Blog
/
/
July 26, 2022

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

Explore the differences between zero-day and n-day attacks on different customer servers to learn how Darktrace detects and prevents cyber threats effectively.
Written by
Lewis Morgan
Cyber Analyst
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Lewis Morgan
Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
26
Jul 2022

‍Key Terms:

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

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

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

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

Revisiting zero-day attacks 

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

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

The N-day underdog

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

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

SonicWall in the wild – 1. Zero-day attack

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

Figure 1: Timeline of the SonicWall attack 

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

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

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

-       EternalBlue vulnerability 

-       Petit Potam NTLM hash attack tool

-       Unusual GitHub repositories

-       Unusual Python repositories  

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

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

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

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

Confluence in the wild – 2. N-day attack

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

Figure 3: Timeline of the Confluence attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darktrace Coverage: N- vs Zero-days

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

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

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

Concluding thoughts and dangers of third-party integrations 

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

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

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

Thanks to Paul Jennings for his contributions to this blog.

Appendices: SonicWall (Zero-day)

Darktrace model detections

·      AIA / Suspicious Chain of Administrative Credentials

·      Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

·      Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

·      Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Remote Desktop

·      Compliance / High Priority Compliance Model Breach

·      Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

·      Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

·      Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

·      Device / ICMP Address Scan

·      Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

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

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

·      Device / Network Scan

·      Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

·      Device / RDP Scan

·      Device / Reverse DNS Sweep

·      Device / SMB Session Bruteforce

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

·      Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity

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

·      Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed
IoCs

‍

Appendices: Confluence (N-day)

Darktrace model detections

·      Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·      Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·      Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

·      Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location

·      Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

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

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

·      Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

·      Device / New User Agent

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (displayed in example)

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

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

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

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

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

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed
IOCs

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by
Lewis Morgan
Cyber Analyst
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Lewis Morgan
Cyber Analyst

Ivanti Under Siege: Investigating the Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile Vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-4427 & CVE-2025-4428)

Network
•
August 8, 2025
Nahisha Nobregas
SOC Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
May 13, 2024
2
How Empowering End Users can Improve Your Email Security and Decrease the Burden on the SOC
May 8, 2024
3
Elevating Network Security: Confronting Trust, Ransomware, & Novel Attacks
Jun 21, 2024
4
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners
Apr 9, 2024
5
Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability
Jul 2, 2025

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
No items found.

Blog

/

/

August 12, 2025

ISO/IEC 42001: 2023: A milestone in AI standards at Darktrace  

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Darktrace announces ISO/IEC 42001 accreditation

Darktrace is thrilled to announce that we are one of the first cybersecurity companies to achieve ISO/IEC 42001 accreditation for the responsible management of AI systems. This isn’t just a milestone for us, it’s a sign of where the AI industry is headed. ISO/IEC 42001 is quickly emerging as the global benchmark for separating vendors who truly innovate with AI from those who simply market it.

For customers, it’s more than a badge, it’s assurance that a vendor’s AI is built responsibly, governed with rigor, and backed by the expertise of real AI teams, keeping your data secure while driving meaningful innovation.

This is a critical milestone for Darktrace as we continue to strengthen our offering, mature our governance and compliance frameworks for AI management, expand our research and development capabilities, and further our commitment to the development of responsible AI.  

It cements our commitment to providing secure, trustworthy and proactive cybersecurity solutions that our customers can rely on and complements our existing compliance framework, consisting of certifications for:

  • ISO/IEC 27001:2022 – Information Security Management System
  • ISO/IEC 27018:2019 – Protection of Personally Identifiable Information in Public Cloud Environments
  • Cyber Essentials – A UK Government-backed certification scheme for cybersecurity baselines

What is ISO/IEC 42001:2023?

In response to the unique challenges that AI poses, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) introduced the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 framework in December 2023 to help organizations providing or utilizing AI-based products or services to demonstrate responsible development and use of AI systems. To achieve the accreditation, organizations are required to establish, implement, maintain, and continually improve their Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS).

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is the first of its kind, providing valuable guidance for this rapidly changing field of technology. It addresses the unique ethical and technical challenges AI poses by setting out a structured way to manage risks such as transparency, accuracy and misuse without losing opportunities. By design, it balances the benefits of innovation against the necessity of a proper governance structure.

Being certified means the organization has met the requirements of the ISO/IEC 42001 standard, is conforming to all applicable regulatory and legislative requirements, and has implemented thorough processes to address AI risks and opportunities.

What is the  ISO/IEC 42001:2023 accreditation process?

Darktrace partnered with BSI over an 11-month period to undertake the accreditation. The process involved developing and implementing a comprehensive AI management system that builds on our existing certified frameworks, addresses the risks and opportunities of using and developing cutting-edge AI systems, underpins our AI objectives and policies, and meets our regulatory and legal compliance requirements.

The AI Management System, which takes in our people, processes, and products, was extensively audited by BSI against the requirements of the standard, covering all aspects spanning the design of our AI, use of AI within the organization, and our competencies, resources and HR processes. It is an in-depth process that we’re thrilled to have undertaken, making us one of the first in our industry to achieve certification for a globally recognized AI system.

The scope of Darktrace’s certification is particularly wide due to our unique Self-Learning approach to AI for cybersecurity, which uses multi-layered AI systems consisting of varied AI techniques to address distinct cybersecurity tasks. The certification encompasses production and provision of AI systems based on anomaly detection, clustering, classifiers, regressors, neural networks, proprietary and third-party large language models for proactive, detection, response and recovery cybersecurity applications. Darktrace additionally elected to adopt all Annex A controls present in the ISO/IEC 42001 standard.

What are the benefits of an AI Management System?

While AI is not a new or novel concept, the AI industry has accelerated at an unprecedented rate in the past few years, increasing operational efficiency, driving innovation, and automating cumbersome processes in the workplace.

At the same time, the data privacy, security and bias risks created by rapid innovation in AI have been well documented.

Thus, an AI Management System enables organizations to confidently establish and adhere to governance in a way that conforms to best practice, promotes adherence, and is in line with current and emerging regulatory standards.

Not only is this vital in a unique and rapidly evolving field like AI, it additionally helps organization’s balance the drive for innovation with the risks the technology can present, helping to get the best out of their AI development and usage.

What are the key components of ISO/IEC 42001?

The Standard puts an emphasis on responsible AI development and use, requiring organizations to:

  • Establish and implement an AI Management System
  • Commit to the responsible development of AI against established, measurable objectives
  • Have in place a process to manage, monitor and adapt to risks in an effective manner
  • Commit to continuous improvement of their AI Management System

The AI Standard is similar in composition to other ISO standards, such as ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which many organizations may already be familiar with. Further information as to the structure of ISO/IEC 42001 can be found in Annex A.

What it means for Darktrace’s customers

Our certification against ISO/IEC 42001 demonstrates Darktrace’s commitment to delivering industry-leading Self-Learning AI in the name of cybersecurity resilience. Our stakeholders, customers and partners can be confident that Darktrace is responsibly, ethically and securely developing its AI systems, and is managing the use of AI in our day-to-day operations in a compliant, secure and ethical manner. It means:

  • ‍You can trust our AI: We can demonstrate our AI is developed responsibly, in a transparent manner and in accordance with ethical rules. For more information and to learn about Darktrace's responsible AI in cybersecurity approach, please see here.‍
  • Our products are backed by innovation and integrity: Darktrace drives cutting edge AI innovation with ethical governance and customer trust at its core. ‍
  • You are partnering with an organization which stays ahead of regulatory changes: In an evolving AI landscape, partnering with Darktrace helps you to stay prepared for emerging compliance and regulatory demands in your supply chain.

Achieving ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification is not just a checkpoint for us. It represents our unwavering commitment to setting a higher standard for AI in cybersecurity. It reaffirms our leadership in building and implementing responsible AI and underscores our mission to continuously innovate and lead the way in the industry.

Why ISO/IEC 42001 matters for every AI vendor you trust

In a market where “AI” can mean anything from a true, production-grade system to a thin marketing layer, ISO/IEC 42001 acts as a critical differentiator. Vendors who have earned this certification aren’t just claiming they build responsible AI, they’ve proven it through an independent, rigorous audit of how they design, deploy, and manage their systems.

For you as a customer, that means:

You know their AI is real: Certified vendors have dedicated, skilled AI teams building and maintaining systems that meet measurable standards, not just repackaging off-the-shelf tools with an “AI” label.

Your data is safeguarded: Compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 includes stringent governance over data use, bias, transparency, and risk management.

You’re partnering with innovators: The certification process encourages continuous improvement, meaning your vendor is actively advancing AI capabilities while keeping ethics and security in focus.

In short, ISO/IEC 42001 is quickly becoming the global badge of credible AI development. If your vendor can’t show it, it’s worth asking how they manage AI risk, whether their governance is mature enough, and how they ensure innovation doesn’t outpace accountability.

Annex A: The Structure of ISO/IEC 42001

ISO/IEC 42001 has requirements for which seven adherence is required for an organization seeking to obtain or maintain its certification:

  • ‍Context of the organization – organizations need to demonstrate an understanding of the internal and external factors influencing the organization’s AI Management System.
  • ‍Leadership – senior leadership teams need to be committed to implementing AI governance within their organizations, providing direction and support across all aspects AI Management System lifecycle.‍
  • Planning – organizations need to put meaningful and manageable processes in place to identify risks and opportunities related to the AI Management System to achieve responsible AI objectives and mitigate identified risks.‍
  • Support – demonstrating a commitment to provisioning of adequate resources, information, competencies, awareness and communication for the AI Management System is a must to ensure that proper oversight and management of the system and its risks can be achieved.‍
  • Operation – establishing processes necessary to support the organization’s AI system development and usage, in conformance with the organization’s AI policy, objectives and requirements of the standard. Correcting the course of any deviations within good time is paramount.‍
  • Performance evaluation – the organization must be able to demonstrate that it has the capability and willingness to regularly monitor and evaluate the performance of the AI Management System effectively, including actioning any corrections and introducing new processes where relevant.‍
  • Improvement – relying on an existing process will not be sufficient to ensure compliance with the AI Standard. Organizations must commit to monitoring of existing systems and processes to ensure that the AI Management System is continually enhanced and improved.

To assist organizations in seeking the above, four annexes are included within the AI Standard’s rubric, which outline the objectives and measures an organization may wish to implement to address risks related to the design and operation of their AI Management System through the introduction of normative controls. Whilst they are not prescriptive, Darktrace has implemented the requirements of these Annexes to enable it to appropriately demonstrate the effectiveness of its AI Management System. We have placed a heavy emphasis on Annex A which contains these normative controls which we, and other organizations seeking to achieve certification, can align with to address the objectives and measures, such as:

  • Enforcement of policies related to AI.
  • Setting responsibilities within the organization, and expectation of roles and responsibilities.
  • Creating processes and guidelines for escalating and handling AI concerns.
  • Making resources for AI systems available to users.
  • Assessing impacts of AI systems internally and externally.
  • Implementing processes across the entire AI system life cycle.
  • Understanding treatment of Data for AI systems.
  • Defining what information is, and should be available, for AI systems.
  • Considering and defining use cases for the AI systems.
  • Considering the impact of the AI System on third-party and customer relationships.

The remaining annexes provide guidance on implementing Annex A’s controls, objectives and primary risk sources of AI implementation, and considering how the AI Management System can be used across domains or sectors responsibly.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

/

August 12, 2025

Minimizing Permissions for Cloud Forensics: A Practical Guide to Tightening Access in the Cloud

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Most cloud environments are over-permissioned and under-prepared for incident response.

Security teams need access to logs, snapshots, and configuration data to understand how an attack unfolded, but giving blanket access opens the door to insider threats, misconfigurations, and lateral movement.

So, how do you enable forensics without compromising your security posture?

The dilemma: balancing access and security

There is a tension between two crucial aspects of cloud security that create a challenge for cloud forensics.

One aspect is the need for Security Operations Center (SOC) and Incident Response (IR) teams to access comprehensive data for investigating and resolving security incidents.

The other conflicting aspect is the principle of least privilege and minimal manual access advocated by cloud security best practices.

This conflict is particularly pronounced in modern cloud environments, where traditional physical access controls no longer apply, and infrastructure-as-code and containerization have transformed the landscape.

There are several common but less-than-ideal approaches to this challenge:

  • Accepting limited data access, potentially leaving incidents unresolved
  • Granting root-level access during major incidents, risking further compromise

Relying on cloud or DevOps teams to retrieve data, causing delays and potential miscommunication

[related-resource]

Challenges in container forensics

Containers present unique challenges for forensic investigations due to their ephemeral and dynamic nature. The orchestration and management of containers, whether on private clusters or using services like AWS Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), introduce complexities in capturing and analyzing forensic data.

To effectively investigate containers, it's often necessary to acquire the underlying volume of a node or perform memory captures. However, these actions require specific Identity and Access Management (IAM) and network access to the node, as well as familiarity with the container environment, which may not always be straightforward.

An alternative method of collection in containerized environments is to utilize automated tools to collect this evidence. Since they can detect malicious activity and collect relevant data without needing human input, they can act immediately, securing evidence that might be lost by the time a human analyst is available to collect it manually.

Additionally, automation can help significantly with access and permissions. Instead of analysts needing the correct permissions for the account, service, and node, as well as deep knowledge of the container service itself, for any container from which they wish to collect logs. They can instead collect them, and have them all presented in one place, at the click of a button.

A better approach: practical strategies for cloud forensics

It's crucial to implement strategies that strike a balance between necessary access and stringent security controls.

Here are several key approaches:

1. Dedicated cloud forensics accounts

Establishing a separate cloud account or subscription specifically for forensic activities is foundational. This approach isolates forensic activities from regular operations, preventing potential contamination from compromised environments. Dedicated accounts also enable tighter control over access policies, ensuring that forensic operations do not inadvertently expose sensitive data to unauthorized users.

A separate account allows for:

  • Isolation: The forensic investigation environment is isolated from potentially compromised environments, reducing the risk of cross-contamination.
  • Tighter access controls: Policies and controls can be more strictly enforced in a dedicated account, reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access.
  • Simplified governance: A clear and simplified chain of custody for digital evidence is easier to maintain, ensuring that forensic activities meet legal and regulatory requirements.

For more specifics:

2. Cross-account roles with least privilege

Using cross-account IAM roles, the forensics account can access other accounts, but only with permissions that are strictly necessary for the investigation. This ensures that the principle of least privilege is upheld, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or data exposure during the forensic process.

3. Temporary credentials for just-in-time access

Leveraging temporary credentials, such as AWS STS tokens, allows for just-in-time access during an investigation. These credentials are short-lived and scoped to specific resources, ensuring that access is granted only when absolutely necessary and is automatically revoked after the investigation is completed. This reduces the window of opportunity for potential attackers to exploit elevated permissions.

For AWS, you can use commands such as:

aws sts get-session-token --duration-seconds 43200

aws sts assume-role --role-arn role-to-assume --role-session-name "sts-session-1" --duration-seconds 43200

For Azure, you can use commands such as:

az ad app credential reset --id <appId> --password <sp_password> --end-date 2024-01-01

For more details for Google Cloud environments, see “Create short-lived credentials for a service account” and the request.time parameter.

4. Tag-based access control

Pre-deploying access control based on resource tags is another effective strategy. By tagging resources with identifiers like "Forensics," access can be dynamically granted only to those resources that are relevant to the investigation. This targeted approach minimizes the risk of overexposure and ensures that forensic teams can quickly and efficiently access the data they need.

For example, in AWS:

Condition: StringLike: aws:ResourceTag/Name: ForensicsEnabled

Condition: StringLike: ssm:resourceTag/SSMEnabled: True

For example, in Azure:

"Condition": "StringLike(Resource[Microsoft.Resources/tags.example_key], '*')"

For example, in Google Cloud:

expression: > resource.matchTag('tagKeys/ForensicsEnabled', '*')

Tighten access, enhance security

The shift to cloud environments demands a rethinking of how we approach forensic investigations. By implementing strategies like dedicated cloud forensic accounts, cross-account roles, temporary credentials, and tag-based access control, organizations can strike the right balance between access and security. These practices not only enhance the effectiveness of forensic investigations but also ensure that access is tightly controlled, reducing the risk of exacerbating an incident or compromising the investigation.

Find the right tools for your cloud security

Darktrace delivers a proactive approach to cyber resilience in a single cybersecurity platform, including cloud coverage.

Darktrace’s cloud offerings have been bolstered with the acquisition of Cado Security Ltd., which enables security teams to gain immediate access to forensic-level data in multi-cloud, container, serverless, SaaS, and on-premises environments.

In addition to having these forensics capabilities, Darktrace / CLOUD is a real-time Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solution built with advanced AI to make cloud security accessible to all security teams and SOCs. By using multiple machine learning techniques, Darktrace brings unprecedented visibility, threat detection, investigation, and incident response to hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

Continue reading
About the author
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI