23:09:53 UTC on April 30, 2023, the original domain server proceeded to make multiple uncommon WMI calls to a destination server on the same subnet (server01.corp.XXXX). Specifically, the device was observed making multiple RPC calls to IWbem endpoints on the server, which included login and ExecMethod (method execution) commands on the destination device. This destination device later proceeded to conduct additional beaconing activity to C2 endpoints and exfiltrate data.

Figure 4: Breach log for the domain controller performing WMI commands to the destination server during the lateral movement phase of the breach.

Similarly, beginning on May 1, 2023, at 00:11:09 UTC, the device desktop_02.corp.XXXX made multiple WMI requests to two additional devices, one server and one desktop, within the same subnet as the original domain controller. During this time, desktop_02.corp.XXXX  also utilized SMBv1, an outdated and typically non-compliant version communication protocol, to write the file rclone.exe to the same two destination devices. Rclone.exe, and its accompanying bat file, is a command-line tool developed by IT provider Rclone, to perform file management tasks. During this time, Darktrace also observed the device reading and deleting an unexpected numeric file on the ADMIN$ of the destination server, which may represent additional defense evasion techniques and tool staging.

Figure 5: Event log highlighting the writing of rclone.exe using the outdated SMBv1 communication protocol.
Figure 6: SMB logs indicating the reading and deletion of numeric string files on ADMIN$ shares of the destination devices during the time of the rclone.exe SMB writes. Such activity may be associated with tool staging and could indicate potential defense evasion techniques.

Given that the net loader sample analyzed by Symantec injects the backdoor into a WmiPrvSE.exe process, the use of WMI operations is not unexpected. Employment of WMI also correlates with the previously mentioned “living-off-the-land” tactics, as WMI services are commonly used for regular network and system administration purposes. Moreover, the staging of rclone.exe, a legitimate file management tool, for data exfiltration underscores attempts to blend into existing and expected network traffic and remain undetected on the customer’s network.

Data Exfiltration and Impact

Initial stages of data exfiltration actually began prior to some of the lateral movement events described above. On April 30, 2023, 23:09:47 the device server01.corp.XXXX, transferred nearly 11 GB of data to 173.44[.]141[.]47, as well as to the rare external IP address 170.130[.]55[.]77, which appears to have served as the main exfiltration destination during this compromise. Furthermore, the host made repeated connections to the same external IP associated with the initial suspicious beaconing activity (173.44[.]141[.]47) over SSL.

While the data exfiltration event unfolded, the device, server01.corp.XXXX, made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215, which featured URIs requesting the rclone.exe and rclone.bat files. This IP address was directly involved in the sample analyzed by Symantec. Furthermore, one of the devices that received the SMB file writes of rclone.exe and the WMI commands from desktop_02.corp.XXXX also performed SSL beaconing to endpoints associated with the compromise.

Between 01:20:45 - 03:31:41 UTC on May 1, 2023, a Darktrace detected a series of devices on the network performing a repeated pattern of activity, namely external connectivity followed by suspicious file downloads and external data transfer operations. Specifically, each affected device made multiple HTTP requests to 37.10[.]71[.]215 for rclone files. The devices proceeded to download the executable and/or binary files, and then transfer large amounts of data to the aforementioned endpoints, 170.130[.]55[.]77 and or 173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io. Although the devices involved in data exfiltration utilized port 443 as a destination port, the connections actually used the SSH protocol. Darktrace recognized this behavior as unusual as port 443 is typically associated with the SSL protocol, while port 22 is reserved for SSH. Therefore, this activity may represent the threat actor’s attempts to remain undetected by security tools.

This unexpected use of SSH over port 443 also correlates with the descriptions of the new Sardonic backdoor according to threat researchers. Further beaconing and exfiltration activity was performed by an additional host one day later whereby the device made suspicious repeated connections to the aforementioned external hosts.

Figure 7: Connection details highlighting the use of port 443 for SSH connections during the exfiltration events.

