Inside the SOC

Vendor Pretender: Detecting a Vendor Email Compromise in the Wild

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
In March 2023, Darktrace observed a Vendor Email Compromise (VEC) attack against a Darktrace customer. This blog provides details of this VEC attack, along with details of how Darktrace/Email autonomously detected and responded to it.

Threat Trends: Email Landscape

As organizations and security teams around the world continue to improve their cyber hygiene and strengthen the defenses of their digital environments, threat actors are being forced to adapt and employ more advanced, sophisticated attack methods to achieve their goals.

Vendor Email Compromise (VEC) is one such elaborate and sophisticated type of Business Email Compromise (BEC) attack which exploits pre-existing trusted business relationships to impersonate vendors, with the goal of launching a targeted attack on the vendor’s customers [1].  

In March 2023, Darktrace/Email™ detected an example of a VEC attack on the network of a customer in the energy sector. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI worked to successfully neutralize the VEC attack before it was able to take hold, by blocking the malicious emails so that they did not reach the inboxes of the intended recipients.

Business Email Compromise (BEC)

BEC is the practice of using deceitful emails to trick an organization into transferring funds or divulging sensitive information to a malicious actor. BEC attacks can have devastating financial consequences for organizations, with the FBI reporting a total of USD 2.7 billion in losses from BEC attacks in 2022 [2].  Along with ransomware attacks, BEC attacks are one of the greatest cyber threats facing organizations.

Vendor Email Compromise (VEC)

VEC represents a “new milestone in the evolution of BEC attacks” having taken BEC attacks “to a whole new level of sophistication” [3]. Traditional BEC attacks involve the impersonation of an upper or middle-management employee by a cybercriminal, who attempts to trick a senior executive or employee with access to the company’s finances into transferring funds [4]. Thus, they are crafted to target a specific individual within an organization.

On the other hand, VEC attack campaigns take this attack style even further as they tend to require a greater understanding of existing vendor-customer business relationships. A cyber-criminal gains access to a legitimate vendor account, the process of which may take months to design and fully implement, and uses the account to spread malicious emails to the vendor’s customers. VEC attacks are complex and difficult to detect, however they share some common features [1,3]:

1. Reconnaissance on the vendor and their customer base – the threat actor conducts in-depth research in an attempt to be as convincing as possible in their impersonation efforts. This process may take weeks or months to complete.

2. Credential stealing through phishing campaigns – the threat actor tricks the vendor’s employees into revealing confidential data or corporate credentials in order to gain access to one of the email accounts belonging to the vendor.

3. Account takeover - once the attacker has gained access to one of the vendor’s email accounts, they will create mailbox rules which forward emails meeting certain conditions (such as having ‘Invoice’ in their subject line) to the threat actor’s inbox. This is typically a lengthy process and requires the malicious actors to harvest as much sensitive information as they need in order to successfully masquerade as vendor employees.

4. Deceitful emails are sent to the vendor’s customers – the attacker crafts and sends a highly sophisticated and difficult to detect email campaign to targeted individuals amongst the vendor’s customers. These emails, which may be embedded into existing email threads, will typically contain instructions on how to wire money to the bank account of an attacker.

There have been many high-profile cases of BEC attacks over the years, one of the most famous being the vendor-impersonating BEC attacks carried out between 2013 and 2015 [5]. This BEC campaign resulted in victim companies transferring a total of USD 120 million to bank accounts under the attacker’s control. As the threat of BEC, and in particular VEC, attacks continue to rise, so too does the importance of being able to detect and respond to them.

Observed VEC Attack  

In March 2023, Darktrace/Email observed a VEC attack on an energy company. Email communication between this customer and one of their third-party vendors was common and took place as part of expected business activity, earning previous emails tags such as “Known Domain Relationship”, “Known Correspondent”, and “Established Domain Relationship”. These tags identify the sender relationship as trusted, causing Darktrace’s AI to typically attribute an anomaly score of 0% to emails from this third-party sender.

Just fifty minutes after the above legitimate email was observed, a group of suspicious emails were sent from the same domain, indicating that the trusted third-party had been compromised. Darktrace’s AI picked up on the peculiarity of these emails straight away, detecting elements of the mails which were out of character compared to the sender’s usual pattern of life, and as a result attributing these emails a 100% anomaly score despite the trusted relationship between the customer and sender domain. These suspicious emails were part of a targeted phishing attack, sent to high value individuals such as the company’s CTO and various company directors.  

