NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules
NIST's latest research argues that no finite set of AI guardrails can defend against every adversarial prompt, reinforcing a fundamental shift in how organizations should approach AI security. This blog explores why static rules alone are insufficient, why behavior provides the only stable signal of risk, and what this means for building resilient AI security strategies.
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
Andrew Hollister
Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician
Share
06
Jul 2026
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.
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.
From One Alert to a Wider Campaign: Uncovering Novel Threats Through Behavioral Analysis
Key Findings
Darktrace’s Threat Research team is exploring a new method to identify malicious campaigns by correlating similar anomalous activity across its customer fleet.
The method uses unsupervised clustering to identify shared behavioral patterns across multiple customer deployments without relying on prior indicators of compromise (IoCs).
The approach identified shared infrastructure across dozens of customers, with activity linked to the likely POPA botnet.
A second cluster identified anomalous activity associated with Monero cryptocurrency mining.
How does Darktrace conduct threat research?
The Darktrace Threat Research team aims to identify malicious campaign activity affecting multiple customers. By their nature, these campaigns will lead to shared behavioral patterns across multiple victims.
In this piece, we describe a method for identifying malicious campaign activity that uses this simple observation as a guiding principle. We begin by outlining a few key facts about the modern threat landscape and why behavioral detection is necessary to meet the challenges it presents. We then explore how fleet-wide behavioral detections can be leveraged using the principle above to systematically identify multi-deployment campaigns impacting the Darktrace customer fleet. Finally, we demonstrate that this research is not purely theoretical, using real examples of campaign activity detected through this novel approach.
Shifting to a behavioral-focused approach
The modern era of cyber-defense necessitates detection capabilities beyond traditional signature-based methods. Technologies such as antivirus signatures, hash-based malware identification, and IP blocklists have historically been successful in defending against known threats. However, they are easily circumvented by attackers and inherently limited in defending against the novel attack techniques that today's threat landscape is producing.
Recent breakthroughs in AI represent a transformational risk multiplier that cannot be ignored. AI systems do not merely execute existing attacks at machine speed; there are signs they can also synthesize novel tradecraft [1], increasing the likelihood that defenders will encounter attack patterns that have never previously been observed. Meanwhile vulnerability disclosures continue to accelerate. More than 48,000 CVEs were published in 2025, and published statistics to date indicate that 2026 is already on track to significantly exceed that figure [2]. While multiple factors may contribute to vulnerability discovery, AI is seen as a key factor in this rapid growth. Organizations should expect a growing proportion of malicious activity to fall outside the scope of detections that rely solely on prior knowledge of known threats.
By design, Darktrace’s behavioral and anomaly-focused detection capabilities are well-suited to this testing landscape. With a focus on detecting unknown and unexpected activity that deviates from the baseline of “normal” behavior, detection of CVE exploitation without prior knowledge of the vulnerability and before public disclosure, for example, is achievable [3][4].
Darktrace’s diverse customer base benefits from a further layer of protection: working with only deidentified alert metadata, our threat researchers hunt proactively across the fleet. Beyond the level of the individual customer, there is a second, larger vantage to be leveraged.
Darktrace data provides unique insight into the unexpected behavioral patterns that occur across its customer fleet. What can we see if we look at this fleet-wide telemetry and hunt for systematic behavioral campaigns that impact our customer base?
Correlating across the customer base
At the deployment level, Darktrace focuses on whether activity is unusual in the context of an organization's normal behavior, but as we zoom out and look at these alerts at the fleet level, the problem fundamentally changes . We are no longer seeking anomalies in largely normal data; we are seeking systematic patterns within data already known to be anomalous. An isolated behavior anomaly may be notable for a single customer; the same fingerprint across dozens is a signal of a structured campaign. Hunting for such campaigns and sharing our findings are key areas of focus for Darktrace’s Threat Research team. In this spirit, Darktrace is actively exploring a a new research approach that leverages deidentified alert metadata to increase campaign detection ability.
This approach is based on the premise that an expert human analyst presented with a set of alerts will identify likely related activity by assessing whether the metadata fields indicate a relationship. For example, two connections to a rare endpoint that exhibits naming structure that is likely from a single algorithm are a strong indicator, as is the use of an unusual port carrying a given protocol (e.g. port 6000 for SSL). Darktrace’s approach to campaign detection encodes this expert human judgement process through deterministic embedding functions that obtain reproducible vector representations of alert data. Unsupervised clustering is then applied to these vector representations to obtain groups of alerts that describe semantically similar alert data across multiple customers. These clusters therefore represent similar anomalous activity that has occurred across multiple customers. In other words, these clusters are candidates for malicious campaign activity.
Figure 1: Layers of AI-based analysis provided through Darktrace products and cross-customer correlation.
Case study 1 – unusual connections to shared underlying infrastructure
In one recent case, the clustering produced several tight groups of alerts spanning dozens of customers. Each group centered on a single domain whose subdomains were algorithmically generated (e.g. s01699, s1736, s91). Examined side by side, these clusters shared an unmistakable behavioral shape: each involved a domain with a clear naming pattern (e.g. s016841786.net-echo[.]com, s1670.pixellog[.]io, s217.pixellog[.]io) , with connections over SSL on the unusual port 6000 to servers hosted by non-mainstream providers (e.g. OVH, Hetzner, GTHost, Leaseweb), rather than generally expected content-delivery networks.
Figure 2: An example model alert triggering on unusual outbound connections and data transfer to s1670.pixellog[.]io.
Closer inspection revealed that the same subdomain label appeared under different domains (e.g. s1786.net-echo[.]com and s1786.pixellog[.]io). Following this lead, Darktrace’s threat researchers pivoted across the customer base and found numerous distinct subdomain labels reused under more than one registered domain. In several cases, the same label resolved to the same IP across different domains (e.g. s1704 under both pixellog[.]io and net-echo[.]com → 148.113.222[.]244; s01684 → 15.235.67[.]95), suggesting the use of ephemeral subdomain infrastructure in an attempt to avoid signature-based defense techniques.
This example demonstrates how multi-deployment data can uncover shared infrastructure that may be difficult to identify at the individual deployment level alone. In particular, the presented method facilitated this discovery by producing coherent, tight clusters of geometrically similar vector embeddings of malicious activity from large-scale fleet data, which could then be presented to a researcher for further investigation. This activity highlighted across the Darktrace customer base was ultimately linked to likely POPA botnet activity through use of open-source intelligence (OSINT) [5].
Case Study 2 – anomalous user agent and txt URI
A second example shows the method surfacing a single, self-contained cluster. The clustering was not given any indicators to look for; instead, it grouped devices that shared an unusual combination of features. On inspection, that shared consisted of:
- unusual user agent (tes)
- specific request path (/md5_GIP.txt)
- uncommon destination port (83)
- hostname impersonating Google (matching regular expression ^www\.google\.com\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+\.fast-dns-host\.com$)
Treating these shared features as IoCs, Darktrace’s threat researchers then pivoted to an exploration across the customer base to investigate the full breadth of the campaign. This search identified further commonalities; additional domains which shared the same IP as the domain family highlighted in the cluster, as well as evidence of cryptocurrency mining on affected devices. Additional OSINT research also aligned with these findings, linking the discovered payloads and infrastructure to Monero cryptocurrency mining [6].
Conclusion
The method outlined in this blog is under active development, with ongoing technical refinement providing opportunities to further enhance its capabilities. While the capability continues to mature, this approach to threat hunting leverages the powerful vantage point of fleetwide telemetry across a diverse customer base to help protect Darktrace customers. This method allows campaigns that at the deployment level appear as isolated alerts to be seen at their true scale and spread. It enables proactive fleet-wide analysis without prior IoCs to identify campaigns impacting Darktrace customers.
This is possible because of what the method is built on: the atomic unit is the Darktrace alert, a signal that encodes years of cyber expertise, while the multi-deployment nature of the method allows organizations to indirectly benefit from findings from other networks through shared intelligence by Darktrace’s Threat Research team.
Credit to Daniel Levy (Threat Hunting Data Scientist), Paul Jennings (Principal Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Head, Threat Operations)
“I wonder if running that tool influenced the connectivity in some way.”
“I might need to target down or reboot, but first, I'll investigate the network using ARP. I wonder if ARP is responding properly. If I see "ip neigh stale," that could indicate a problem. I think arping might help in this situation, but I’ll need to keep an eye on how the network is behaving. It's all about figuring out where the issue lies!”
図10：エージェントの異常なLDAPアクティビティに対してトリガーされたこのLinuxサーバーに対するモデル検知は、Cyber AI Analystによって自律的に調査され、その調査結果にはエージェントの異常なSMBセッションアクティビティに関する内容が含まれ、Cyber AIAnalystインシデントに記録されました。
DarktraceのCyber AI Analystは、エージェントのアクティビティによってトリガーされたモデル検知を自律的に調査し、その調査結果を1つの重要なインシデントレポートにまとめました。インシデント報告書の内容は、エージェントによるネットワークスキャンから始まりコーディング演習内容のSMBベースの上書きで終わる、エージェントの行動の各段階を詳しくカバーしています。
図20：Cyber AI Analystは、モデル検知に対する自律的な調査を通じて得られた所見をつなぎ合わせ、エージェントの進行状況のタイムラインを作成し、アクティビティを視覚的に表したグラフとともに提供しました。
Cyber Verification Program下のAnthropic Opus 4.6モデルなど、他のフロンティアモデルを使用したエージェントも、Darktraceのシミュレートされた環境で同じ設定とタスクを使ってテストされました。反復の度に、エージェントは演習の内容または採点プログラムを変更して不正を行おうとしました。基盤となるモデルに関係なく、エージェントは自分が置かれた環境を侵害することで、100％のスコアを達成する方法を見つけることに成功していました。これらのエージェントによるハッキングは、アクティビティの内容こそ違っていましたが、すべてその環境のベースラインの振る舞いから大きく逸脱した動作を引き起こしていました。これらの逸脱はDarktraceプラットフォームに十分な検知の機会を提供し、エージェントの逃げ場はありませんでした。
.avif)