In total, nine separate devices were involved in this pattern of activity. Five of these devices were labeled as ‘administrative’ devices according to their hostnames. Over the course of the entire exfiltration event, the attackers exfiltrated almost 61 GB of data from the organization’s environment.

Figure 8: Graph showing the levels of external data transfer from a breach device for one day on either side of the breach time. There is a large spike in such activity during the time of the breach that underscores the exfiltration events.

In addition to the individual anomaly detections by DETECT, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ launched an autonomous investigation into the unusual behavior carried out by affected devices, connecting and collating multiple security events into one AI Analyst Incident. AI Analyst ensures that Darktrace can recognize and link the individual steps of a wider attack, rather than just identifying isolated incidents. While traditional security tools may mistake individual breaches as standalone activity, Darktrace’s AI allows it to provide unparalleled visibility over emerging attacks and their kill chains. Furthermore, Cyber AI Analyst’s instant autonomous investigations help to save customer security teams invaluable time in triaging incidents in comparison with human teams who would have to commit precious time and resources to conduct similar pattern analysis.

In this specific case, AI Analyst identified 44 separate security events from 18 different devices and was able to tie them together into one incident. The events that made up this AI Analyst Incident included:

  • Possible SSL Command and Control
  • Possible HTTP Command and Control
  • Unusual Repeated Connections
  • Suspicious Directory Replication ServiceActivity
  • Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity
  • SMB Write of Suspicious File
  • Suspicious File Download
  • Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Unusual External Data Transfer to MultipleRelated Endpoints
Figure 9: Cyber AI Incident log highlighting multiple unusual anomalies and connecting them into one incident.

Had Darktrace RESPOND been enabled in autonomous response mode on the network of this prospective customer, it would have been able to take rapid mitigative action to block the malicious external connections used for C2 communication and subsequent data exfiltration, ideally halting the attack at this stage. As previously discussed, the limited network configuration of this trial customer meant that the encryption events unfortunately took place outside of Darktrace’s scope. When fully configured on a customer environment, Darktrace DETECT can identify such encryption attempts as soon as they occur. Darktrace RESPOND, in turn, would be able to immediately intervene by applying preventative actions like blocking internal connections that may represent file encryption, or limiting potentially compromised devices to a previously established pattern of life, ensuring they cannot carry out any suspicious activity.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations posed by the customer’s trial configuration, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect malicious activity associated with Syssphinx and track it across multiple stages of the kill chain.

Darktrace’s ability to identify the early stages of a compromise and various steps of the kill chain, highlights the necessity for machine learning-enabled, anomaly-based detection. In the face of threats such as Syssphinx, that exhibit the propensity to recast backdoor payloads and incorporate on “living-off-the-land” tactics, signatures and rules-based detection may not prove as effective. While Syssphinx and other threat groups will continue to adopt new tools, methods, and techniques, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is uniquely positioned to meet the challenge of such threats.

Appendix

DETECT Model Breaches Observed

•      Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

•      Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation

•      Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

•      Compliance / SMB Drive Write

•      Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain

•      Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

•      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

•      Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints

•      Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

•      Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity

•      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

•      Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

•      Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

•      Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

‍

AI Analyst Incidents Observed

•      Possible SSL Command and Control

•      Possible HTTP Command and Control

•      Unusual Repeated Connections

•      Suspicious Directory Replication Service Activity

•      Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

•      SMB Write of Suspicious File

•      Suspicious File Download

•      Unusual External Data Transfer

•      Unusual External Data Transfer to Multiple Related Endpoints

IoCs

IoC - Type - Description

37.10[.]71[.]215 – IP – C2 + payload endpoint

173-44-141-47[.]nip[.]io – Hostname – C2 – payload

173.44[.]141[.]47 – IP – C2 + potential payload

170.130[.]55[.]77 – IP – Data exfiltration endpoint

Rclone.exe – Exe File – Common data tool

Rclone.bat – Script file – Common data tool

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Command and Control

T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

T1071.001 – Web protocols

T1573 – Encrypted channels

T1573.001 – Symmetric encryption

T1573.002 – Asymmetric encryption

T1571 – Non-standard port

T1105 – Ingress tool transfer

Execution

T1047 – Windows Management Instrumentation

Credential Access‍

T1003 – OS Credential Dumping

T1003.006 – DCSync

Lateral Movement

T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer

T1021 - Remote Services

T1021.002 - SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021.006 – Windows Remote Management

Exfiltration

T1048 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol

T1048.001 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Symmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

References

[1] https://cyberscoop.com/syssphinx-cybercrime-ransomware/

[2] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[3] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fin8-deploys-alphv-ransomware-using-sardonic-malware-variant/

[4] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[5] https://thehackernews.com/2023/07/fin8-group-using-modified-sardonic.html

[6] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[7] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/Syssphinx-FIN8-backdoor

[8] https://www.mandiant.com/resources/blog/windows-zero-day-payment-cards

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

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Network
•
May 14, 2026
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Darktrace Recognized as the Only Visionary in the 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for CPS Protection Platforms
Mar 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
Network
•
May 19, 2026

When Open Source Is Weaponized: Analysis of a Trojanized 7 Zip Installer

Attackers abused a trojanized 7‑Zip installer distributed via a typo‑squatted domain to establish proxyware infections worldwide. This blog analyzes how social engineering, trusted open‑source software, and stealthy command‑and‑control activity enabled widespread compromise, highlighting the importance of software validation, user awareness, and proactive network‑level detection.
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
Read more
Network
•
May 14, 2026

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Darktrace researchers identified a Twill Typhoon–linked China‑nexus campaign targeting APJ customers. The activity observed includes CDN impersonation, legitimate binaries, and DLL sideloading to deploy a modular .NET RAT.
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Read more
Network
•
May 5, 2026

When Trust Becomes the Attack Surface: Supply-Chain Attacks in an Era of Automation and Implicit Trust

Software supply-chain attacks dominate the threat landscape in 2026, as adversaries exploit trusted build systems, CI/CD pipelines, and management tools to gain access to target environments. This blog examines Axios, Trivy and Quest Kace compromises observed in the Darktrace customer base, highlighting the need for anomaly detection, assumed breach and continuous visibility.
Nathaniel Jones
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
Read more

Blog

/

/

May 21, 2026

Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches

prompt securityDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How enterprise AI Agents are changing the risk landscape  

Generative AI Agents are changing the way work gets done inside enterprises, and subsequently how security risks may emerge. Organizations have quickly realized that providing these agents with wider access to tooling, internal information, and granting permissions for the agent to perform autonomous actions can greatly increase the efficiency of employee workflows.

Early deployments of Generative AI systems led many organizations to scope individual components as self-contained applications: a chat interface, a model, and a prompt, with guardrails placed at the boundary. Research from Gartner has shown that while the volume and scope of Agentic AI deployments in enterprise environments is rapidly accelerating, many of the mechanisms required to manage risk, trust, and cost are still maturing.

The issue now resides on whether an agent can be influenced, misdirected, or manipulated in ways that leads to unsafe behavior across a broader system.

Why prompt security matters in enterprise AI

Prompt security matters in enterprise AI because prompts are the primary way users and systems interact with Agentic AI models, making them one of the earliest and most visible indicators of how these systems are being used and where risk may emerge.

For security teams, prompt monitoring is a logical starting point for understanding enterprise AI usage, providing insight into what types of questions are being asked and tasks are being given to AI Agents, how these systems are being guided, and whether interactions align with expected behavior. Complete prompt security takes this one step further, filtering out or blocking sensitive or dangerous content to prevent risks like prompt injection and data leakage.

However, visibility only at the prompt layer can create a false sense of security. Prompts show what was asked, but not always why it was asked, or what downstream actions were triggered by the agent across connected systems, data sources, or applications.

