ブログ
/
/
June 7, 2021

When Cyber-Attacks Become Ransomware-as-a-Service

Cyber attacks have occurred since the early days of the Internet. They can be extremely unpredictable. Learn about the dangers and unintended consequences!
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
Marcus Fowler
CEO of Darktrace Federal
Default blog image
07
Jun 2021

In 1988, a Harvard graduate began an experiment to see how many computers were connected to the Internet. 24 hours later, 10% of all computers around the world had been taken down and the damages soared into the millions. Robert Tappan Morris had inadvertently created the first ever computer worm.

Once Morris realized the speed at which his program was replicating, he tried to send instructions to the victims to dismantle the worm and curb the attack. But it was too late. He was indicted one year later and faced fines of over $10,000.

Fast forward to the present day, and we’re facing the most recent example of a cyber-threat miscalculation, or a criminal group that simply did not understand the full impact their attack would have. The DarkSide ransomware group most likely only intended to hit the IT system and corporate business operations of Colonial Pipeline and underestimated the full impact the malware would have. The consequences were disastrous, halting the supply of fuel across the East Coast, leading to gas shortages, hoarding, and spikes in gasoline prices around the world.

In an apparent show of social responsibility, the DarkSide group issued a seemingly heartfelt apology for the attack on social media:

We are apolitical, we do not participate in geopolitics, do not need to tie us with a defined government and look for other our motives. From today, we introduce moderation and check each company that our partners want to encrypt to avoid social consequences in the future.

The motivation behind this statement is clear: self-preservation. The aftermath of the attack affected not only Colonial Pipeline but the DarkSide group themselves. They fell into the direct firing line of the full force of the US government, as well as becoming pariahs among other criminal groups for the attention they have drawn. It also appears they lost whatever formal or informal state supervision or protection they may have held.

As a result of the blowback and possible direct actions against them and their operating infrastructure, in less than a week, DarkSide announced that they would close their operations for good. They could however resurface under a different name, or join another group, if allowed in.

Misjudging the impact and collateral damage of a cyber-attack can lead to a range of unintended ramifications, from a cyber-crime group feeling increased heat from law enforcement to a nation state escalating a conflict greater than they intended.

It is for this reason that many ransomware groups historically have tended to keep their affairs under the radar. Over 70% of ransomware attacks target SMBs. Unfortunately, while many cyber-crime groups pledge to avoid larger bodies like hospitals and critical infrastructure, the allure of fast payouts for record-breaking ransoms has led to the healthcare sector, even vaccine efforts, being a heavy target for ransomware actors.

Following the incident at Colonial Pipeline, and no doubt in the fear of moving up the FBI’s Most Wanted list, a major Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) group, REvil, announced the following policy:

  1. Work in the social sector (health care, educational institutions) is prohibited;
  2. It is forbidden to work on the gov-sector (state) of any country.

Organized cyber-crime groups often stress that they are apolitical and motivated solely by financial gain.

But when the boat is pushed too far, attacks can easily spill over into geopolitical tensions, encouraging governments to issue executive orders and pushing cyber-threats into the headlines – all bad business for criminal groups. And if a threat actor gets in over their head, they either need to lay low and rebrand in what is known as an ‘exit scam’, as ransomware groups such as Maze and Jokeroo have done in the past, or they’re shut down completely, as seen in the disruption of the Emotet botnet at the beginning of this year.

The effects of a cyber-attack are becoming increasingly difficult to predict and control. The reason for this is twofold. The first is this idea of interconnectivity. We live in a digitized world which is so interlinked that an attack on one server can have global consequences, whether that’s reverberations down the supply chain, IT converging with OT, or a cyber-threat against one country affecting the world.

More isolated than federal bodies, the private sector will most often take the brunt of this collateral damage. Just take NotPetya – where a targeted attack against Ukrainian infrastructure went into the wild paralyzing factories across the globe and costing shipping company Maersk $300 million.

The second reason is easier access to more sophisticated tools. The commercialization of cyber-crime has enabled less advanced actors to rent state-of-the-art malware and launch campaigns with speed and with ease. In fact, the Colonial Pipeline attack was likely orchestrated by an affiliate who had paid for the DarkSide malware. This makes it far more challenging to monitor who is being targeted. When it comes to RaaS, even the developers probably do not know for certain how their malware will be used.

