Blog
/
/
July 26, 2022

Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Explore the differences between zero-day and n-day attacks on different customer servers to learn how Darktrace detects and prevents cyber threats effectively.
Written by
Lewis Morgan
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
Lewis Morgan
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
26
Jul 2022

‍Key Terms:

Zero-day | A recently discovered security vulnerability in computer software that has no currently available fix or patch. Its name come from the reality that vendors have “zero days” to act and respond.

N-day | A vulnerability that emerges in computer software in which a vendor is aware and may have already issued (or are currently working on) a patch or fix. Active exploits often already exist and await abuse by nefarious actors.

Traditional security solutions often apply signature-based-detection when identifying cyber threats, helping to defend against legacy attacks but consequently missing novel ones. Therefore, security teams often lend a lot of focus to ensuring that the risk of zero-day vulnerabilities is reduced [1]. As explored in this blog, however, organizations can face just as much of a risk from n-day attacks, since they invite the most attention from malicious actors [2]. This is due in part to the reduced complexity, cost and time invested in researching and finding new exploits compared with that found when attackers exploit zero-days. 

This blog will examine both a zero-day and n-day attack that two different Darktrace customers faced in the fall of 2021. This will include the activity Darktrace detected, along with the steps taken by Darktrace/Network to intervene. It will then compare the incidents, discuss the possible dangers of third-party integrations, and assess the deprecation of legacy security tools.

Revisiting zero-day attacks 

Zero-days are among the greatest concerns security teams face in the era of modern technology and networking. Defending critical systems from zero-day compromises is a task most legacy security solutions are often unable to handle. Due to the complexity of uncovering new security flaws and developing elaborate code that can exploit them, these attacks are often carried out by funded or experienced groups such as nation-state actors and APTs. One of history’s most prolific zero-days, ‘Stuxnet’, sent security teams worldwide into a global panic in 2010. This involved a widespread attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure and was widely accepted to be a result of nation-state actors [3]. The Stuxnet worm took advantage of four zero-day exploits, compromising over 200,000 devices and physically damaging around 10% of the 9,000 critical centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear site. 

More recently, 2021 saw the emergence of several critical zero-day vulnerabilities within SonicWall’s product suite [4]. SonicWall is a security hardware manufacturer that provides hardware firewall devices, unified threat management, VPN gateways and network security solutions. Some of these vulnerabilities lie within their Secure Mobile Access (SMA) 100 series (for example, CVE-2019-7481, CVE-2021-20016 and CVE-2021-20038 to name a few). These directly affected VPN devices and often allowed attackers easy remote access to company devices. CVE-2021-20016 in particular incorporates an SQL-Injection vulnerability within SonicWall’s SSL VPN SMA 100 product line [5]. If exploited, this defect would allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to perform their own malicious SQL query in order to access usernames, passwords and other session related information. 

The N-day underdog

The shadow cast by zero-day attacks often shrouds that of n-day attacks. N-days, however, often pose an equal - if not greater - risk to the majority of organizations, particularly those in industrial sectors. Since these vulnerabilities have fixes available, all of the hard work around research is already done; malicious actors only need to view proof of concepts (POCs) or, if proficient in coding, reverse-engineer software to reveal code-changes (binary diffing) in order to exploit these security flaws in the wild. These vulnerabilities are typically attributed to opportunistic hackers and script-kiddies, where little research or heavy lifting is required.  

August 2021 gave rise to a critical vulnerability in Atlassian Confluence servers, namely CVE-2021-26084 [6]. Confluence is a widely used collaboration wiki tool and knowledge-sharing platform. As introduced and discussed a few months ago in a previous Darktrace blog (Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities), this vulnerability allows attackers to remotely execute code on internet-facing servers after exploiting injection vulnerabilities in Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL). Whilst Confluence had patches and fixes available to users, attackers still jumped on this opportunity and began scanning the internet for signs of critical devices serving this outdated software [7]. Once identified, they would  exploit the vulnerability, often installing crypto mining software onto the device. More recently, Darktrace explored a new vulnerability (CVE-2022-26134), disclosed midway through 2022, that affected Confluence servers and data centers using similar techniques to that found in CVE-2021-26084 [8]. 

SonicWall in the wild – 1. Zero-day attack

At the beginning of August 2021, Darktrace prevented an attack from taking place within a European automotive customer’s environment (Figure 1). The attack targeted a vulnerable internet-facing SonicWall VPN server, and while the attacker’s motive remains unclear, similar historic events suggest that they intended to perform ransomware encryption or data exfiltration. 

