Explainable AI: Making Cybersecurity Clear and Trustworthy

Authored by Abinandaraj Rajendran

Think of these scenarios – doctors seeing blank screens, their entire computer system network comes to a standstill while patient records are held hostage by hackers. Here is another one – banks, a place known for being secure, suddenly became vulnerable and had their customer data exposed, panicking customers and investors. Such events happen, they are not rare; and they raise an important question – how do we stay ahead of threats that change quickly?

Machine learning seems like the answer, right? Train a model, feed it necessary data and let it find attacks before they even start. But a problem is that many models tell us what could happen but not why. Would you board a plane if the pilot said, “Trust me, I pushed the right buttons, but I cannot tell you which ones”? You probably would not.

To address this gap, explainable AI, or XAI, feels like such an innovation. Instead of just giving predictions without proof, it shows its work – it gives security teams a way to understand the reason behind an alert. This makes a difference between dismissing a false alarm and stopping an actual ransomware attack.

The bigger question is this – if we could see inside the models, how much more confidently could we fight back? This brings us to the core subject – what is explainable AI about?

What’s Explainable AI All About?

Image Source: Explainable AI Concept

In fields dealing with time-sensitive settings like cybersecurity, clarity is more than just a nice to have – it is often the difference between catching ransomware early or watching it sweep across a network and cause damage.

Consider it as looking under the AI’s engine cover: one does not just accept the result, but checks how it got there. By doing so, you can spot any bad signals and step in before problems develop [1].

To understand better, let’s begin with XAI’s core principles.

Principles of XAI

Black-Box vs. White-Box Models

The spectrum of AI models ranges from simple to complex. Simple models are easy to understand, but they struggle with understanding complex patterns. A step up in complexity, ensemble methods deliver good predictions, but it is harder to follow their reasoning. At the far side, complex models achieve high accuracy, but understanding their decisions feels almost impossible earning them the label “black box” [2]. 

In contrast, white box models show their reasoning step by step or lay out their math plainly. But they often fail on complex problems [3, 4].

Why Explainability Matters

XAI operates just like a translator, which provides insights into high performing models – means we do not lose accuracy for clarity. XAI helps establish a balance by offering interpretability, which allows us to check whether prediction makes sense, discover hidden biases, ensure compliance and regulation with transparency, and build trust with people who use the results [5].

This new layer of understanding particularly offers practical benefits in the field of cybersecurity – it helps confirm whether a flagged file truly represents ransomware or just a false alarm, and it uncovers biases or mistakes when a model holds onto incorrect clues. It supports regulatory compliance that requires a clear decision trail – it gives analysts confidence to act quickly on alerts, which makes a difference when ransomware spreads quickly [1, 5].

Model Performance vs. Explainability

Without XAI, there is a classic trade off between clarity and accuracy. The below two charts help make sense of this by showing how model performance and explainability relate across different machine learning approaches.

Image: Performance Vs Explainability Without XAI

Basic models, for example, Logistic Regression, Linear Regression, are easy to follow, but their performance is not good compared to other more complex models due to their capacity of understanding complex patterns. Middle level models, such as K-Nearest Neighbors and Support Vector Machines, offer better accuracy but they start to feel quite opaque. A bit more advanced models like Random Forests, Gradient Boosting – their performance gets even better. But they reveal very little about their internal reasoning. Then there are intricate models at the far end of the spectrum – Neural Networks, RNNs that achieve higher performance, but they are almost completely black boxes i.e., nearly impossible to understand their decisions or how they arrived at them.

Image: Performance Vs Explainability With XAI

Once XAI techniques are applied, opaque models like KNN, SVM, Random Forests, Gradient Boosting, and Neural Networks become much easier to interpret, all while keeping their strong performance. 

The visuals show how XAI bridges a gap between performance and interpretability without losing predictive power – a very important advantage in cybersecurity.

With these principles in mind, the next step involves observing how XAI tools let us inspect AI models in practice.

How XAI Works: The Toolkit

XAI tools generally fall into two categories – ante-hoc methods and post-hoc methods. Ante-hoc methods are understandable from the start and Post-hoc methods explain complex models after their training [2]. Each method comes with its own trade-offs, and in cybersecurity, choosing wisely can mean the difference between spotting a threat early or missing it entirely [2].

Ante-Hoc Methods: Transparent from the Start

The methods are built for simple understanding from the get go – this simplicity often means they are not good with handling difficult/complex patterns.

• Decision Trees are like a chart; they show how inputs, such as odd file access, lead to outputs, like a ransomware alert. For non experts, particularly during compliance audits, they are a great fit. They may not work well with threats such as WannaCry [6].
• Rule-Based Models use if then rules. As an example, “If API calls spike and file entropy is high, classify it as ransomware.” They also work well in other regulated fields, like healthcare or finance, where clear, auditable logic is necessary but they often fail to see subtler, evolving tactics in new attacks [2, 7, 8].
• Other Ante-Hoc Options like Bayesian Rule Lists or Generalized Additive Models, also give clear rules or linear insights. The problem is that they are not good at catching ransomware’s complex, dynamic patterns [2].

Post-Hoc Methods: Decoding the Black Box

These methods help us look inside complex models such as neural networks, which are excellent at spotting sophisticated ransomware but they are hard to follow  [7].

• SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) method highlights features – unusual network traffic, strange DLL usage that drove the model’s decision to flag ransomware. It provides great insights for defense planning, but it operates slowly in real-time situations [2, 3]. As an example, SHAP might indicate the key signs in a Moonstone Sleet attack, helping analysts know exactly where to concentrate [9].
• LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) focuses on single predictions and explains why a particular file was flagged. It’s fast, which makes it promising for near real-time ransomware detection, but its explanations can vary, so analysts need to double-check results [2, 3]. LIME could clarify a false positive, preventing unnecessary shutdowns in hospital networks [3].
• Counterfactual Explanations show how small changes, like a different file access pattern, could alter a model’s decision. They’re especially helpful for understanding ransomware evasion tactics, such as those used by advanced persistent threats, but they are difficult to interpret for non-experts [2, 5].
• Feature Importance ranks inputs, such as network spikes or file changes, by how much they influence predictions. This method guides long term strategies, such as focusing on critical network monitoring but it does not provide the complete information for individual cases [2, 3].

Image: Taxonomy of XAI Methods

Other XAI Tools

In addition to the above methods, there are several other ways to look inside AI models. Techniques like Layer-wise Relevance Propagation, Grad-CAM, DeepLIFT, and Attention Mechanisms allow analysts to see which features matter most or track patterns over time [2, 7]. Attention Mechanisms, for example, are used in transformer models; they show real promise for ransomware/malware detection because they can explain sequences of API calls or other temporal data, though they can be computationally heavy [10].

Picking the Right Tool

Selecting the right XAI method appears to be difficult, but a flowchart from recent research helps – it considers factors such as speed, coverage in addition to user expertise [2].

Image Source: Decision Tree for Selecting XAI Techniques by Scenario

LIME stands out for its quick explanations for real-time ransomware detection. The simplicity of Decision Trees really shines for compliance audits. The flowchart also highlights options such as Bayesian Rule Lists and Generalized Additive Models – they work well for broad applications but are not ideal for ransomware as they struggle with complex patterns.

The takeaway? Emphasized methods, such as SHAP and LIME, provide the transparency that analysts need; they let teams verify alerts, debug errors and act with confidence against fast evolving threats, converting AI from a mysterious black box into a tool upon which one can rely [2].

With these tools in hand, it’s easy to see how XAI is already shaping industries.

XAI Across Industries

XAI is surprisingly versatile – In healthcare, it explains diagnostic decisions, as it highlights subtle tumor signs in X-rays [8]. In finance, it clarifies credit score calculations, which helps organizations stay compliant with regulations such as GDPR [11]. Self-driving cars can use it to justify sudden braking decisions [12]. The criminal justice system uses it to assess risks more transparently, with an objective to reduce bias [4]. Environmental management also benefits because XAI helps interpret complicated climate models to guide policy decisions [1].

This wide-ranging flexibility shows why XAI is so well-suited for cybersecurity, where high stakes and complex threats demand both accuracy and transparency [1, 11, 12].