Figure 1: Darktrace/Email's interface highlighting tags indicating the trusted relationship between the third-party domain and the customer.

Using methods outside of Darktrace’s visibility, a malicious actor managed to hijack the corporate account of a senior employee of this vendor company. The actor abused this email account to send deceitful emails to multiple employees at the energy company, including senior executives.

Figure 2: This screenshot shows Darktrace/Email’s assessment of emails from the vendor account pre-compromise and post-compromise.

Each of the emails sent by the attacker contained a link to a malicious file hosted inside a SharePoint repository associated with a university that had no association with the energy company. The malicious actor therefore appears to have leveraged a previously hijacked SharePoint repository to host their payload.

Cyber-criminals frequently use legitimate file storage domains to host malicious payloads as traditional gateways often fail to defend against them using reputation checks. The SharePoint file which the attacker sought to distribute to employees of the energy company likely provided wire transfer or bank account update instructions. If the attacker had succeeded in delivering these emails to these employees’ mailboxes, then the employees may have been tricked into performing actions resulting in the transfer of funds to a malicious actor. However, the attacker’s attempts to deliver these emails were thwarted by Darktrace/Email.

Darktrace のカバレッジ

Despite the malicious actor sending their deceitful emails from a trusted vendor account, a range of anomalies were detected by Darktrace’s AI, causing the malicious emails to be given a 100% anomaly score and thus held from their recipients’ mailboxes. Such abnormalities, which represented a deviation in normal behavior, included:

  • The presence of an unexpected, out of character file storage link (known to be used for hosting malicious content)
  • The geographical source of the email
  • The anomalous linguistic structure and content of the email body, which earned the emails a high inducement score
Figure 3: Darktrace/Email’s overview of one of the malicious VEC emails it observed.

Darktrace has a series of models designed to trigger when anomalous features, such as those described above, are detected. The emails which made up this particular VEC attack breached a number of notable Darktrace/Email models. The presence of the suspicious link in the emails caused multiple link-related models to breach, which in turn elicited Darktrace RESPOND™ to perform its ‘double lock link’ action – an action which ensures that a user who has clicked on it cannot follow it to its original source. Models which breached due to the suspicious SharePoint link include:

Link / Link To File Storage

  • Link / Low Link Association
  • Link / New Unknown Link
  • Link / Outlook Hijack
  • Link / Relative Sender Anomaly + New Unknown Link
  • Link / Unknown Storage Service
  • Link / Visually Prominent Link Unexpected for Sender
  • Unusual / Unusual Login Location + Unknown Link

The out-of-character and suspicious linguistic aspects of the emails caused the following Darktrace/Email models to breach:

  • High Anomaly Sender
  • Proximity / Phishing
  • Proximity / Phishing and New Activity
  • Unusual / Inducement Shift High
  • Unusual / Undisclosed Recipients
  • Unusual / Unusual Login Location
  • Unusual / Off Topic

Due to the combination of suspicious features that were detected, tags such as ‘Phishing Link’ and ‘Out of Character’ were also added to these emails by Darktrace/Email. Darktrace’s coverage of these emails’ anomalous features ultimately led Darktrace RESPOND to perform its most severe inhibitive action, ‘hold message’. Applying this action stopped the emails from entering their recipients’ mailboxes. By detecting deviations from the sender’s normal email behavior, Darktrace/Email was able to completely neutralize the emails, and prevent them from potentially leading to significant financial harm.


Despite bypassing the customer’s other security measures, Darktrace/Email successfully identified and held these malicious emails, blocking them from reaching the inboxes of the intended recipients and thus preventing a successful targeted VEC attack. The elaborate and sophisticated nature of VEC attacks makes them particularly perilous to customers, and they can be hard to detect due to their exploitation of trusted relationships, and in this case, their use of legitimate services to host malicious files.

Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection means it is uniquely placed to identify deviations in common email behavior, while its autonomous response capabilities allow it to take preventative action against emerging threats without latency.

Credits to: Sam Lister, Senior Analyst, for his contributions to this blog.



Tactic - Techniques


  • T1586.002 – Compromise Accounts: Email Accounts
  • T1584.006 – Compromise Infrastructure: Web Services
  • T1608.005 – Stage Capabilities: Link Target


  • T1195 – Supply Chain Compromise
  • T1566.002 – Phishing : Spearphishing Link








Like this and want more?

You can unsubscribe at any time. Privacy Policy
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.
Tiana Kelly
Deputy Team Lead, London & Cyber Analyst
COre coverage

More in this series



Inside the SOC

PurpleFox in a Henhouse: How Darktrace Hunted Down a Persistent and Dynamic Rootkit

Default blog imageDefault blog image
Nov 2023

Versatile Malware: PurpleFox

As organizations and security teams across the world move to bolster their digital defenses against cyber threats, threats actors, in turn, are forced to adopt more sophisticated tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to circumvent them. Rather than being static and predictable, malware strains are becoming increasingly versatile and therefore elusive to traditional security tools.

One such example is PurpleFox. First observed in 2018, PurpleFox is a combined fileless rootkit and backdoor trojan known to target Windows machines. PurpleFox is known for consistently adapting its functionalities over time, utilizing different infection vectors including known vulnerabilities (CVEs), fake Telegram installers, and phishing. It is also leveraged by other campaigns to deliver ransomware tools, spyware, and cryptocurrency mining malware. It is also widely known for using Microsoft Software Installer (MSI) files masquerading as other file types.

The Evolution of PurpleFox

The Original Strain

First reported in March 2018, PurpleFox was identified to be a trojan that drops itself onto Windows machines using an MSI installation package that alters registry values to replace a legitimate Windows system file [1]. The initial stage of infection relied on the third-party toolkit RIG Exploit Kit (EK). RIG EK is hosted on compromised or malicious websites and is dropped onto the unsuspecting system when they visit browse that site. The built-in Windows installer (MSIEXEC) is leveraged to run the installation package retrieved from the website. This, in turn, drops two files into the Windows directory – namely a malicious dynamic-link library (DLL) that acts as a loader, and the payload of the malware. After infection, PurpleFox is often used to retrieve and deploy other types of malware.  

Subsequent Variants

Since its initial discovery, PurpleFox has also been observed leveraging PowerShell to enable fileless infection and additional privilege escalation vulnerabilities to increase the likelihood of successful infection [2]. The PowerShell script had also been reported to be masquerading as a .jpg image file. PowerSploit modules are utilized to gain elevated privileges if the current user lacks administrator privileges. Once obtained, the script proceeds to retrieve and execute a malicious MSI package, also masquerading as an image file. As of 2020, PurpleFox no longer relied on the RIG EK for its delivery phase, instead spreading via the exploitation of the SMB protocol [3]. The malware would leverage the compromised systems as hosts for the PurpleFox payloads to facilitate its spread to other systems. This mode of infection can occur without any user action, akin to a worm.

The current iteration of PurpleFox reportedly uses brute-forcing of vulnerable services, such as SMB, to facilitate its spread over the network and escalate privileges. By scanning internet-facing Windows computers, PurpleFox exploits weak passwords for Windows user accounts through SMB, including administrative credentials to facilitate further privilege escalation.

Darktrace detection of PurpleFox

In July 2023, Darktrace observed an example of a PurpleFox infection on the network of a customer in the healthcare sector. This observation was a slightly different method of downloading the PurpleFox payload. An affected device was observed initiating a series of service control requests using DCE-RPC, instructing the device to make connections to a host of servers to download a malicious .PNG file, later confirmed to be the PurpleFox rootkit. The device was then observed carrying out worm-like activity to other external internet-facing servers, as well as scanning related subnets.

Darktrace DETECT™ was able to successfully identify and track this compromise across the cyber kill chain and ensure the customer was able to take swift remedial action to prevent the attack from escalating further.

While the customer in question did have Darktrace RESPOND™, it was configured in human confirmation mode, meaning any mitigative actions had to be manually applied by the customer’s security team. If RESPOND had been enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack, it would have been able to take swift action against the compromise to contain it at the earliest instance.


Figure 1: Timeline of PurpleFox malware kill chain.

Initial Scanning over SMB

On July 14, 2023, Darktrace detected the affected device scanning other internal devices on the customer’s network via port 445. The numerous connections were consistent with the aforementioned worm-like activity that has been reported from PurpleFox behavior as it appears to be targeting SMB services looking for open or vulnerable channels to exploit.