When preparing any kind of cyber-attack, the intelligence that an actor has going into the target environment is rarely 100%. If the intention is to impact a single component of a bank, for example, but the attacker fails to realize that a nearby hospital relies on that same electrical grid, the situation can escalate very quickly. And when it’s a low-skilled attacker with little regard or understanding of what a high-powered tool can do, miscalculations become alarmingly easy.

As far as we know, DarkSide itself was not a state-sponsored APT, merely a private criminal franchise. Yet they advertised their ransomware as the fastest in the world and managed to pull off one of the most disruptive critical infrastructure cyber-attacks of all time. As history has shown, from the Morris worm to Colonial Pipeline, when malware is fast and designed to propagate, it is unpredictable. It is nearly impossible to put a highly destructive genie back in the bottle.

As automation and AI-powered attacks become a reality, these trends will increase exponentially and transform the threat landscape. Ransomware is no longer a human-scalable problem. Organizational resilience depends not on throwing more people into the mix, or even upskilling existing teams – machine-speed attacks need a machine-speed response which can adapt as fast as an attack propagates. Thwarting ransomware is both a board-level issue and a national security concern. As such, self-learning AI technology proves critical in tackling the unpredictability and speed of the threats of today, and of tomorrow.

Thanks to Lucas Marsden-Smedley for his contributions.

Learn more about how Darktrace can detect attacks like Colonial Pipeline

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
Marcus Fowler
CEO of Darktrace Federal

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

June 24, 2026

A New Security Challenge: The Curious Case of Prompt Language Analysis

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Why prompt analysis is emerging as a key AI security challenge

If securing AI has been one of the defining cybersecurity conversations of the past year, prompt analysis is quickly becoming one of its most interesting frontiers.

Security leaders are under pressure to understand how AI is being used across the business. In some organizations, that means governing employee use of chatbots. In others, it means overseeing copilots embedded into SaaS platforms, monitoring coding assistants, or assessing the growing footprint of autonomous agents. However different these use cases may appear on the surface, they share a common factor: humans and machines are usually interacting with enterprise systems through language.  

How prompt language differs from traditional security telemetry

For years, defenders have become used to working with familiar forms of telemetry: email traffic, network connections, API calls, endpoint processes, authentication events. Prompt language is different. It is not simply another log source. It is an expression of intent, instruction, curiosity, urgency, and sometimes manipulation. It reflects the end-goal of a user or agent, but not always with enough surrounding context to interpret the risk correctly.

Why existing security approaches only partially explain prompt risk

A growing number of vendors are approaching the task of securing AI from the angle they know best. Perimeter vendors are extending web or browser controls into AI usage. Identity vendors are emphasizing agent permissions and access governance. Data security and DLP providers are focusing on content inspection and exfiltration risk. All of these perspectives matter, but individually can’t fully explain the problem.

The challenge with securing AI is not just that a new application category has emerged. It is that language has become a new operating layer in the enterprise.

Employees now use prompts to summarize documents, generate code, analyze spreadsheets, query internal knowledge, and trigger multi-step actions through agents. In each case, prompt language acts as the interface between human intent and machine execution. That makes prompts incredibly valuable from a security perspective as they can hint at misuse, policy violations, data exposure, or attempts to circumvent controls. However, they can also be deeply ambiguous when viewed in isolation. That ambiguity is the heart of the issue.

Prompts as behavioral signals, not just text to classify

A prompt by itself tells you what was asked. It does not necessarily tell you whether the request is expected, risky, accidental, or entirely legitimate in context. Two nearly identical prompts can carry very different meanings depending on the role and function of who issued them, what systems they can access, and what actions followed. In other words, prompts are not just text to classify. They are behavioral signals to interpret.

Example: How context changes prompt risk entirely

Consider a common enterprise scenario. An employee is pulled into a new project with an aggressive deadline. Almost overnight, their use of AI tools spikes. They begin prompting more frequently, working across unfamiliar documents, querying new data sources, and interacting with more systems than usual to accelerate delivery. Viewed narrowly, this may look suspicious. Prompt volume increases, file access patterns change, API and SaaS activity rise. From some vantage points, it may resemble insider risk or unmanaged AI usage.

But now add context. Imagine that, earlier that day, the employee received instructions from a senior leader asking them to support a time-sensitive initiative. Their communication history shows that this leader is a legitimate reporting-line superior. Their recent collaboration patterns align with the new project team. Their subsequent activity, while unusual for that individual’s baseline, is consistent with the business task they were assigned.

What initially looked like a risk event may actually be a normal response to business pressure. Without the surrounding context of communication, organizational relationships, and broader behavioral patterns, prompt activity alone could generate more noise than insight.

The reverse is also true. A prompt may appear benign on the surface while the context around it suggests elevated risk. A request that seems routine could originate from a compromised user, a newly connected external agent, a shadow AI workflow, or a user acting outside their normal role. The language itself may not contain anything obviously malicious, but the surrounding conditions may tell a very different story.

What security teams need to analyze prompts effectively

The future of prompt analysis is not just about understanding language. It is about understanding language in context.

To do that well, security teams need more than prompt inspection. They need to understand:

  • Who is issuing the prompt, whether human or agent
  • How that identity normally behaves across the enterprise
  • What systems, data, and workflows are connected to the interaction
  • Which relationships and communications explain the surrounding activity
  • Whether the downstream actions align with expected business behavior

When those layers are absent, prompt analysis can become another isolated control surface: useful in theory, but limited in practice. Security teams may detect unusual wording but miss the operational function behind it, overreact to benign changes in behavior, or miss subtle misuse because the prompt itself did not appear dangerous.

How organizations should think about prompt analysis going forward

Security teams have seen this pattern before. In the cloud, posture without runtime context left important gaps. In identity, access control without behavioral understanding missed misuse that looked legitimate on paper. In data security, content inspection without business context often created friction without resolving risk. AI is exposing the same lesson again: controls are strongest when they are coordinated, not isolated. As organizations work to secure AI and identify gaps across their security operations, prompt analysis will become an increasingly important source of insight, but only as part of a broader strategy.

Prompt analysis will undoubtedly become more common, as prompts are one of the clearest windows into how people and agents are using AI systems. However, what matters most is not simply collecting prompts or filtering dangerous phrases, but being able to place that language inside a wider behavioral and operational picture.

Organizations that already have a broader understanding of how work gets done across the enterprise will be better positioned to make sense of prompt language as this category matures. They will be better able to distinguish urgency from abuse, experimentation from exfiltration, and productive AI adoption from hidden risk.

Figure 1: Darktrace / SECURE AI reconstructs the full sequence of events, showing every user and agent interaction in context, with risky prompts highlighted and categorized, including PII, sensitive data, and other policy violations.

At Darktrace, this is the key lesson emerging from the market: prompt language does matter, but it does not stand alone. It is most valuable when treated as a new behavioral input that can enrich understanding across the enterprise, not as a self-contained source of truth.

Why prompts become less useful when analyzed in isolation

The curious case of prompt language analysis, then, is this: the more important prompts become, the less useful they are in a vacuum.

The real opportunity is not just to see what was asked. It is to understand why it was asked, what it meant in that moment, and what happened next.

For a deeper look at how organizations are approaching this challenge from the strengths of prompt analysis to its limitations in isolation see Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches, which expands on the role prompt-level controls play within a broader, context-driven security strategy.

Continue reading
About the author
Nabil Zoldjalali
VP, Field CISO

Blog

/

AI

/

June 23, 2026

サイバーセキュリティにおけるフロンティアAIの利用を推進: ダークトレース、OpenAIのDaybreakサイバーパートナープログラムに参加、防御AIのインテグレーションを模索

Default blog imageDefault blog image

ダークトレース、OpenAIのDaybreakサイバーパートナープログラムに参加

今日、ダークトレースがOpenAIのDaybreakサイバーパートナープログラムに参加したことが発表されました。私たちはOpenAIと協調して、OpenAIのサイバー機能をダークトレースの製品およびサービスにどう統合できるかを検証することで、ダークトレースの顧客に対して新たな機能を提供していきます。

このパートナーシップは、ダークトレースのビヘイビアAIモデリングをOpenAIの先進的コンテキスト機能と組み合わせることによりセキュリティチームに対して新たなレベルの理解を提供する、画期的な機会となります。この効果を理解していただくために、私たちがこの問題についてどう考えているかを説明することから始めたいと思います。

ダークトレースでは、サイバーセキュリティは防御対象のビジネスを理解する必要があるという基本的信念に基づいてAIを構築してきました。そのため、当社の自己学習型AIは、ユーザーやアイデンティティ、ネットワークやクラウド、Eメールやコラボレーションツール、そして現在はDarktrace / SECURE AI™の展開によりAIシステムやエージェントまでを含めて、各組織のデジタル環境全体における正常および異常な動作の理解を支援するよう設計されています。

私たちの目標は、これまでも単に既知の攻撃をより速く見つけることではありませんでした。自分たちの組織がどのように動作しているか、潜在的なリスクと影響、そして混乱がどこで起こり得るかを防御者が理解し、これまで見たことも想像したこともない未知の脅威に備えられるようにするためでした。

それはまさに今日の脅威ランドスケープで起こっていることです。攻撃は常に変化し続け、手法は移り変わり、インフラは進化し、攻撃者はより速く、正確に、そして状況に応じて動いています。そして今や彼らにはさらに多くの自動化とAIが味方についています。攻撃者は、アイデンティティ、信頼されたサービス、SaaSアプリケーション、およびビジネスワークフローを悪用しています。脅威は必ず外部から侵入しているわけではありません。脅威はしばしば組織内部から、内部関係者による脅威や悪意を持ったエージェントの形でやって来ることもあります。 

こうした現実のなかで、防御者は組織についての深いAIモデリングと、特定された脅威を具体的なビジネスコンテキストに結びつけ、この情報を現実の価値に変換し、リスクが障害に発展する前にアクションを取ることができるAIを必要としています。

私たちがOpenAIとの提携に見出しているチャンスはここにあります。

OpenAIのDaybreakサイバーパートナープログラムとは何か、そしてなぜダークトレースが参加するのか

OpenAI Daybreakサイバーパートナープログラムは、サイバーセキュリティへのAIの安全な利用を推進するためのプログラムです。プログラムの新たな段階として、OpenAIはダークトレースを含む選ばれた信頼できるパートナーと協調し、範囲を限定した製品インテグレーション、マネージド型サービス、パートナーを通じて提供される防御機能を検証します。私たちはOpenAIの高度なフロンティアAI機能が、日々利用しているツールやワークフローを通じてどのように防御者を支援できるかを模索します。

ダークトレースにとって、これは私たちの専門知識と過去10年間にわたって行ってきた取り組みの自然な延長線上にあります。それは、最も効果的なAI技術の組み合わせを安全かつ確実に適用することにより、組織を理解し、悪意あるアクティビティを最も早い兆候で検知し、サイバー防御者がより迅速に行動できるよう支援することです。

OpenAI Daybreakサイバーパートナープログラムで利用可能な高度なモデルとより精密なセーフガードを活用することで、ダークトレースとOpenAIは、組織のデジタルエステートについてのDarktraceのリアルタイムの動作理解と、広範なビジネスコンテキストを解釈するOpenAIの能力を組み合わせます。  

このユニークかつ強力な知見の組み合わせにより、技術的リスクについてより深いコンテキストを提供し、収益、業務、レジリエンスへの潜在的な影響に基づいて作業負荷や調査の優先順位を判断するのに役立てることができます。さらに、セキュリティチームや経営幹部に対して、どのイベントがビジネスにとって最も重要であるか、なぜ重要であるか、そしてどのような対応を取るべきかについての情報を提供することができます。たとえば、エージェントが侵害されていることを見つけるだけでなく、その侵害されたエージェントが今後3時間以内に注文の履行を停止させる可能性がある、ということを指摘することができます。

なぜダークトレースとOpenAIの提携が防御者にとって重要なのか

今日のセキュリティチームは、より多くのアタックサーフェスを管理し、より複雑な環境を保護しなければならず、脅威の量も増大しています。

迅速に行動する能力はきわめて重要ですが、それに加えて最もビジネスに影響を与えるリスクに集中できることも必要です。攻撃者がAIを使って大規模なフィッシングを行い、偵察を自動化し、弱点を見つけ、通常のビジネス活動に溶け込むことができる今、このことは特に重要です。同時に、組織とその従業員はAIを活用したイノベーションを進めており、そのことがアタックサーフェスをさらに広げ、新たなリスクをもたらしています。防御者は、こうした複雑な環境に対応し、安全で透明性があり、レジリエンスの強化に役立つAIを必要としています。また、組織全体でAIを安全に導入し、管理し、防御する方法が必要です。

OpenAI Daybreakサイバーパートナープログラムへの参加は、その方向へのさらなる一歩です。私たちはまだこの作業の初期段階にあり、慎重かつ規律あるアプローチで取り組んでいます。ただ、方向性は明確です。組織を守るには、攻撃だけでなくビジネスを理解するAIが必要です。

ダークトレースでは、まさにその点に重点をおいており、OpenAIとのこのパートナーシップに大きく期待しています。

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
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