What prompt security reveals  

The primary function of prompt security is to minimize risks associated with generative and agentic AI use, but monitoring and analysis of prompts can also grant insight into use cases for particular agents and model. With comprehensive prompt security, security teams should be able to answer the following questions for each prompt:

  • What task was the user attempting to complete?
  • What data was included in the request, and was any of the data high-risk or confidential?
  • Was the interaction high-risk, potentially malicious, or in violation of company policy?
  • Was the prompt anomalous (in comparison to previous prompts sent to the agent / model)?

Improving visibility at this layer is a necessary first step, allowing organizations to establish a baseline for how AI systems are being used and where potential risks may exist.  

Prompt security alone does not provide a complete view of risk. Further data is needed to understand how the prompt is interpreted, how context is applied, what autonomous actions the agent takes (if any), or what downstream systems are affected. Understanding the outcome of a query is just as important for complete prompt security as understanding the input prompt itself – for example, a perfectly normal, low-risk prompt may inadvertently result in an agent taking a high-risk action.

Comprehensive AI security systems like Darktrace / SECURE AI can monitor and analyze both the prompt submitted to a Generative AI system, as well as the responses and chain-of-thought of the system, providing greater insight into the behavior of the system. Darktrace / SECURE AI builds on the core Darktrace methodology, learning the expected behaviors of your organization and identifying deviations from the expected pattern of life.

How organizations address prompt security today

As prompt-level visibility has become a focus, a range of approaches have emerged to make this activity more observable and controllable. Various monitoring and logging tools aim to capture prompt inputs to be analyzed after the fact.  

Input validation and filtering systems attempt to intervene earlier, inspecting prompts before they reach the model. These controls look for known jailbreak patterns, language indicative of adversarial attacks, or ambiguous instructions which could push the system off course.

Importantly, for a prompt security solution to be accurate and effective, prompts must be continually observed and governed, rather than treated as a point-in-time snapshot.  

Where prompt security breaks down in real environments

In more complex environments, especially those involving multiple agents or extensive tool use, AI security becomes harder to define and control.

Agent-to-Agent communications can be harder to monitor and trace as these happen without direct user interaction. Communication between agents can create routes for potential context leakage between agents, unintentional privilege escalation, or even data leakage from a higher privileged agent to a lower privileged one.

Risk is shaped not just by what is asked, but by the conditions in which that prompt operates and the actions an agent takes. Controls at the orchestration layer are starting to reflect this reality. Techniques such as context isolation, scoped memory, and role-based boundaries aim to limit how far a prompt’s influence can extend.  

Furthermore, Shadow AI usage can be difficult to monitor. AI systems that are deployed outside of formal governance structures and Generative AI systems hosted on unknown endpoints can fly under the radar and can go unseen by monitoring tools, leaving a critical opening where adversarial prompts may go undetected. Darktrace / SECURE AI features comprehensive detection of Shadow AI usage, helping organizations identify potential risk areas.

How prompt security fits in a broader AI risk model

Prompt security is an important starting point, but it is not a complete security strategy. As AI systems become more integrated into enterprise environments, the risks extend to what resources the system can access, how it interprets context, and what actions it is allowed to take across connected tools and workflows.

This creates a gap between visibility and control. Prompt security alone allows security teams to observe prompt activity but falls short of creating a clear understanding of how that activity translates into real-world impact across the organization.

Closing that gap requires a broader approach, one that connects signals across human and AI agent identities, SaaS, cloud, and endpoint environments. It means understanding not just how an AI system is being used, but how that usage interacts with the rest of the digital estate.

Prompt security, in that sense, is less of a standalone solution and more of an entry point into a larger problem: securing AI across the enterprise as a whole.

‍

Explore how Darktrace / SECURE AI brings prompt security to enterprises

Darktrace brings more than a decade of AI expertise, built on an enterprise‑wide platform designed to operate in and understand the behaviors of the complex, ambiguous environments where today’s AI now lives. With Darktrace / SECURE AI, enterprises can safely adopt, manage, monitor, and build AI within their business.  

Learn about Darktrace / SECURE AI here.

Sign up today to stay informed about innovations across securing AI.

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jamie Bali
Technical Author (AI) Developer

Blog

/

OT

/

May 21, 2026

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

data center scurityDefault blog imageDefault blog image

What is data center cybersecurity?

Much of the conversation surrounding the data center boom has focused on power generation, cooling efficiency and water resources, construction, and compute capacity. In addition, cybersecurity has quietly become one of the most critical operational concerns as modern data centers are becoming some of the most operationally complex networked environments.

The more connected data center environments become, the larger and more dynamic their attack surface grows. What makes data center security particularly challenging is that they no longer resemble traditional enterprise IT environments alone. Instead, they operate like critical infrastructure facilities

Challenges of securing data centers

What makes these environments complicated is that the technologies responsible for keeping them operational: power distribution, cooling systems, airflow management, environmental controls, surveillance, and physical access management, all rely heavily on Operational Technology (OT), Industrial IoT (IIoT), and IoT systems alongside traditional IT infrastructure.

Programmable logic controllers (PLCs), building management systems (BMS), energy management systems (EMS), surveillance cameras, access control platforms, virtualization infrastructure, engineering workstations, contractor laptops, and cloud-connected orchestration systems now coexist within the same environment. Many are connected through routable networks, managed remotely, and accessed by 3rd party OEMs or System Integrators.

Why modern data center infrastructure faces increasing cyber risk

The challenge is not simply that there are more devices. It is that these IT, OT and IOT systems and devices are now deeply interconnected in ways that blur the boundaries between operational and enterprise infrastructure.

OT systems responsible for cooling and power distribution communicate alongside enterprise IT infrastructure. IoT devices used for physical security sit adjacent to cloud-connected management platforms. Third-party vendors and contractors frequently require remote access to maintain operations and optimize performance. AI-driven automation platforms increasingly orchestrate workflows across multiple environments simultaneously.

Every additional connection improves efficiency and scalability, but every additional connection also creates new relationships between systems that adversaries may exploit.

How IT, OT, and IoT convergence expands the data center attack surface

Historically in critical infrastructure environments enterprise IT, and OT or industrial control systems ICS, have been often separated by a DMZ.

That separation has steadily disappeared in pursuit of efficiency and access to valuable data that lives within the OT networks such as how many widgets were produced today. This conceptually is commonly referred to as “IT OT convergence.”

Modern data centers increasingly depend on interconnected systems operating across multiple domains simultaneously and face a similar reality when it comes to IT OT convergence.  

This convergence creates efficiency and visibility benefits, but it also introduces structural security challenges that traditional approaches struggle to address.

Many of the OT systems were never originally designed with modern cybersecurity requirements in mind. OT devices often prioritize uptime and operational continuity over security controls. IoT and OT devices may have limited security hardening, are inconsistently patched, or insecure default configurations. Third-party connectivity introduces external dependencies that organizations do not fully control.

As environments converge the attack surface changes and grows, attackers may exploit weaker systems positioned adjacent to critical operations for initial access. For example, a compromised IoT device may provide access into broader infrastructure, or an exposed remote management interface may enable lateral movement into OT systems.  

For defenders, rather than forcing segmentation where it’s not possible, focus oversight and monitoring across interconnected systems and how this activity might create operational risk, gaining visibility across these systems will ensure better awareness of and protection across the cracks in your systems attackers look to exploit.

Why traditional data center security tools create visibility gaps

Many organizations still secure IT, OT, and IoT environments through separate tools, teams, and workflows. Historically, this made sense. The environments themselves were more isolated, and the operational priorities were different.

But convergence changes the nature of detection and response.

Modern attacks increasingly move across domains as lateral movement and discovery techniques are pervasive amongst all the most well-known attacks to have disrupted OT. Adversaries may gain access through phishing or credential compromise, establish persistence in IT systems, pivot into operational infrastructure, exploit unmanaged IoT devices, and move laterally across cloud-connected environments.

Viewed independently, many of these signals may appear low priority or disconnected.

An anomalous login attempt, unusual device communication, changes in network traffic patterns, or abnormal behavior from an industrial controller may not appear significant on their own. The problem emerges when these activities are part of a broader attack chain unfolding across multiple systems simultaneously.

Siloed security models struggle to correlate this activity effectively because they lack shared operational context. Security teams may see isolated indicators while missing the relationships between them.

This creates a fundamental visibility problem that has discursive effects across security teams, leading to analyst overload, tedious alert investigations, and slower response times.

The issue is not simply detecting threats faster. It is understanding how activity across IT, OT, IoT, cloud, and remote access systems relate to one another in real time before operational disruption occurs.

Security measures to safeguard modern data center infrastructure

Rule-based systems, predefined indicators, and signature-driven approaches remain useful for identifying known threats, but they are less effective at identifying subtle behavioral deviations, novel attack paths, insider activity, 3rd party supply chain exploitation or attacks that move across operational domains.  

Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI approach is designed to operate across converged IT, OT, IoT, and cloud environments. Using multiple layers of AI models, Darktrace solutions come together to achieve behavioral prediction, real-time threat detection and response, and incident investigation, all while empowering your security team with visibility and control.

Because the models are environment-specific, they can adapt across highly diverse infrastructure including operational technology, physical security systems, enterprise IT, cloud workloads, and third-party connectivity.

This enables organizations to build a more unified understanding of activity across the data center.

Unified visibility across interconnected environments

Darktrace provides visibility across IT, OT, IoT, and cloud systems through a centralized platform. Security teams and data center operators can maintain live asset inventories, monitor data flows, identify vulnerable or end-of-life systems, and better understand how interconnected infrastructure communicates across the environment.

This becomes increasingly important in environments where unmanaged devices, transient contractor systems, and third-party connectivity continuously alter operational conditions.

Threat detection, investigation, and response

Darktrace applies multiple AI models to identify anomalous activity that may indicate known threats, novel attacks, insider activity, or cross-domain compromise.

By understanding how devices and systems normally behave within the environment, Darktrace can identify subtle deviations that may otherwise remain undetected in siloed environments.

Its autonomous response capabilities can also help contain threats during their early stages before they escalate into operational disruption. Meanwhile, Cyber AI Analyst provides explainable AI-driven investigations that help security teams understand the relationships between events, systems, and users involved in potential incidents.

Proactive risk identification

As data center environments continue to evolve, organizations increasingly need to understand not only active threats, but also where structural weaknesses may exist across interconnected systems.

Through capabilities such as attack path modeling and behavioral risk analysis, Darktrace helps organizations prioritize remediation efforts and identify areas where operational exposure may increase over time.

This supports a more proactive security posture in environments where operational continuity is critical.

Securing the future of interconnected infrastructure

As data centers continue to scale in size, complexity, and operational importance, their reliance on interconnected IT, OT, IoT, cloud, and AI-driven systems will only deepen.

The challenge organizations face is no longer simply protecting individual devices or isolated environments. It is understanding how risk emerges across interconnected systems operating together and detecting threats to these systems in real time.

This is ultimately what makes modern data center security different from traditional enterprise security models. The operational dependencies are broader, the environments are more heterogeneous, and the consequences of disruption and intent of adversaries are more like those in the critical infrastructure space.

Securing these environments therefore requires more than fragmented visibility across disconnected tools. Organizations increasingly need unified approaches capable of understanding relationships across systems, detecting threats early, and responding before operational disruption spreads across critical infrastructure.

As the infrastructure powering the digital economy continues to evolve, cybersecurity resilience will become increasingly inseparable from operational resilience itself.

‍

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Daniel Simonds
Director of Operational Technology
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI