February 11, 2025

Defending Against Living-off-the-Land Attacks: Anomaly Detection in Action

Discover how Darktrace detected and responded to cyberattacks using Living-off-the-Land (LOTL) tactics to exploit trusted services and tools on customer networks.

Written by

Alexandra Sentenac

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

Alexandra Sentenac

Cyber Analyst

Feb 2025

What is living-off-the-land?

Threat actors employ a variety of techniques to compromise target networks, including exploiting unpatched vulnerabilities, abusing misconfigurations, deploying backdoors, and creating custom malware. However, these methods generate a lot of noise and are relatively easy for network and host-based monitoring tools to detect, especially once indicators of compromise (IoCs) and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) are published by the cybersecurity community.

Living-off-the-Land (LOTL) techniques, however, allow attacks to remain nearly invisible to Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools – leveraging trusted protocols, applications and native systems to carry out malicious activity. While mitigations exist, they are often poorly implemented. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) found that some organizations “lacked security baselines, allowing [Living-off-the-Land binaries (LOLBins)] to execute and leaving analysts unable to identify anomalous activity” and “organizations did not appropriately tune their detection tools to reduce alert noise, leading to an unmanageable level of alerts to sift through and action" [1].

Darktrace / NETWORK addresses this challenge across Information Technology (IT), Operational Technology (OT), and cloud environments by continuously analyzing network traffic and identifying deviations from normal behavior with its multi-layered AI – helping organizations detect and respond to LOTL attacks in real time.

Darktrace’s detection of LOTL attacks

This blog will review two separate attacks detected by Darktrace that leveraged LOTL techniques at several stages of the intrusion.

Case A

Reconnaissance

In September 2024, a malicious actor gained access to a customer network via their Virtual Private Network (VPN) from two desktop devices that had no prior connection history. Over two days, the attacker conducted multiple network scans, targeting ports associated with Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) and NTLM authentication. Darktrace detected this unusual activity, triggering multiple alerts for scanning and enumeration activity.

Unusual NTLM authentication attempts using default accounts like “Guest” and “Administrator” were detected. Two days after the initial intrusion, suspicious DRSGetNCChanges requests were observed on multiple domain controllers (DCs), targeting the Directory Replication Service RPC interface (i.e., drsuapi) – a technique used to extract account hashes from DCs. This process can be automated using tools like Mimikatz's DcSync and DCShadow

Around the same time, attacker-controlled devices were seen presenting an admin credential and another credential potentially granting access to Cisco Firewall systems, suggesting successful privilege escalation. Due to the severity of this activity, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response was triggered to prevent the device from further deviation from its normal behavior. However, because Autonomous Response was configured in Human Confirmation mode, the response actions had to be manually applied by the customer.

Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst Critical Incident showing the unusual DRSGetNCChanges requests following unusual scanning activity.

Lateral movement

Darktrace also detected anomalous RDP connections to domain controllers, originating from an attacker-controlled device using admin and service credentials. The attacker then successfully pivoted to a likely RDP server, leveraging the RDP protocol – one of the most commonly used for lateral movement in network compromises observed by Darktrace.

Tooling

Following an incoming RDP connection, one of the DCs made a successful GET request to the URI '/download/122.dll' on the 100% rare IP, 146.70.145[.]189. The request returned an executable file, which open-source intelligence (OSINT) suggests is likely a CobaltStrike C2 sever payload [2] [3]. Had Autonomous Response been enabled here, it would have blocked all outgoing traffic from the DC allowing the customer to investigate and remediate.

Additionally, Darktrace detected a suspicious CreateServiceW request to the Service Control (SVCCTL) RPC interface on a server. The request executed commands using ‘cmd.exe’ to perform the following actions

Used ‘tasklist’ to filter processes named ”lsass.exe” (Local Security Authority Subsystem Service) to find its specific process ID.
Used “rundll32.exe” to execute the MiniDump function from the “comsvcs.dll” library, creating a memory dump of the “lsass.exe” process.
Saved the output to a PNG file in a temporary folder,

Notably, “cmd.exe” was referenced as “CMd.EXE” within the script, likely an attempt to evade detection by security tools monitoring for specific keywords and patterns.

Figure 3: Model Alert Log showing the unusual SVCCTL create request.

Over the course of three days, this activity triggered around 125 Darktrace / NETWORK alerts across 11 internal devices. In addition, Cyber AI Analyst launched an autonomous investigation into the activity, analyzing and connecting 16 separate events spanning multiple stages of the cyber kill chain - from initial reconnaissance to payload retrieval and lateral movement.