This initial scanning activity was detected by Darktrace DETECT, specifically through the model breach ‘Device / Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity’. Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst™ then launched an autonomous investigation into these internal connections and tied them into one larger-scale network reconnaissance incident, rather than a series of isolated connections.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst technical details summarizing the initial scanning activity seen with the internal network scan over port 445.

As Darktrace RESPOND was configured in human confirmation mode, it was unable to autonomously block these internal connections. However, it did suggest blocking connections on port 445, which could have been manually applied by the customer’s security team.

Figure 3: The affected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the initial scanning activity observed by Darktrace DETECT and the corresponding suggested RESPOND action.


The device successfully logged in via NTLM with the credential, ‘administrator’. Darktrace recognized that the endpoint was external to the customer’s environment, indicating that the affected device was now being used to propagate the malware to other networks. Considering the lack of observed brute-force activity up to this point, the credentials for ‘administrator’ had likely been compromised prior to Darktrace’s deployment on the network, or outside of Darktrace’s purview via a phishing attack.


Darktrace then detected a series of service control requests over DCE-RPC using the credential ‘admin’ to make SVCCTL Create Service W Requests. A script was then observed where the controlled device is instructed to launch mshta.exe, a Windows-native binary designed to execute Microsoft HTML Application (HTA) files. This enables the execution of arbitrary script code, VBScript in this case.

Figure 4: PurpleFox remote service control activity captured by a Darktrace DETECT model breach.
Figure 5: The infected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the anomalous service control activity being picked up by DETECT.

There are a few MSIEXEC flags to note:

  • /i : installs or configures a product
  • /Q : sets the user interface level. In this case, it is set to ‘No UI’, which is used for “quiet” execution, so no user interaction is required

Evidently, this was an attempt to evade detection by endpoint users as it is surreptitiously installed onto the system. This corresponds to the download of the rootkit that has previously been associated with PurpleFox. At this stage, the infected device continues to be leveraged as an attack device and scans SMB services over external endpoints. The device also appeared to attempt brute-forcing over NTLM using the same ‘administrator’ credential to these endpoints. This activity was identified by Darktrace DETECT which, if enabled in autonomous response mode would have instantly blocked similar outbound connections, thus preventing the spread of PurpleFox.

Figure 6: The infected device’s Model Breach Event Log showing the outbound activity corresponding to PurpleFox’s wormlike spread. This was caught by DETECT and the corresponding suggested RESPOND action.


On August 9, Darktrace observed the device making initial attempts to download a malicious .PNG file. This was a notable change in tactics from previously reported PurpleFox campaigns which had been observed utilizing .MOE files for their payloads [3]. The .MOE payloads are binary files that are more easily detected and blocked by traditional signatured-based security measures as they are not associated with known software. The ubiquity of .PNG files, especially on the web, make identifying and blacklisting the files significantly more difficult.

The first connection was made with the URI ‘/test.png’.  It was noted that the HTTP method here was HEAD, a method similar to GET requests except the server must not return a message-body in the response.

The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request should be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request. This method is often used to test hypertext links for validity and recent modification. This is likely a way of checking if the server hosting the payload is still active. Avoiding connections that could possibly be detected by antivirus solutions can help keep this activity under-the-radar.

Figure 7: Packet Capture from an affected customer device showing the initial HTTP requests to the payload server.
Figure 8: Packet Capture showing the HTTP requests to download the payloads.

The server responds with a status code of 200 before the download begins. The HEAD request could be part of the attacker’s verification that the server is still running, and that the payload is available for download. The ‘/test.png’ HEAD request was sent twice, likely for double confirmation to begin the file transfer.

Figure 9: PCAP from the affected customer device showing the Windows Installer user-agent associated with the .PNG file download.

Subsequent analysis using a Packet Capture (PCAP) tool revealed that this connection used the Windows Installer user agent that has previously been associated with PurpleFox. The device then began to download a payload that was masquerading as a Microsoft Word document. The device was thus able to download the payload twice, from two separate endpoints.

By masquerading as a Microsoft Word file, the threat actor was likely attempting to evade the detection of the endpoint user and traditional security tools by passing off as an innocuous text document. Likewise, using a Windows Installer user agent would enable threat actors to bypass antivirus measures and disguise the malicious installation as legitimate download activity.  