Image Source: XAI Across Industries

The Rise of Ransomware

Ransomware isn’t new but it has exploded in scale and sophistication over the past decade. In 1989, the AIDS Trojan locked file names and demanded payment via mail [6]. By 2000, attacks like GPCode had moved to the internet – these programs used phishing emails to encrypt files. In 2013, CryptoLocker went further – it combined strong encryption with Bitcoin payments, affecting around 250,000 systems [6]. In 2017, WannaCry came and caused damages in billions of dollars by spreading across 300,000 computers worldwide [6].

Today’s ransomware attacks have evolved even more. Double-extortion schemes not only lock files but they also threaten to leak sensitive data causing a huge impact in industries such as healthcare. In just 2023, ransom payments went over $1 billion [13]. Moonstone Sleet, which is documented by Microsoft [9], is a North Korean threat actor – using ransomware as a cover for espionage. Other APT groups have also used ransomware as a smokescreen [14]. The experts estimate that by 2025, ransomware damages could reach $57 billion, because of vulnerabilities in cloud systems and supply chains [15].

Image Inspired from Source: Evolution of Ransomware 

XAI Against Ransomware: Phases, Real-World Applications, and Next-Level Tools

Ransomware Phases & XAI Techniques

Image Inspired from Source: Ransomware Phases

Ransomware attacks follow a sequence of infection, communication, destruction, and extortion. XAI techniques enhance detection and response at each stage:

• Infection: SHAP and feature-importance tools can help to show unusual activities such as file access patterns or network spikes, which are the indicators of compromise before ransomware spreads [7]. As an example, a corporate network can be under attack where SHAP’s feature importance scores can guide rapid decisions, such as isolating affected systems – this stops the spread [7].
• Communication: LIME explains why a specific file or network connection is flagged as suspicious – this allows analysts to verify alerts in real-time but outputs require careful validation [3]. In sensitive environments like hospitals, this level of clarity can prevent false positives from triggering unnecessary system shutdowns, ensuring continuity of care [3].

Image Inspired from Source: Moonstone Sleet Attack Chain Using Trojanized PuTTY 

• Extortion: ‍By combining SHAP, LIME and rule extraction, analysts trace ransomware actions; they identify high risk systems or files aiding rapid containment and response [7, 3]. In double extortion attacks, like FakePenny, criminals encrypt data and threaten to leak it via ransom notes, as shown in the below figure. XAI helps pinpoint serious vulnerabilities and assess the attack’s scope [9]. For regulated industries, such as healthcare, rule extraction translates model decisions into clear, auditable rules. As an example, “If a file change spike occurs during off hours, flag it as a threat.” This provides compliance plus reduces false positives [3].

Image Inspired from Source: FakePenny Ransomware Note Depicting Double-Extortion Tactic

Ran: A Next-Level Approach

The XRan tool, which uses XAI, detects ransomware with a 99.4% True Positive Rate [16]. This tool combines deep learning with dynamic analysis and examines API calls, DLL usage, and Mutex sequences within a virtual environment. XAI methods like SHAP and LIME explain why a file is flagged and this clarity gives an opportunity to analysts to act fast to counter evasion tactics [16].

What’s Next for XAI in Cybersecurity

Looking ahead in 2025, XAI will probably evolve with the increasing difficulty of cyber threats. Of particular interest is pairing XAI with generative AI to simulate ransomware attacks, which helps analysts understand tactics such as AI-driven phishing campaigns [17, 18]. Faster SHAP variants could offer real-time transparency to high speed networks. With standardized XAI frameworks, compliance reporting becomes simpler [2, 11]. Counterfactual methods may even predict hacker moves offering security teams a preemptive advantage against advanced persistent threats [5]. As XAI becomes more central, ethical tools to detect and reduce bias will be important to keep it trustworthy and reliable [19].

Challenges to Watch

‍XAI does have its own hurdles. The explanations themselves give hackers a way to bypass detection, so it’s crucial that these methods remain secure [20]. With sensitive ransomware data, strict privacy controls are necessary [21]. In healthcare, regulations require clear, auditable outputs that stand up to scrutiny [19]. Ethical XAI adds another layer – results must be transparent – data must be unbiased – practices need to align with global AI ethics standards [2, 19, 22]. The challenges are real but the potential of XAI for cybersecurity and other high-stakes fields stays promising, guiding us toward AI that is more trustworthy.

Wrapping Up

AI decisions can be given some clarity by XAI methods such as SHAP, LIME along with rule extraction making analysts act faster and with more confidence. By matching a method to a scenario, XAI gives practical value while maintaining trust [2]. With ethics as its base, XAI supports the creation of systems that are resilient and transparent. For cybersecurity professionals, XAI is not just a tool – it is necessary for staying in front of evolving threats but also keeping trust at the core of each decision. The same trust often determines whether ransomware stays contained or spreads.

References

1. Roscher, R., Bohn, B., Duarte, M. F., & Garcke, J. (2020). Explainable machine learning for scientific insights and discoveries. IEEE Access, 8, 42200–42216.
2. Retzlaff, C. O., Angerschmid, A., Saranti, A., Schneeberger, D., & Holzinger, A. (2024). Post-hoc vs ante-hoc explanations: XAI design guidelines for data scientists. Cognitive Systems Research, 86, 101243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101243
3. Carvalho, D. V., Pereira, E. M., & Cardoso, J. S. (2019). Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electronics, 8(8), 832.
4. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215.
5. Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2018). A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 1–42.
6. Oz, H., Aris, A., Levi, A., & Uluagac, A. S. (2022). A Survey on Ransomware: Evolution, Taxonomy, and Defense Solutions. FIU CSL. https://csl.fiu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/rans_survey.pdf
7. Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018). Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, 6, 52138–52160. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052
8. Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B. (2019). Causability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 9(4), e1312.
9. Microsoft. (2024). Moonstone Sleet emerges as new North Korean threat actor with new bag of tricks. Microsoft Security Blog. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2024/05/28/moonstone-sleet-emerges-as-new-north-korean-threat-actor-with-new-bag-of-tricks/
10. Manthena, H., Shajarian, S., Kimmell, J., Abdelsalam, M., Khorsandroo, S., & Gupta, M. (2024). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for Malware Analysis: A Survey of Techniques, Applications, and Open Challenges. arXiv:2409.13723.
11. Bücker, M., Szepannek, G., Gosiewska, A., & Biecek, P. (2022). Transparency, auditability, and explainability of machine learning models in credit scoring. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 73(1), 70–84.
12. Atakishiyev, S., Salameh, M., Yao, H., & Goebel, R. (2021). Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Autonomous Driving. arXiv:2103.08317.
13. Chainalysis. (2024). Crypto Crime Report 2024. https://go.chainalysis.com/2024-Crypto-Crime-Report.html
14. Asokan, A. (2025). APT Groups Using Ransomware ‘Smokescreen’ for Espionage. BankInfoSecurity. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/apt-groups-using-ransomware-smokescreen-for-espionage-a-27522
15. Cybersecurity Ventures. (2025). Ransomware Damage To Cost The World $57B In 2025.
16. Gulmez, S., Kakisim, A. G., & Sogukpinar, I. (2024). XRan: Explainable deep learning-based ransomware detection using dynamic analysis. Computers & Security, 139, 103703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.103703
17. Palo Alto Networks, Unit 42. (2025). Unit 42 Develops Agentic AI Attack Framework.
18. UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). (2024/2025). The near-term impact of AI on the cyber threat (2024) and Impact of AI on cyber threat from now to 2027 (2025).
19. UNESCO. (2025). Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics
20. Safecontrols. (2025). AI Agents and Cybersecurity Pitfalls. https://safecontrols.blog/2025/05/23/ai-agents-and-cybersecurity-pitfalls/
21. Microsoft AI. (2025). Responsible AI: Ethical Policies and Practices. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/responsible-ai
22. Modern Diplomacy. (2025). Ethical Implementation of AI in Cybersecurity in 2025. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/11/04/ethical-implementation-of-ai-in-cybersecurity-in-2025/

Bio:

Abinandaraj Rajendran – Senior Software Engineer (AI/ML) focused on Generative AI, operationalizing state-of-the-art methods in production.