Darktrace’s comprehensive detection enabled the customer’s security team to remediate the compromise before any further escalation was observed.

Case B

Between late 2023 and early 2024, Darktrace identified a widespread attack that combined insider and external threats, leveraging multiple LOTL tools for reconnaissance and lateral movement within a customer's network.

Reconnaissance

Initially, Darktrace detected the use of a new administrative credential by a device, which then made unusual RDP connections to multiple internal systems, including a 30-minute connection to a DC. Throughout the attack, multiple unusual RDP connections using the new administrative credential “%admin!!!” were observed, indicating that this protocol was leveraged for lateral movement.

The next day, a Microsoft Defender Security Integration alert was triggered on the device due to suspicious Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) credential dump behavior. Since the LSASS process memory can store operating system and domain admin credentials, obtaining this sensitive information can greatly facilitate lateral movement within a network using legitimate tools such as PsExec or Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) [4]. Security integrations with other security vendors like this one can provide insights into host-based processes, which are typically outside of Darktrace’s coverage. Darktrace’s anomaly detection and network activity monitoring help prioritize the investigation of these alerts.

Three days later, the attacker was observed logging into the DC and querying tickets for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) service using the default credential “Administrator.” This activity, considered new by Darktrace, triggered an Autonomous Response action that blocked further connections on Kerberos port 88 to the DC. LDAP provides a central location to access and manage data about computers, servers, users, groups, and policies within a network. LDAP enumeration can provide valuable Active Directory (AD) object information to an attacker, which can be used to identify critical attack paths or accounts with high privileges.

Lateral movement

Following the incoming RDP connection, the DC began scanning activities, including RDP and Server Block Message (SMB) services, suggesting the attacker was using remote access for additional reconnaissance. Outgoing RDP connection attempts to over 100 internal devices were observed, with around 5% being successful, highlighting the importance of this protocol for the threat actor’s lateral movement.

Around the same time, the DC made WMI, PsExec, and service control connections to two other DCs, indicating further lateral movement using native administrative protocols and tools. These functions can be leveraged by attackers to query system information, run malicious code, and maintain persistent access to compromised devices while avoiding traditional security tool alarms. In this case, requested services included the IWbemServices (used to access WMI services) and IWbemFetchSmartEnum (used to retrieve a network-optimized enumerator interface) interfaces, with ExecQuery operations detected for the former. This method returns an enumerable collection of IWbemClassObject interface objects based on a query.

Additionally, unusual Windows Remote Management (WinRM) connections to another domain controller were observed. WinRM is a Microsoft protocol that allows systems to exchange and access management information over HTTP(S) across a network, such as running executables or modifying the registry and services.

Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst Incident showing unusual WMI activity between the two DCs.

The DC was also detected writing the file “PSEXESVC.exe” to the “ADMIN$” share of another internal device over the SMB file transfer network protocol. This activity was flagged as highly unusual by Darktrace, as these two devices had not previously engaged in this type of SMB connectivity.

It is rare for an attacker to immediately find the information or systems they are after, making it likely they will need to move around the network before achieving their objectives. Tools such as PsExec enable attackers to do this while largely remaining under the radar. With PsExec, attackers who gain access to a single system can connect to and execute commands remotely on other internal systems, access sensitive information, and spread their attack further into the environment.

Figure 5. Model Alert Event Log showing the new write of the file “PSEXESVC.exe” by one of the compromised devices over an SMB connection initiated at an unusual time.

Darktrace further observed the DC connecting to the SVCCTL endpoint on a remote device and performing the CreateServiceW operation, which was flagged as highly unusual based on previous behavior patterns between the two devices. Additionally, new ChangeServiceConfigW operations were observed from another device.

Aside from IWbemServices requests seen on multiple devices, Darktrace also detected multiple internal devices connecting to the ITaskSchedulerService interface over DCE-RPC and performing new SchRpcRegisterTask operations, which register a task on the destination system. Attackers can exploit the task scheduler to facilitate the initial or recurring execution of malicious code by a trusted system process, often with elevated permissions. The creation of these tasks was considered new or highly unusual and triggered several anomalous ITaskScheduler activity alerts.

Conclusion

As pointed out by CISA, threat actors frequently exploit the lack of implemented controls on their target networks, as demonstrated in the incidents discussed here. In the first case, VPN access was granted to all domain users, providing the attacker with a point of entry. In the second case, there were no restrictions on the use of RDP within the targeted network segment, allowing the attackers to pivot from device to device.