Figure 1: Timeline of the SonicWall attack 

Darktrace was unable to confirm the definite tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) used by the attacker to compromise the customer’s environment, as the device was compromised before Darktrace installation and coverage. However, from looking at recently disclosed SonicWall VPN vulnerabilities and patterns of behaviour, it is likely CVE-2021-20016 played a part. At some point after this initial infection, it is also believed the device was able to move laterally to a domain controller (DC) using administrative credentials; it was this server that then initiated the anomalous activity that Darktrace detected and alerted on. 

On August 5th 2021 , Darktrace observed this compromised domain controller engaging in unusual ICMP scanning - a protocol used to discover active devices within an environment and create a map of an organization’s network topology. Shortly after, the infected server began scanning devices for open RDP ports and enumerating SMB shares using unorthodox methods. SMB delete and HTTP requests (over port 445 and 80 respectively) were made for files named delete.me in the root directory of numerous network shares using the user agent Microsoft WebDAV. However, no such files appeared to exist within the environment. This may have been the result of an attacker probing devices in the network in an effort to see their responses and gather information on properties and vulnerabilities they could later exploit. 

Soon the infected DC began establishing RDP tunnels back to the VPN server and making requests to an internal DNS server for multiple endpoints relating to exploit kits, likely in an effort to strengthen the attacker’s foothold within the environment. Some of the endpoints requested relate to:

-       EternalBlue vulnerability 

-       Petit Potam NTLM hash attack tool

-       Unusual GitHub repositories

-       Unusual Python repositories  

The DC made outgoing NTLM requests to other internal devices, implying the successful installation of Petit Potam exploitation tools. The server then began performing NTLM reconnaissance, making over 1,000 successful logins under ‘Administrator’ to several other internal devices. Around the same time, the device was also seen making anonymous SMBv1 logins to numerous internal devices, (possibly symptomatic of the attacker probing machines for EternalBlue vulnerabilities). 

Interestingly, the device also made numerous failed authentication attempts using a spoofed credential for one of the organization’s security managers. This was likely in an attempt to hide themselves using ‘Living off the Land’ (LotL) techniques. However, whilst the attacker clearly did their research on the company, they failed to acknowledge the typical naming convention used for credentials within the environment. This ultimately backfired and made the compromise more obvious and unusual. 

In the morning of the following day, the initially compromised VPN server began conducting further reconnaissance, engaging in similar activity to that observed by the domain controller. Until now, the customer had set Darktrace RESPOND to run in human confirmation mode, meaning interventions were not made autonomously but required confirmation by a member of the internal security team. However, thanks to Proactive Threat Notifications (PTNs) delivered by Darktrace’s dedicated SOC team, the customer was made immediately aware of this unusual behaviour, allowing them to apply manual Darktrace RESPOND blocks to all outgoing connections (Figure 2). This gave the security team enough time to respond and remediate before serious damage could be done.

Figure 2: Darktrace RESPOND model breach showing the manually applied “Quarantine Device” action taken against the compromised VPN server. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

Confluence in the wild – 2. N-day attack

Towards the end of 2021, Darktrace saw a European broadcasting customer leave an Atlassian Confluence internet-facing server unpatched and vulnerable to crypto-mining malware using CVE-2021-26084. Thanks to Darktrace, this attack was entirely immobilized within only a few hours of the initial infection, protecting the organization from damage (Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Timeline of the Confluence attack

On midday on September 1st 2021, an unpatched Confluence server was seen receiving SSL connections over port 443 from a suspicious new endpoint, 178.238.226[.]127.  The connections were encrypted, meaning Darktrace was unable to view the contents and ascertain what requests were being made. However, with the disclosure of CVE-2021-26084 just 7 days prior to this activity, it is likely that the TTPs used involved injecting OGNL expressions to Confluence server memory; allowing the attacker to remotely execute code on the vulnerable server.

Immediately after successful exploitation of the Confluence server, the infected device was observed making outgoing HTTP GET requests to several external endpoints using a new user agent (curl/7.61.1). Curl was used to silently download and configure multiple suspicious files relating to XMRig cryptocurrency miner, including ld.sh, XMRig and config.json. Subsequent outgoing connections were then made to europe.randomx-hub.miningpoolhub[.]com · 172.105.210[.]117 using the JSON-RPC protocol, seen alongside the mining credential maillocal.confluence (Figure 4). Only 3 seconds after initial compromise, the infected device began attempting to mine cryptocurrency using the Minergate protocol but was instantly and autonomously blocked by Darktrace RESPOND. This prevented the server from abusing system resources and generating profits for the attacker.

