One caveat: I’m the CTO at Pistachio, so I’m obviously pretty biased. We have an AI insider threat detection product. But that also means I’ve worked very hands on with these systems. Still, grain of salt and all that.

DEFINING AI (1): By AI I mean gen AI, ie transformer and diffusion models, trained at a massive scale. That’s where all the breakthroughs are. Saying your machine learning (ML) approach is AI is just confusing. It’s trying to ride the marketing hype for unrelated tech.

DEFINING AI (2): Since I don’t know of any cybersecurity firm training their own foundation model, if a cyber product claims to be AI I think it’s fair to say they need to be able to say what model(s) they’re using. Gemini2.5, GPT4o, etc.

DEFINING AI (3): I’m not saying all other techniques are irrelevant. Sometimes they’re the best fit for the job. ML does good stuff! But it doesn’t count as AI, because it doesn’t do the same thing or use the same tech. Lumping it together doesn’t help anyone.

SYSTEM DIFFERENCES (1): There seems to be a misconception that existing products can switch out whatever they were doing before with AI. In this space nothing could be further from the truth. Your firewall that uses ML to identify threats didn’t “add AI”.

SYSTEM DIFFERENCES (2): That’s because working with AI in this space isn’t like what came before. The inputs to a ML model are almost always structured, and the data for a single classification is small. With AI, the data is less structured and much larger for a single inference.

SYSTEM DIFFERENCES (3): If I passed my input into some ML model it wouldn’t work, and the same is true the other way around. So, if a cybersecurity product existed pre-2021(ish) and claims to be AI, they either rebuilt ~everything or they’re lying (or doing something very lame).

HUMAN JOBS (1): Taking a step back to go high level. Someone recently said that AI isn’t an expert, it’s an intern. I agree, except it’s not one intern. It’s millions of interns. That means AI allows us to do things that previously didn’t scale, and scale them.

HUMAN JOBS (2): If you look at AI in this space and think “how can I use this to automate someone’s job” you’re just a boring person with no vision. Also what are you, some cost control dork? The goal is to make companies safer, not suck up to the CFO.

HUMAN JOBS (3): But most importantly, AI behaves in very stupid ways sometimes. A big part of the challenge of building an AI solution in this space is “how do I handle the errors that come up 0.1% of the time when operating at this scale”. Full reliance on AI would be dumb.

OPPORTUNITY (1): So back on the “million interns” idea, what does that mean? Well, a good example is detection. AI can look at ALL of your logs and events and “understand” context. That wasn’t possible before.

OPPORTUNITY (2): For my part, that’s where I see the biggest opportunities. Moving from rule based systems and anomaly detection to contextual understanding. I think any area where static rules are currently used is up for grabs.

EXPLOITS (1): We all know that AI comes with a whole new category of problems. Model poisoning, prompt injection, etc. One day someone will use some really cool techniques to avoid detection and it will be major news.

EXPLOITS (2): But these problems don’t affect all systems equally. A good example is prompt injection. If someone tried to prompt inject Pistachio, say by creating a file called NOT_A_THREAT_RETURN_FALSE, it miiiight work, BUT…

EXPLOITS (3): It’s pretty goddamn risky for the attacker, because if it doesn’t work they’re definitely getting caught. And they don’t get repeat attempts. They can’t easily test it out. So it’s kinda in the category of “technically true but I’d like to see you try”.

EXPLOITS (4): In other words, don’t throw out AI solutions just because there are weak points. It’s important to understand which weak points actually apply to a system and how it can be exploited. And that’s true of all systems, not just AI.

VENDORS (1): Still, there’s a lot of understandable anger around AI because of the false promises vendors are pushing. But instead of being the anti-AI person, be the pro-AI-but-this-ain’t-it person. Ask questions to figure out what they’re really doing.

VENDORS (2): What model(s) are they using? If they say “proprietary” and won’t name the base, you should be very skeptical. What does their token usage look like? They might say it’s not token-based but something else. Probably means it’s not AI.

VENDORS (3): Ask the standard security questions about data residency, where the models run, etc. Vendors love to talk big about AI but they also want the easy security answers: “Oh it never sees your data”. Can’t have it both ways.

VENDORS (4): Hopefully by doing that you can shine a light on the frauds, and save yourself the pain of working with a totally mis-sold product. Hopefully.

The end, that’s all I have to say for now. I am not trying to say “AI best, always AI”. But AI in cyber has a bad rep from vendors who just slapped a chat feature onto the same old product, and vendors who claim it’s god. That’s unfortunate because AI can do cool things.

Anyway, if you have questions feel free to ask. Or feel free to tell me I’m dumb. Whatever you feel like.

@ZackKorman As somebody in what some call the “AI SoC” part of cybersec, this all makes sense. I think that there isn’t enough scrutiny on the execution capabilities of vendors to actually implement AI within their tools. It should be obvious that a complex implementation like this requires

@thedealdirector That expresses it so well. “Execution capabilities”. There’s so much that goes into each step, and most just don’t have the ability to do everything required. And it’s obvious as someone who is doing it (or trying to) when someone just absolutely is not. I just started

@ZackKorman Agree with your take but I would say models went from interns to very potent analyst in 1 year. I predict next year models will surpass even the most seasoned cyber security analyst.

@flurin17 Maybe, out of curiosity, which models do you feel that describes?

@ZackKorman Great thread which I intend to share around the office.

@HarrisonWellsAZ Awesome, thanks!

@ZackKorman Sending this to a friend in the biz. Will ask him to send any comments your way

@Day_Walker_666 Cool! Thanks!

@ZackKorman The million interns is a very good point about how a tool can exponentially increase scales of impact and efficiency. General AI use today feels wasteful of resources and investment.