Darktrace DETECT identified that these were masqueraded file downloads by correctly identifying the mismatch between the file extension and the true file type. Subsequently, AI Analyst was able to correctly identify the file type and deduced that this download was indicative of the device having been compromised.

In this case, the device attempted to download the payload from several different endpoints, many of which had low antivirus detection rates or open-source intelligence (OSINT) flags, highlighting the need to move beyond traditional signature-base detections.

Figure 10: Cyber AI Analyst technical details summarizing the downloads of the PurpleFox payload.
Figure 11 (a): The Model Breach generated by the masqueraded file transfer associated with the PurpleFox payload.
Figure 11 (b): The Model Breach generated by the masqueraded file transfer associated with the PurpleFox payload.

If Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of the attack it would have acted by blocking connections to these suspicious endpoints, thus preventing the download of malicious files. However, as RESPOND was in human confirmation mode, RESPOND actions required manual application by the customer’s security team which unfortunately did not happen, as such the device was able to download the payloads.


The PurpleFox malware is a particularly dynamic strain known to continually evolve over time, utilizing a blend of old and new approaches to achieve its goals which is likely to muddy expectations on its behavior. By frequently employing new methods of attack, malicious actors are able to bypass traditional security tools that rely on signature-based detections and static lists of indictors of compromise (IoCs), necessitating a more sophisticated approach to threat detection.  

Darktrace DETECT’s Self-Learning AI enables it to confront adaptable and elusive threats like PurpleFox. By learning and understanding customer networks, it is able to discern normal network behavior and patterns of life, distinguishing expected activity from potential deviations. This anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows Darktrace to detect cyber threats as soon as they emerge.  

By combining DETECT with the autonomous response capabilities of RESPOND, Darktrace customers are able to effectively safeguard their digital environments and ensure that emerging threats can be identified and shut down at the earliest stage of the kill chain, regardless of the tactics employed by would-be attackers.

Credit to Piramol Krishnan, Cyber Analyst, Qing Hong Kwa, Senior Cyber Analyst & Deputy Team Lead, Singapore



  • Device / Increased External Connectivity
  • Device / Large Number of Connections to New Endpoints
  • Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Admin)
  • Compliance / External Windows Communications
  • Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
  • Compromise / Unusual SVCCTL Activity
  • Compromise / Rare Domain Pointing to Internal IP
  • Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer


  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Breaches Over Time Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block
  • Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block


IoC - Type - Description

/C558B828.Png - URI - URI for Purple Fox Rootkit [4]

5b1de649f2bc4eb08f1d83f7ea052de5b8fe141f - File Hash - SHA1 hash of C558B828.Png file (Malware payload)

190.4.210[.]242 - IP - Purple Fox C2 Servers

218.4.170[.]236 - IP - IP for download of .PNG file (Malware payload)

180.169.1[.]220 - IP - IP for download of .PNG file (Malware payload)

103.94.108[.]114:10837 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

221.199.171[.]174:16543 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

61.222.155[.]49:14098 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

178.128.103[.]246:17880 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

222.134.99[.]132:12539 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

164.90.152[.]252:18075 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)

198.199.80[.]121:11490 - IP - IP from Service Control MSIEXEC script to download PNG file (Malware payload)


Tactic - Technique

Reconnaissance - Active Scanning T1595, Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks T1595.001, Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning T1595.002

Resource Development - Obtain Capabilities: Malware T1588.001

Initial Access, Defense Evasion, Persistence, Privilege Escalation - Valid Accounts: Default Accounts T1078.001

Initial Access - Drive-by Compromise T1189

Defense Evasion - Masquerading T1036

Credential Access - Brute Force T1110

Discovery - Network Service Discovery T1046

Command and Control - Proxy: External Proxy T1090.002


Piramol Krishnan
Cyber Security Analyst

$70 Million in Cyber Security Funding for Electric Cooperatives & Utilities

Default blog imageDefault blog image
Nov 2023

What is the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal?

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed by congress in 2021 aimed to upgrade power and infrastructure to deliver clean, reliable energy across the US to achieve zero-emissions. To date, the largest investment in clean energy, the deal will fund new programs to support the development and deployment of clean energy technology.

Why is it relevant to electric municipalities?

Section 40124 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $250 million over a 5-year period to create the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity (RMUC) Program to help electric cooperative, municipal, and small investor-owned utilities protect against, detect, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity threats.1 This act illuminates the value behind a full life-cycle approach to cyber security. Thus, finding a cyber security solution that can provide all aspects of security in one integrated platform would enhance the overall security posture and ease many of the challenges that arise with adopting multiple point solutions.

On November 16, 2023 the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) released the Advanced Cybersecurity Technology (ACT) for electric utilities offering a $70 million funding opportunity that aims to enhance the cybersecurity posture of electric cooperative, municipal, and small investor-owned utilities.

Funding Details

10 projects will be funded with application submissions due November 29, 2023, 5:00 pm ET with $200,000 each in cash prizes in the following areas:

  1. Direct support for eligible utilities to make investments in cybersecurity technologies, tools, training, and improvements in utility processes and procedures;
  2. Funding to strengthen the peer-to-peer and not-for-profit cybersecurity technical assistance ecosystem currently serving eligible electric utilities; and
  3. Increasing access to cybersecurity technical assistance and training for eligible utilities with limited cybersecurity resources. 2

To submit for this award visit:

How can electric municipalities utilize the funding?

While the adoption of hybrid working patterns increase cloud and SaaS usage, the number of industrial IoT devices also continues to rise. The result is decrease in visibility for security teams and new entry points for attackers. Particularly for energy and utility organizations.

Electric cooperatives seeking to enhance their cyber security posture can aim to invest in cyber security tools that provide the following:

Compliance support: Consider finding an OT security solution that maps out how its solutions and features help your organization comply with relevant compliance mandates such as NIST, ISA, FERC, TSA, HIPAA, CIS Controls, and more.

Anomaly based detection: Siloed security solutions also fail to detect attacks that span
the entire organization. Anomaly-based detection enhances an organization’s cyber security posture by proactively defending against potential attacks and maintaining a comprehensive view of their attack surface.

Integration capabilities: Implementation of several point solutions that complete individual tasks runs the risk of increasing workloads for operators and creates additional challenges with compliance, budgeting, and technical support. Look for cyber security tools that integrate with your existing technologies.

Passive and active asset tracking: Active Identification offers accurate enumeration, real time updates, vulnerability assessment, asset validation while Passive Identification eliminates the risk of operational disruption, minimizes risk, does not generate additional network traffic. It would be ideal to find a security solution that can do both.

Can secure both IT and OT in unison: Given that most OT cyber-attacks actually start in IT networks before pivoting into OT, a mature security posture for critical infrastructure would include a single solution for both IT and OT. Separate solutions for IT and OT present challenges when defending network boundaries and detecting incidents when an attacker pivots from IT to OT. These independent solutions also significantly increase operator workload and materially diminish risk mitigation efforts.

Darktrace/OT for Electric Cooperatives and Utilities

For smaller teams with just one or two dedicated employees, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst and Investigation features allow end users to spend less time in the platform as it compiles critical incidents into comprehensive actionable event reports. AI Analyst brings all the information into a centralized view with incident reporting in natural language summaries and can be generated for compliance reports specific to regulatory requirements.  

For larger teams, Darktrace alerts can be forwarded to 3rd party platforms such as a SIEM, where security team decision making is augmented. Additionally, executive reports and autonomous response reduce the alert fatigue generally associated with legacy tools. Most importantly, Darktrace’s unique understanding of normal allows security teams to detect zero-days and signatureless attacks regardless of the size of the organization and how alerts are consumed.

Key Benefits of Darktrace/OT

Figure 1: Darktrace/OT stops threats moving from IT to OT by providing a unified view across both systems




Jeff Cornelius
EVP, Cyber-Physical Security

Good news for your business.
Bad news for the bad guys.



Cloud-based deployment.
Darktrace Threat Visualizerと組織毎にカスタマイズされた3回の脅威レポートへのフルアクセスを提供しますが、購入の義務はありません。
For more information, please see our Privacy Notice.
Thanks, your request has been received
A member of our team will be in touch with you shortly.


Darktrace Threat Visualizerと組織毎にカスタマイズされた3回の脅威レポートへのフルアクセスを提供しますが、購入の義務はありません。