Figure 4: A graph showing the frequency of external connections using the JSON-RPC protocol made by the breach device over a 48-hour window. The orange-red dots represent models that breached as a result of this activity, demonstrating the “waterfall” effect commonly seen when a device suffers a compromise. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

In the afternoon, the malware persisted with its infection. The compromised server began making successive HTTP GET requests to a new rare endpoint 195.19.192[.]28 using the same curl user agent (Figures 5 & 6). These requests were for executable and dynamic library files associated with Kinsing malware (but fortunately were also blocked by Darktrace RESPOND). Kinsing is a malware strain found in numerous attack campaigns which is often associated with crypto-jacking, and has appeared in previous Darktrace blogs [9].

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst summarising the unusual download of Kinsing software using the new curl user agent. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

The attacker then began making HTTP POST requests to an IP 185.154.53[.]140, using the same curl user agent; likely a method for the attacker to maintain persistence within the network and establish a foothold using its C2 infrastructure. The Confluence server was then again seen attempting to mine cryptocurrency using the Minergate protocol. It made outgoing JSON-RPC connections to a different new endpoint, 45.129.2[.]107, using the following mining credential: ‘42J8CF9sQoP9pMbvtcLgTxdA2KN4ZMUVWJk6HJDWzixDLmU2Ar47PUNS5XHv4Kmfdh8aA9fbZmKHwfmFo8Wup8YtS5Kdqh2’. This was once again blocked by Darktrace RESPOND (Figure 7). 

Figure 6: VirusTotal showing the unusualness of one of these external IPs [10]
Figure 7: Log data showing the action taken by Darktrace RESPOND in response to the device breaching the “Crypto Currency Mining Activity” model. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

The final activity seen from this device involved the download of additional shell scripts over HTTP associated with Kinsing, namely spre.sh and unk.sh, from 194.38.20[.]199 and 195.3.146[.]118 respectively (Figure 8). A new user agent (Wget/1.19.5 (linux-gnu)) was used when connecting to the latter endpoint, which also began concurrently initiating repeated connections indicative of C2 beaconing. These scripts help to spread the Kinsing malware laterally within the environment and may have been the attacker's last ditch efforts at furthering their compromise before Darktrace RESPOND blocked all connections from the infected Confluence server [11]. With Darktrace RESPOND's successful actions, the customer’s security team were then able to perform their own response and remediation. 

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst revealing the last ditch efforts made by the threat actor to download further malicious software. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

Darktrace Coverage: N- vs Zero-days

In the SonicWall case the attacker was unable to achieve their actions on objectives (thanks to Darktrace's intervention). However, this incident displayed tactics of a more stealthy and sophisticated attacker - they had an exploited machine but waited for the right moment to execute their malicious code and initiate a full compromise. Due to the lack of visibility over attacker motive, it is difficult to deduce what type of actor led to this intrusion. However, with the disclosure of a zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2021-20016) not long before this attack, along with a seemingly dormant initially compromised device, it is highly possible that it was carried out by a sophisticated cyber criminal or gang. 

On the other hand, the Confluence case engaged in a slightly more noisy approach; it dropped crypto mining malware on vulnerable devices in the hope that the target’s security team did not maintain visibility over their network or would merely turn a blind eye. The files downloaded and credentials observed alongside the mining activity heavily imply the use of Kinsing malware [11]. Since this vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) emerged as an n-day attack with likely easily accessible POCs, as well as there being a lack of LotL techniques and the motive being long term monetary gain, it is possible this attack was conducted by a less sophisticated or amateur actor (script-kiddie); one that opportunistically exploits known vulnerabilities in internet-facing devices in order to make a quick profit [12].

Whilst Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in human confirmation mode only during the start of the SonicWall attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst still offered invaluable insight into the unusual activity associated with the infected machines during both the Confluence and SonicWall compromises. SOC analysts were able to see these uncharacteristic behaviours and escalate the incident through Darktrace’s PTN and ATE services. Analysts then worked through these tickets with the customers, providing support and guidance and, in the SonicWall case, quickly helping to configure Darktrace RESPOND. In both scenarios, Darktrace RESPOND was able to block abnormal connections and enforce a device’s pattern of life, affording the security team enough time to isolate the infected machines and prevent further threats such as ransomware detonation or data exfiltration. 