Darktrace assists security teams in monitoring for unusual use of LOTL tools and protocols that can be leveraged by threat actors to achieve a wide range of objectives. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI sifts through the network traffic noise generated by these trusted tools, which are essential to administrators and developers in their daily tasks, and highlights any anomalous and potentially unexpected use.

Credit to Alexandra Sentenac (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References

[1] https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Joint-Guidance-Identifying-and-Mitigating-LOTL_V3508c.pdf

[2] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/146.70.145.189/community

[3] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/cc9a670b549d84084618267fdeea13f196e43ae5df0d88e2e18bf5aa91b97318

[4]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2022/10/05/detecting-and-preventing-lsass-credential-dumping-attacks

MITRE Mapping

INITIAL ACCESS - External Remote Services

DISCOVERY - Remote System Discovery

DISCOVERY - Network Service Discovery

DISCOVERY - File and Directory Discovery

CREDENTIAL ACCESS – OS Credential Dumping: LSASS Memory

LATERAL MOVEMENT - Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol

LATERAL MOVEMENT - Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares

EXECUTION - System Services: Service Execution

PERSISTENCE - Scheduled Task

COMMAND AND CONTROL - Ingress Tool Transfer

Darktrace Model Detections

Case A

Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

Device / Network Scan

Device / ICMP Address Scan

Device / Reverse DNS Sweep

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session

Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)

Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

Device / SMB Lateral Movement

Device / Anomalous NTLM Brute Force

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Non-Admin)

Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Anomalous Connection / Possible Share Enumeration Activity

Device / RDP Scan

Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation

Anomalous Connection / High Priority DRSGetNCChanges

Compliance / Default Credential Usage

User / New Admin Credentials on Client

User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

User / New Admin Credential Ticket Request

Compromise / Unusual SVCCTL Activity

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Numeric File Download

Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Compromise / Multiple Kill Chain Indicators

Case B

User / New Admin Credentials on Client

Compliance / Default Credential Usage

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

Device / RDP Scan

Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

Device / Anomaly Indicators / New or Uncommon WMI Activity Indicator

Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

Compliance / SMB Drive Write

Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation

Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Device / Anomalous ITaskScheduler Activity

Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

Compliance / Default Credential Usage

IOC - Type - Description/Probability

146.70.145[.]189 - IP Address - Likely C2 Infrastructure

Written by

Alexandra Sentenac

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Alexandra Sentenac

Cyber Analyst

•

May 8, 2025

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

May 6, 2025

Pallavi Singh

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

May 8, 2025

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

What is threat hunting?

Threat hunting in cybersecurity involves proactively and iteratively searching through networks and datasets to detect threats that evade existing automated security solutions. It is an important component of a strong cybersecurity posture.

There are several frameworks that Darktrace analysts use to guide how threat hunting is carried out, some of which are:

MITRE Attack
Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs)
Diamond Model for Intrusion Analysis
Adversary, Infrastructure, Victims, Capabilities
Threat Hunt Model – Six Steps
Purpose, Scope, Equip, Plan, Execute, Feedback
Pyramid of Pain

These frameworks are important in baselining how to run a threat hunt. There are also a combination of different methods that allow defenders diversity– regardless of whether it is a proactive or reactive threat hunt. Some of these are:

Hypothesis-based threat hunting
Analytics-driven threat hunting
Automated/machine learning hunting
Indicator of Compromise (IoC) hunting
Victim-based threat hunting

Threat hunting with Darktrace

At its core, Darktrace relies on anomaly-based detection methods. It combines various machine learning types that allows it to characterize what constitutes ‘normal’, based on the analysis of many different measures of a device or actor’s behavior. Those types of learning are then curated into what are called models.

Darktrace models leverage anomaly detection and integrate outputs from Darktrace Deep Packet Inspection, telemetry inputs, and additional modules, creating tailored activity detection.

This dynamic understanding allows Darktrace to identify, with a high degree of precision, events or behaviors that are both anomalous and unlikely to be benign. On top of machine learning models for detection, there is also the ability to change and create models showcasing the tool’s diversity. The Model Editor allows security teams to specify values, priorities, thresholds, and actions they want to detect. That means a team can create custom detection models based on specific use cases or business requirements. Teams can also increase the priority of existing detections based on their own risk assessments to their environment.

This level of dexterity is particularly useful when conducting a threat hunt. As described above, and in previous ‘Inside the SOC’ blogs such a threat hunt can be on a specific threat actor, specific sector, or a hypothesis-based threat hunt combined with ‘experimenting’ with some of Darktrace’s models.

Conducting a threat hunt in the energy sector with experimental models

In Darktrace’s recent Threat Research report “AI & Cybersecurity: The state of cyber in UK and US energy sectors” Darktrace’s Threat Research team crafted hypothesis-driven threat hunts, building experimental models and investigating existing models to test them and detect malicious activity across Darktrace customers in the energy sector.

For one of the hunts, which hypothesised utilization of PerfectData software and multi-factor authentication (MFA) bypass to compromise user accounts and destruct data, an experimental model was created to detect a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) user performing activity relating to 'PerfectData Software’, known to allow a threat actor to exfiltrate whole mailboxes as a PST file. Experimental model alerts caused by this anomalous activity were analyzed, in conjunction with existing SaaS and email-related models that would indicate a multi-stage attack in line with the hypothesis.

Whilst hunting, Darktrace researchers found multiple model alerts for this experimental model associated with PerfectData software usage, within energy sector customers, including an oil and gas investment company, as well as other sectors. Upon further investigation, it was also found that in June 2024, a malicious actor had targeted a renewable energy infrastructure provider via a PerfectData Software attack and demonstrated intent to conduct an Operational Technology (OT) attack.

The actor logged into Azure AD from a rare US IP address. They then granted Consent to ‘eM Client’ from the same IP. Shortly after, the actor granted ‘AddServicePrincipal’ via Azure to PerfectData Software. Two days later, the actor created a new email rule from a London IP to move emails to an RSS Feed Folder, stop processing rules, and mark emails as read. They then accessed mail items in the “\Sent” folder from a malicious IP belonging to anonymization network, Private Internet Access Virtual Private Network (PIA VPN) [1]. The actor then conducted mass email deletions, deleting multiple instances of emails with subject “[Name] shared "[Company Name] Proposal" With You” from the “\Sent folder”. The emails’ subject suggests the email likely contains a link to file storage for phishing purposes. The mass deletion likely represented an attempt to obfuscate a potential outbound phishing email campaign.

Figure 1: The Darktrace Model Alert that triggered for the mass deletes of the likely phishing email containing a file storage link.

A month later, the same user was observed downloading mass mLog CSV files related to proprietary and Operational Technology information. In September, three months after the initial attack, another mass download of operational files occurred by this actor, pertaining to operating instructions and measurements, The observed patience and specific file downloads seemingly demonstrated an intent to conduct or research possible OT attack vectors. An attack on OT could have significant impacts including operational downtime, reputational damage, and harm to everyday operations. Darktrace alerted the impacted customer once findings were verified, and subsequent actions were taken by the internal security team to prevent further malicious activity.

Conclusion

Harnessing the power of different tools in a security stack is a key element to cyber defense. The above hypothesis-based threat hunt and custom demonstrated intent to conduct an experimental model creation demonstrates different threat hunting approaches, how Darktrace’s approach can be operationalized, and that proactive threat hunting can be a valuable complement to traditional security controls and is essential for organizations facing increasingly complex threat landscapes.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO at Darktrace) and Zoe Tilsiter (EMEA Consultancy Lead)

‍

References

https://spur.us/context/191.96.106.219

‍

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

May 6, 2025

Combatting the Top Three Sources of Risk in the Cloud

With cloud computing, organizations are storing data like intellectual property, trade secrets, Personally Identifiable Information (PII), proprietary code and statistics, and other sensitive information in the cloud. If this data were to be accessed by malicious actors, it could incur financial loss, reputational damage, legal liabilities, and business disruption.

Last year data breaches in solely public cloud deployments were the most expensive type of data breach, with an average of $5.17 million USD, a 13.1% increase from the year before.

So, as cloud usage continues to grow, the teams in charge of protecting these deployments must understand the associated cybersecurity risks.

What are cloud risks?

Cloud threats come in many forms, with one of the key types consisting of cloud risks. These arise from challenges in implementing and maintaining cloud infrastructure, which can expose the organization to potential damage, loss, and attacks.

There are three major types of cloud risks:

1. Misconfigurations

As organizations struggle with complex cloud environments, misconfiguration is one of the leading causes of cloud security incidents. These risks occur when cloud settings leave gaps between cloud security solutions and expose data and services to unauthorized access. If discovered by a threat actor, a misconfiguration can be exploited to allow infiltration, lateral movement, escalation, and damage.

With the scale and dynamism of cloud infrastructure and the complexity of hybrid and multi-cloud deployments, security teams face a major challenge in exerting the required visibility and control to identify misconfigurations before they are exploited.

Common causes of misconfiguration come from skill shortages, outdated practices, and manual workflows. For example, potential misconfigurations can occur around firewall zones, isolated file systems, and mount systems, which all require specialized skill to set up and diligent monitoring to maintain

2. Identity and Access Management (IAM) failures

IAM has only increased in importance with the rise of cloud computing and remote working. It allows security teams to control which users can and cannot access sensitive data, applications, and other resources.

Cybersecurity professionals ranked IAM skills as the second most important security skill to have, just behind general cloud and application security.

There are four parts to IAM: authentication, authorization, administration, and auditing and reporting. Within these, there are a lot of subcomponents as well, including but not limited to Single Sign-On (SSO), Two-Factor Authentication (2FA), Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), and Role-Based Access Control (RBAC).

Security teams are faced with the challenge of allowing enough access for employees, contractors, vendors, and partners to complete their jobs while restricting enough to maintain security. They may struggle to track what users are doing across the cloud, apps, and on-premises servers.

When IAM is misconfigured, it increases the attack surface and can leave accounts with access to resources they do not need to perform their intended roles. This type of risk creates the possibility for threat actors or compromised accounts to gain access to sensitive company data and escalate privileges in cloud environments. It can also allow malicious insiders and users who accidentally violate data protection regulations to cause greater damage.

3. Cross-domain threats

The complexity of hybrid and cloud environments can be exploited by attacks that cross multiple domains, such as traditional network environments, identity systems, SaaS platforms, and cloud environments. These attacks are difficult to detect and mitigate, especially when a security posture is siloed or fragmented.

Some attack types inherently involve multiple domains, like lateral movement and supply chain attacks, which target both on-premises and cloud networks.

Challenges in securing against cross-domain threats often come from a lack of unified visibility. If a security team does not have unified visibility across the organization’s domains, gaps between various infrastructures and the teams that manage them can leave organizations vulnerable.

Adopting AI cybersecurity tools to reduce cloud risk

For security teams to defend against misconfigurations, IAM failures, and insecure APIs, they require a combination of enhanced visibility into cloud assets and architectures, better automation, and more advanced analytics. These capabilities can be achieved with AI-powered cybersecurity tools.

Such tools use AI and automation to help teams maintain a clear view of all their assets and activities and consistently enforce security policies.

Darktrace / CLOUD is a Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solution that makes cloud security accessible to all security teams and SOCs by using AI to identify and correct misconfigurations and other cloud risks in public, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments.

It provides real-time, dynamic architectural modeling, which gives SecOps and DevOps teams a unified view of cloud infrastructures to enhance collaboration and reveal possible misconfigurations and other cloud risks. It continuously evaluates architecture changes and monitors real-time activity, providing audit-ready traceability and proactive risk management.

Figure 1: Real-time visibility into cloud assets and architectures built from network, configuration, and identity and access roles. In this unified view, Darktrace / CLOUD reveals possible misconfigurations and risk paths.

Darktrace / CLOUD also offers attack path modeling for the cloud. It can identify exposed assets and highlight internal attack paths to get a dynamic view of the riskiest paths across cloud environments, network environments, and between – enabling security teams to prioritize based on unique business risk and address gaps to prevent future attacks.

Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI ensures continuous cloud resilience, helping teams move from reactive to proactive defense.

[related-resource]

About the author

Pallavi Singh

Product Marketing Manager, OT Security & Compliance

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Defending Against Living-off-the-Land Attacks: Anomaly Detection in Action

Defending Against Living-off-the-Land Attacks: Anomaly Detection in Action

What is living-off-the-land?

Darktrace’s detection of LOTL attacks

Case A

Reconnaissance

Lateral movement

Tooling

Case B

Reconnaissance

Lateral movement

Conclusion

References

MITRE Mapping

Darktrace Model Detections

Case A

Case B

IOC - Type - Description/Probability

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

Combatting the Top Three Sources of Risk in the Cloud

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

SocGholish: From loader and C2 activity to RansomHub deployment

Your Vendors, Your Risk: Rethinking Third-Party Security in the Age of Supply Chain Attacks

Blog

May 8, 2025

Anomaly-based threat hunting: Darktrace's approach in action

What is threat hunting?

Threat hunting with Darktrace

Conducting a threat hunt in the energy sector with experimental models

Conclusion

References

Blog

May 6, 2025

Combatting the Top Three Sources of Risk in the Cloud

What are cloud risks?

1. Misconfigurations

2. Identity and Access Management (IAM) failures

3. Cross-domain threats

Adopting AI cybersecurity tools to reduce cloud risk