AI Cyber Defense / Network detection, DNS and egress analytics
AI Cyber Defense: Review DNS answers that expose internal destinations
Apply destination validation at the requesting application's network boundary and distinguish approved internal names. Do not rely on a one-time domain lookup for authorization.
Environment and inputs: Network detection and response using resolver logs, proxy metadata, flow records and optional Zeek or Suricata sensors.
Scenario and goal
A domain resolving to internal or link-local addresses can indicate a boundary risk, but internal split DNS can do this legitimately.
Why it matters
For this scenario, expect behavior to vary across destinations, timing and client software. Network metadata supports a hypothesis, while endpoint and identity records often explain the actor and purpose. Account for encryption, sampling and sensor placement before interpreting absence. A statistical anomaly, protocol fingerprint or unfamiliar domain should remain a supporting observation until its consequence and business context are established.
Evidence to collect
Collect queried name, resolver view, returned address and the application that follows the answer.
Validate with an authorized exercise
Use controlled DNS fixtures with public and private answer changes; verify the protected fetcher refuses disallowed destinations at connection time while authorized internal workflows remain intact.
Rollout and checks
Preserve event time, source tuple, sensor identity and the original record identifier for every decisive observation. Verify clock alignment and collection health before joining sources. Compare a representative benign workload with the suspected behavior in a lab or stored-event replay. Adjust a detection only after documenting which observed distinction justifies the change.
Scope and limits
This guide proposes a defensive test; it is not a tested production design. Check platform support and local requirements. References explain the mechanisms but do not certify the design. Behavior alone does not prove AI involvement.