Concluding thoughts and dangers of third-party integrations 

Organizations with internet-facing devices will inevitably suffer opportunistic zero-day and n-day attacks. While little can be done to remove the risk of zero-days entirely, ensuring that organizations keep their systems up to date will at the very least help prevent opportunistic and script-kiddies from exploiting n-day vulnerabilities.  

However, it is often not always possible for organizations to keep their systems up to date, especially for those who require continuous availability. This may also pose issues for organizations that rely on, and put their trust in, third party integrations such as those explored in this blog (Confluence and SonicWall), as enforcing secure software is almost entirely out of their hands. Moreover, with the rising prevalence of remote working, it is essential now more than ever that organizations ensure their VPN devices are shielded from external threats, guidance on which has been released by the NSA/CISA [13].

These two case studies have shown that whilst organizations can configure their networks and firewalls to help identify known indicators of compromise (IoC), this ‘rearview mirror’ approach will not account for, or protect against, any new and undisclosed IoCs. With the aid of Self-Learning AI and anomaly detection, Darktrace can detect the slightest deviation from a device’s normal pattern of life and respond autonomously without the need for rules and signatures. This allows for the disruption and prevention of known and novel attacks before irreparable damage is caused- reassuring security teams that their digital estates are secure. 

Thanks to Paul Jennings for his contributions to this blog.

Appendices: SonicWall (Zero-day)

Darktrace model detections

·      AIA / Suspicious Chain of Administrative Credentials

·      Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

·      Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

·      Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Remote Desktop

·      Compliance / High Priority Compliance Model Breach

·      Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

·      Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

·      Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

·      Device / ICMP Address Scan

·      Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

·      Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

·      Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

·      Device / Network Scan

·      Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

·      Device / RDP Scan

·      Device / Reverse DNS Sweep

·      Device / SMB Session Bruteforce

·      Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

·      Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (as displayed in example)

·      Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed
IoCs

‍

Appendices: Confluence (N-day)

Darktrace model detections

·      Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·      Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location

·      Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

·      Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

·      Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

·      Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

·      Device / New User Agent

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (displayed in example)

·      Antigena / Network / Compliance / Antigena Crypto Currency Mining Block

·      Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

·      Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

·      Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

·      Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Block Enhanced Monitoring

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed
IOCs

References:

[1] https://securitybrief.asia/story/why-preventing-zero-day-attacks-is-crucial-for-businesses

[2] https://electricenergyonline.com/energy/magazine/1150/article/Security-Sessions-More-Dangerous-Than-Zero-Days-The-N-Day-Threat.htm

[3] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

[4] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=SonicWall+2021 

[5] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-20016

[6] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-26084

[7] https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cybercom-says-mass-exploitation-of-atlassian-confluence-vulnerability-ongoing-and-expected-to-accelerate/

[8] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2022-26134

[9] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0599/

[10] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/195.19.192.28/detection 

[11] https://sysdig.com/blog/zoom-into-kinsing-kdevtmpfsi/

[12] https://github.com/alt3kx/CVE-2021-26084_PoC

[13] https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/2791320/nsa-cisa-release-guidance-on-selecting-and-hardening-remote-access-vpns/

Written by
Lewis Morgan
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
Lewis Morgan
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
No items found.

Blog

/

Proactive Security

/

June 1, 2026

Defend What You Trust: Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Cyber Defense

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Modern attacks don’t always announce themselves, follow obvious patterns, or rely on known malware. Often, they move quietly inside trusted systems, authenticated sessions, and everyday behavior.

They don’t break in. They blend in.

That’s why an AI-powered defense is essential. It turns invisible signals into actionable insights at a scale neither analysts nor traditional tools can achieve alone.

Confidence is creating risk

One of the most dangerous assumptions in cybersecurity today is that strong controls equal strong protection.

Multi-factor authentication (MFA), for example, is widely viewed as a foundational safeguard. But as the CISO for a professional sports organization explains, that confidence can be misplaced. “A lot of organizations assume that once you have MFA, those accounts are safe. That’s not true.”

In one instance, his team identified a sophisticated attack where a threat actor bypassed MFA entirely, not by breaking it, but by going around it. A user’s authenticated session was hijacked and re-used, allowing the attacker to impersonate them without triggering traditional controls.

“Darktrace picked up that a session had been re-injected by the hacker, and we were able to block it right away,” he explains.

Attackers anticipate what we miss

Even well-trained users can become entry points.

“An email bypassed our existing security tools,” shares the VP of IT at a U.S.-based risk management services provider.  “The user missed one signal and entered their credentials into a malicious site. That’s what the bad guys count on.”

The organization responded quickly, but not before damage was done. Crucially, this occurred while Darktrace was in “watch mode,” before autonomous response was fully enabled. “Darktrace would have seen that and shut it down immediately,” he notes.

Mistakes and oversights like misconfigurations, forgotten machines, and missed patches can create serious vulnerabilities.

The CIO of a utility services organization shares an instance when Darktrace detected a breach to a client’s network via their ZTNA VPN due to misconfigured MFA. “Darktrace alerted us and autonomously blocked the scanning, preventing what could have been a ransomware-type incident.”  

The most dangerous threats are already inside

The Head of Security at a global business services provider knows firsthand how blind spots can persist inside environments. His team uncovered evidence of dormant ransomware artifacts sitting unnoticed within a company’s environment ¬¬– long before modern detection was in place.

“During a routine file transfer, Darktrace flagged the suspicious activity, identified the ransomware, and immediately quarantined the server,” he recalls.  While the attack was never executed, the implication was significant: the risk existed long before it was finally detected.

Cyber threats are also successful because they take advantage of normal human behavior, exploiting moments of cognitive overload, urgency, and trust.

The Executive Director of IT and Business Applications at a pharmaceutical lab describes the time Darktrace flagged an employee logging into Microsoft 365 from Singapore, despite him being physically located in the U.S. Darktrace immediately cut off his access and within minutes revealed that the employee’s son was using a VPN to play a video game.

While the threat was benign, it demonstrated the strength of AI to use contextual information to detect threats other tools miss. The information also saved security analysts hours of investigation and minimized downtime for the employee. “That level of precision and speed isn’t just convenient, it’s game changing.”

“Unusual” behavior is the new red flag

Detecting modern threats requires an understanding of what “normal” looks like and recognizing when something subtly deviates.

One security leader  at an AI technology enterprise described a scenario in which an employee connected to a proxy service in China. The service itself was legitimate, and although traditional tools didn’t flag it, the behavior was unusual for that user specifically.

“That’s what Darktrace picked up on. The activity turned out to be benign, but without visibility into behavioral deviations, it could just as easily have been something more serious.”

AI shifts defense from reaction to anticipation

These stories point to a fundamental shift by cyber attackers, both tactically and strategically. Because traditional security tools were built to detect what’s already known, modern attacks are often:

  • Credential-based, not malware-based
  • Behavioral, not signature-based
  • Subtle, not overt

They may operate within the boundaries of what appears normal, exploiting what organizations trust, not what they block:

  • Trusted sessions
  • Legitimate services
  • Human error

This is where AI is changing the equation. Rather than relying on predefined rules or known threat signatures, AI can:

  • Establish a baseline of normal behavior
  • Detect subtle anomalies in real time
  • Act autonomously to contain potential threats

Resilience, not perfection, is the new security standard

As these frontline experiences show, the organizations that lead are those that move beyond reactive defense and embrace AI as a core part of their strategy.

It eliminates the blind spots and uncertainty, says the CISO of a professional sports organization. “If you lack visibility, you’re not managing risk, you’re assuming it. AI gives you the actionable insights needed to turn uncertainty into control.”

And it provides the speed and agility that are vital when seconds matter, says the Executive Director of IT and Business Applications. “When Darktrace alerted us at 3:00 am to a ransomware attack, it had already quarantined the affected systems, blocked the attacker’s access, and provided us with the critical details and time needed to investigate. That action likely saved us hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.”

The modern SOC has become a cornerstone of enterprise resilience, responsible for protecting data and operational continuity while enabling digital growth and innovation. For today’s security professional, that means success is no longer measured by what they keep out, but by what they protect: revenue, reputation, and trust.

‍

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

/

May 28, 2026

From Efficiency to Exposure: How AI Adoption Is Creating Unseen Vulnerabilities on the Factory Floor

AI in manufacturingDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How AI agents impact the manufacturing industry

Security teams and IT personnel across the manufacturing industry are under constant pressure to protect production, maintain uptime, and safeguard critical assets but the rise of AI is bringing huge new opportunities alongside new cyber risks. Across manufacturing, AI is embedded into workflows, decision-making, and increasingly, autonomous AI agents are acting on behalf of employees and systems.  

Agentic systems are powerful because they can act independently, but that same autonomy also creates cyber and operational risk. Agents have extensive permissions and are capable of carrying out complex tasks, making decisions, and interacting with tools or external systems with little to no human intervention.

Unlike traditional AI models that perform predefined tasks, AI agents use advanced techniques to mimic human decision-making processes, dynamically adapting to new challenges, making decision and taking action based on their own judgement. They look like employees operationally but lack judgment, ethics, or fear of consequences like humans do. This means they can be easily manipulated by cybercriminals, and an AI agent embedded across an OT network creates threats that extend well beyond data exposure. For example, at BMW, AI identifies faults in welding processes as they occur. At its Spartanburg plant, AI monitors the weld of 300-400 metal studs onto every SUV frame to detect misplaced or faulty studs and correct them instantly. Corruption of BMW’s AI system could lead to catastrophic quality control errors.

Adopting agentic AI systems across manufacturing raises some concerns across security teams. New data from our State of AI Cybersecurity survey shows that 78% of manufacturing security professionals are worried about employee use of AI agents – their top concern. That’s followed by employee use of generative AI tools like CoPilot and ChatGPT, a worry for 76% of security professionals at manufacturing organizations. As these tools gain more access to business data and processes, and more autonomy within organizations, security teams, who today have minimal visibility of agent activity in their environments, increasingly have sensitive data exposure (a worry for 60%) and accidental policy and regulatory violations (59%) on their minds.

External AI-powered threats are evolving just as quickly

The same capabilities transforming manufacturing are also reshaping cyberattacks.

AI is enabling attackers to automate reconnaissance, refine targeting, and adapt in real time. What once required time and manual effort can now be executed continuously and at scale. Manufacturers are already seeing the impact. According to manufacturing security professionals we surveyed, 76% are already being impacted by AI-powered threats and 90% see AI increasing the success of social engineering attacks.

And the techniques themselves are evolving. Concerns across the manufacturing sector show growing anxiety about the range of AI-powered attack routes, most pressingly of adaptive malware that evolves in real-time – a prospect half (49%) of manufacturing security professionals we surveyed are worried by, a full 9% more than the average across industries. AI adaptive malware is followed by:

  • Automated vulnerability scanning and exploit chaining (48%) which has become even more pressing as Anthropic’s new Mythos AI Model supercharges vulnerability discovery
  • Hyper-personalized phishing campaigns (46%), which remain a mainstay in hackers’ arsenals, and AI has amplified their effectiveness by making phishing emails more convincing and harder to detect.

This is not just an increase in volume, it is a shift toward threats that evolve as they unfold - often faster than static defenses can respond.

Despite rising awareness, many manufacturers are not yet equipped to manage this shift. More than half (51%) say they are not adequately prepared for AI-driven threats, and only 37% have formal policies governing AI deployment.  

Securing AI through visibility, context, and guardrails

Addressing this challenge does not require manufacturers to slow innovation. It requires a different approach to security, one that can operate at the same speed and scale as AI. Three specific priorities are emerging for manufacturers looking to take advantage of the power of AI.

Visibility is foundational.  

Organizations need to understand where AI is being used, what it can access, and how it behaves across both IT and OT environments. Without that, risk cannot be measured or managed. It is no surprise that Darktrace’s research found that 91% of manufacturing security professionals said that they need to understand how AI makes decisions before trusting it. This is even more critical in operational settings where disruption has safety, environmental, financial, and reputational impacts.

Context is what turns visibility into action.  

In environments shaped by AI, normal behavior is constantly shifting. Detecting threats requires a behavioral approach; understanding patterns of life across the organization and identifying subtle deviations in real time – a step change in organizations’ traditional approach to security and risk management.

Guardrails ensure that agency does not become exposure  

As AI systems take on greater responsibility, organizations need clear boundaries around what they can do and when they can act independently. These controls must be embedded into systems themselves, not applied after the fact.  

Securing AI Agents Across Manufacturing IT and OT

The rise of agentic AI is transforming manufacturing - powering next-generation operations while reshaping the security landscape. This is not just an increase in threats, but a shift to autonomous systems, continuously evolving behaviors, and risks moving at machine speed. For organizations trying to grapple with the challenge of enabling AI while managing the risk, visibility, context and guardrails should be foundational.

Darktrace helps manufacturers build secure AI approaches by making those foundations possible. It provides visibility and real-time detection and response to unusual activity across IT and OT environments and allows organizations to understand AI activity from the prompts employees use and the agents they build to how those agents are behaving across the environment. For manufacturers scaling AI, this delivers a foundation for innovation without sacrificing control.

Continue reading
About the author
Oakley Cox
Director of Product
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI