Blog
/
/
June 12, 2024

Meeten Malware: A Cross-Platform Threat to Crypto Wallets on macOS and Windows

Cado Security Labs (now part of Darktrace) identified a "Meeten" campaign deploying a cross-platform (macOS/Windows) infostealer called Realst. Threat actors create fake Web3 companies with AI-generated content and social media to trick targets into downloading malicious meeting applications.
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
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Default blog image
12
Jun 2024

Introduction: Meeten malware

Researchers from Cado Security Labs (now part of Darktrace) have identified a new sophisticated scam targeting people who work in Web3. The campaign includes cryptostealer Realst that has both macOS and Windows variants, and has been active for around four months. Research shows that the threat actors behind the malware have set up fake companies using AI to make them increase legitimacy. The company, which is currently going by the name “Meetio”, has cycled through various names over the past few months. In order to appear as a legitimate company, the threat actors created a website with AI-generated content, along with social media accounts. The company reaches out to targets to set up a video call, prompting the user to download the meeting application from the website, which is Realst info stealer. 

Meeten

Screenshot of fake company homepage
Figure 1: Fake company homepage

“Meeten” is the application that is attempting to scam users into downloading an information stealer. The company regularly changes names, and has also gone by Clusee[.]com, Cuesee, Meeten[.]gg, Meeten[.]us, Meetone[.]gg and is currently going by the name Meetio. In order to gain credibility, the threat actors set up full company websites, with AI-generated blog and product content and social media accounts including Twitter and Medium.

Based on public reports from targets (withheld from this post for privacy), the scam is conducted in multiple ways. In one reported instance, a user was contacted on Telegram by someone they knew who wanted to discuss a business opportunity and to schedule a call. However, the Telegram account was created to impersonate a contact of the target. Even more interestingly, the scammer sent an investment presentation from the target’s company to him, indicating a sophisticated and targeted scam. Other reports of targeted users report being on calls related to Web3 work, downloading the software and having their cryptocurrency stolen.

After initial contact, the target would be directed to the Meeten website to download the product. In addition to hosting information stealers, the Meeten websites contain Javascript to steal cryptocurrency that is stored in web browsers, even before installing any malware. 

Script
Figure 2: Script

Technical analysis

macOS version

Name: CallCSSetup.pkg

Meeten downloads page
Figure 3: Downloads page on Meeten

Once the victim is directed to the “Meeten” website, the downloads page offers macOS or Windows/Linux. In this iteration of the website, all download links lead to the macOS version. The package file contains a 64-bit binary named “fastquery”, however other versions of the malware are distributed as a DMG with a multi-arch binary. The binary is written in Rust, with the main functionality being information stealing. 

When opened, two error messages appear. The first one states “Cannot connect to the server. Please reinstall or use a VPN.” with a continue button. Osascript, the macOS command-line tool for running AppleScript and JavaScript is used to prompt the user for their password, as commonly seen in macOS malware. [1]

Pop up
Figure 4: Popup that requests users password
Code
Figure 5

The malware iterates through various data stores, grabs sensitive information, creates a folder where the data is stored, and then exfiltrates the data as a zip. 

Folders
Figure 6: Folders and files created by Meeten

Realst Stealer looks for and exfiltrates if available:

  • Telegram credentials
  • Banking card details
  • Keychain credentials
  • Browser cookies and autofill credentials from Google Chrome, Opera, Brave, Microsoft Edge, Arc, CocCoc and Vivaldi
  • Ledger Wallets
  • Trezor Wallets

The data is sent to 139[.]162[.]179.170:8080/new_analytics with “log_id”, “anal_data” and “archive”. This contains the zip data to be exfiltrated along with analytics that include build name, build version, with system information. 

System information
Figure 7: System information that is sent as a log

Build information is also sent to 139[.]162[.]179.170:8080/opened along with metrics sent to /metrics. Following the data exfiltration, the created temporary directories are removed from the system. 

Windows version

Name: MeetenApp.exe

Meeten Setup Install
Figure 8: Meeten Setup install

While analyzing the macOS version of Meeten, Cado Security Labs identified a Windows version of the malware. The binary, “MeetenApp.exe” is a Nullsoft Scriptable Installer System (NSIS) file, with a legitimate signature from “Brys Software” that has likely been stolen.

Digital signature details
Figure 9: Digital Signature of Meeten

After extracting the files from the installer, there are two folders $PLUGINDIR and $R0. Inside $PLUGINDIR is a 7zip archive named “app-64” that contains resources, assets, binaries and an app.asar file, indicating this is an Electron application. Electron applications are built on the Electron framework that is used to develop cross-platform desktop applications with web languages such as Javascript. App.asar files are used by Electron runtime, and is a virtual file system containing application code, assets, and dependencies.

File structure
Figure 10: Electron application meeten structure
Meeten's app .asar file
Figure 11: Structure of Meeten's App.asar file
package.json
Figure 12: Package.json

After extracting the contents of app.asar, we can see the main script points to index.js containing:

"use strict"; 
require("./bytecode-loader.cjs"); 
require("./index.jsc"); 

Both of these are Bytenode Compiled Javascript files. Bytenode is a tool that compiles JavaScript code into V8 bytecode, allowing the execution of JavaScript without exposing the source code. The bytecode is a low-level representation of the JavaScript code that can be executed by the V8 JavaScript engine which powers Node.js. Since the Javascript is compiled, reverse engineering of the files is more difficult, and less likely to be detected by security tools. 

While the file is compiled, there is still some information we can see as plain text. Similarly to the macOS version, a log with system information is sent to a remote server. A secondary password protected archive , “AdditionalFilesForMeet.zip” is retrieved from deliverynetwork[.]observer into a temporary directory “temp03241242”.

URL
Figure 13

From AdditionalFilesForMeet.zip is a binary named “MicrosoftRuntimeComponentsX86.exe” This binary gathers system information including HWID, geo IP, hostname, OS, users, cores, RAM, disk size and running processes. 

Exfiltrated system information
Figure 14: System information exfiltrated by Meeten

This data is sent to 172[.]104.133.212/opened, along with the build version of Meeten. 

Data
Figure 15

An additional payload is retrieved “UpdateMC.zip” from “deliverynetwork[.]observer/qfast” into AppData/Local/Temp. The archive file extracts to UpdateMC.exe. 

UpdateMC

UpdateMC.exe is a Rust-based binary, with similar functionality to the macOS version. The stealer searches in various data stores to collect and exfiltrate sensitive data as a zip. Meeten has the ability to steal data from:

  • Telegram credentials
  • Banking card details
  • Browser cookies, history and autofill credentials from Google Chrome, Opera, Brave, Microsoft Edge, Arc, CocCoc and Vivaldi
  • Ledger Wallets
  • Trezor Wallets
  • Phantom Wallets
  • Binance Wallets

The data is stored inside a folder named after the users’ HWID inside AppData/Local/Temp directory before being exfiltrated to 172[.]104.133.212. 

Domains.txt
Figure 16

For persistence, a registry key is added to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run to ensure that the stealer is run each time the machine is started. 

Code
Figure 17: Disassembled code where 0xFFFFFFFF80000001 = HKEY_CURRENT_USER
Code
Figure 18: Meeten uses RegSetValueExW call to set registry key
Computer folder
Figure 19

Key takeaways 

This blog highlights a sophisticated campaign that uses AI to social engineer victims into downloading low detected malware that has the ability to steal financial information. Although the use of malicious Electron applications is relatively new, there has been an increase of threat actors creating malware with Electron applications. [2] As Electron apps become increasingly common, users must remain vigilant by verifying sources, implementing strict security practices, and monitoring for suspicious activity.

While much of the recent focus has been on the potential of AI to create malware, threat actors are increasingly using AI to generate content for their campaigns. Using AI enables threat actors to quickly create realistic website content that adds legitimacy to their scams, and makes it more difficult to detect suspicious websites. This shift shows how AI can be used as a powerful tool in social engineering. As a result, users need to exercise caution when being approached about business opportunities, especially through Telegram. Even if the contact appears to be an existing contact, it is important to verify the account and always be diligent when opening links. 

Indicators of compromise (IoCs)

http://172[.]104.133.212:8880/new_analytics

http://172[.]104.133.212:8880/opened

http://172[.]104.133.212:8880/metrics

http://172[.]104.133.212:8880/sede

139[.]162[.]179.170:8080

deliverynetwork[.]observer/qfast/UpdateMC.zip

deliverynetwork[.]observer/qfast/AdditionalFilesForMeet.zip

www[.]meeten.us

www[.]meetio.one

www[.]meetone.gg

www[.]clusee.com

199[.]247.4.86

File / md5

CallCSSetup.pkg  9b2d4837572fb53663fffece9415ec5a  

Meeten.exe  6a925b71afa41d72e4a7d01034e8501b  

UpdateMC.exe  209af36bb119a5e070bad479d73498f7  

MicrosoftRuntimeComponentsX64.exe d74a885545ec5c0143a172047094ed59  

CluseeApp.pkg 09b7650d8b4a6d8c8fbb855d6626e25d

MITRE ATT&CK

Technique name / ID

T1204  User Execution  

T1555.001  Credentials From Password Stores: Keychain  

T1555.003 Credentials From Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers  

T1539  Steal Web Session Cookie  

T1217 Browser Information Discovery  

T1082  System Information Discovery  

T1016 System Network Configuration Discovery  

T1033  System Owner/User Discovery  

T1005 Data from Local System

T1074  Local Data Staging  

T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols  

T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel  

T1657 Financial Theft  

T1070.004 File Deletion  

T1553.001 Subvert Trust Controls: Gatekeeper Bypass  

T1553.002  Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing  

T1547.001 Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Folder  

T1497.001  Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion: System Checks  

T1058.001 Command and Scripting Interpreter: Powershell  

T1016 Network Configuration Discovery  

T1007 System Service Discovery

References

  1. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/from-the-depths-analyzing-the-cthulhu-stealer-malware-for-macos
  2. https://research.checkpoint.com/2022/new-malware-capable-of-controlling-social-media-accounts-infects-5000-machines-and-is-actively-being-distributed-via-gaming-applications-on-microsofts-official-store/  
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
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

August 21, 2026

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

Photograph of AI data centerDefault blog imageDefault blog image

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently published guidance on managing the cyber risk of agentic AI. While the document is framed as interim advice as more formal guidance is developed, the framing reflects the current state of the industry: organizations are already deploying agents into production environments while standards, controls, and operating models for autonomous systems remain unsettled. Governance is evolving alongside adoption rather than preceding it, a reality which underscores the importance of robust controls.  

The NCSC’s guidance recommends aligning controls to an agent's level of autonomy, assigning distinct identities, limiting permissions, constraining access to systems and data, monitoring activity, maintaining human oversight, and preserving the ability to intervene when necessary. Most of these recommendations will sound familiar to security teams. The challenge is not the novelty of the controls. It is the type of system those controls now need to govern.

The shift from model security to agent security

For several years, AI security discussions have focused heavily on models. Can a model be manipulated? Jailbroken? Trusted? Can it expose information it should not? Those questions remain important, but they capture only part of the problem. A model generating text is one thing. A system connected to identities, applications, tools, workflows, and business data is another.

The difference becomes clearer when comparing a chatbot that answers questions with an agent that can retrieve customer records, update tickets, invoke tools, trigger workflows, and interact with external systems. The underlying model may be identical. Its access is not. The security question begins to shift from what the model knows to what the system can do.

The same theme appears in the Five Eyes statement released earlier this year, describing AI as a force multiplier that is accelerating both offensive and defensive cyber operations. The NCSC guidance explores what that reality looks like when autonomous systems begin operating inside enterprise environments.

Securing AI agents in operation

The NCSC spends relatively little time debating model behavior and considerably more time discussing identity, permissions, monitoring, oversight, containment, and response. Agents are treated as participants within an environment rather than isolated pieces of technology.  

That's broadly consistent with how we think about the problem at Darktrace.

An agent should not be treated as an extension of a user account. It develops its own behavioral patterns. It accesses systems, interacts with data, invokes tools, and moves across workflows in ways that can be observed independently. Understanding what an agent is permitted to do matters. Understanding how it actually behaves once deployed, and whether that behavior aligns with business intent, matters just as much.

Identity provides an obvious example. The NCSC recommends assigning distinct identities to agents rather than allowing them to disappear into surrounding human or service accounts. Most importantly, assigning agents distinct identities enables independent behavioral monitoring.

Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior

The same principle extends to monitoring. NCSC guidance places agent activity within normal security operations rather than treating it as a separate AI governance function. Many of the controls described are put in place before an agent begins operating. Sandboxing, credential design, approval workflows and human oversight all reflect judgments about how the system is expected to behave and what risks it is likely to create.

Actual use may challenge those assumptions. Access patterns change. Workflows expand. Systems begin interacting with resources they have never touched before. Processes that appeared reasonable during design behave differently in production. Human oversight requirements may turn out to be either excessive or inadequate once the system is operating at scale and operating within the context of unique business processes.

The Five Eyes statement points to a similar issue: organizations need confidence that controls continue to work as intended once systems are exposed to real users, data, tools and operational pressures. Often, the question is not whether an agent is technically allowed to perform an action, but whether its behavior remains consistent with the role it was intended to play.

Monitoring and governance of AI agents go hand-in-hand

This problem is exactly why monitoring and governance should be treated as part of the same process. Governance sets the initial parameters for deployment, while monitoring provides evidence about whether those parameters remain appropriate. That evidence should, in turn, inform changes to permissions, controls and oversight.

This matters increasingly as autonomous systems are integrated into business processes. The relevant risk is shaped not only by the model or agent itself, but by what it can access, what actions it can take, and how its behavior changes in practice.

Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior

The implication is clear: governance cannot end at deployment. Organizations need a way to understand how agents behave after deployment, test whether controls remain appropriate, and adjust them as conditions change. That requires visibility not just into technical activity, but into whether that activity makes sense in the context of the business process the agent is intended to support.

This is where business-centric behavioral security can become critical. Risk does not emerge from the model itself: it emerges from the actions an autonomous system takes within the enterprise and the downstream consequences of those actions.  

An agent can operate exactly as intended and still create risk if it accesses sensitive information in an unexpected context, exercises permissions in ways that create unintended exposure, or influences business processes in ways that were not anticipated during design and review.

Traditional governance vs. behavioral analytics

Traditional governance frameworks provide assurance at a point in time. Behavioral security can provide ongoing visibility into how autonomous systems interact with the organization they are meant to serve. Rather than focusing exclusively on model performance or policy compliance, organizations need to understand whether an agent's behavior aligns with business intent, operational expectations, and acceptable risk tolerances as conditions change.

As enterprises move from isolated AI deployments to interconnected ecosystems of agents, visibility into behavior becomes as important as visibility into code. Governance determines what an autonomous system is permitted to do. Behavioral analytics helps determine what it is doing, what business outcomes it is producing, and whether those outcomes remain aligned with the organization's objectives.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Margaret Cunningham, PhD
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

/

/

August 19, 2026

When AI Becomes the Lure: A Fake Gemini Installer Delivers Vidar

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

  • Darktrace observed a customer download a fake Google Gemini installer hosted on Google Colab, resulting in the execution of the Vidar information stealer.
  • Darktrace identified the compromise through behavioral indicators, including suspicious process activity, anomalous network communications, and indicators of credential theft, before autonomously containing the threat.
  • The incident highlights how threat actors are increasingly exploiting trusted platforms and a growing interest in AI tools to distribute malware through seemingly legitimate software acquisition workflows.

The Growing Abuse of Generative AI

As organizations are increasingly adopting generative AI tools into their daily workflows, attackers are adapting their distribution methods accordingly too. As part of their day-to-day work, users are now searching for AI assistants, programming tools, browser extensions, desktop applications, and productivity integrations.

Recent reports have highlighted campaigns that use fake AI software and AI-related installers to distribute malware and steal credentials [1]. Researchers have documented campaigns that exploit fake AI-themed websites and services to distribute information stealers and backdoors [2]. Security researchers have also observed attackers disguising malware as legitimate installers for AI software to increase the likelihood of victim interaction and execution [3].

In July 2026, Darktrace observed one such case within a customer environment in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, where attackers used a fake generative AI installer to deliver the prolific information stealer Vidar. This incident highlights how threat actors are exploiting interest in AI services to distribute established malware using increasingly convincing social engineering techniques.

How a Fake Gemini Installer Delivered Vidar

Initial Access: From Search Result to Malware Download

Unlike many malware campaigns that begin with a phishing email, this activity appears to have originated from a user searching for and downloading software.

Darktrace first observed unusual activity on the customer network after a suspicious executable file was launched from a user’s Download folder. Further investigation revealed that the file purported to be a Google Gemini installer and was named “Download_Google_Gemini_For_Windows.exe”.

During the initial analysis, it was noted that the top search result for the suspicious filename associated pointed to a file hosted on Google Colab, a cloud-based Jupyter notebook platform, commonly used by developers, researchers, and data scientists to run code and machine learning workloads through a web browser. By leveraging another trusted Google platform, the attacker increased the likelihood that users would perceive the download as legitimate, making the lure more convincing to those searching for Gemini-related software.

Figure 1: The Google Colab page containing a download prompt for the fake Google Gemini installer.

Further investigation of the Google Colab page revealed that the download prompt redirected users to a secondary site, hxxps://micronsoftwares[.]com, which posed as a "Windows Software Hub" download page and offered the fake Gemini installer for download.

Figure 2: The secondary website posing as a "Windows Software Hub" download page, which likely hosted the fake Gemini installer.

While the investigation did not uncover any HTTP or file-download telemetry data that conclusively identified the download source, SSL communication sessions with Google Colab were detected immediately before the suspicious file was executed. The timing of these connections suggests that the user interacted with the Colab resource before being redirected to the secondary site from which the executable was downloaded.

The user was not simply tricked into opening an email attachment; instead, the attacker embedded malicious content into a process many users would consider entirely legitimate: searching for and downloading software associated with a trusted platform.

Weaponizing Trusted Platforms

At the time of review (July 15, 2026), Darktrace's Threat Research team confirmed that the Google Colab page was still active and prompting users to download a ZIP archive containing the binary file.

The archive also appeared to contain a README file instructing users to run the binary file with administrator privileges and add it to their antivirus software’s exception lists. These instructions suggest that the campaign relied heavily on social engineering, convincing users to take actions that would facilitate malware execution and potentially bypass security checks.

The use of a legitimate platform also complicates the user’s decision-making. Downloads associated with a trusted service are often perceived as less suspicious than those hosted on unfamiliar domains. When combined with the branding of a widely used AI tool, the lure becomes even more convincing.

Malware Analysis

Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified the executable file as the information-stealing malware Vidar. Analysis revealed that the binary file was a newer Go-compiled variant that communicated with Telegram-based infrastructure. Darktrace’s researchers also identified dtm[.]kijangturbo88[.]top as a command-and-control (C2) endpoint associated with the activity. While the malware itself was not novel, the lure and delivery mechanism was.

For a deeper look at the information stealer, see Darktrace’s 2023 analysis of Vidar.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual outbound connection associated with the fake Gemini installer.

Shortly after execution, the process established communications with the external IP address 91.98.98[.]86 via port 443, directly linking the executable to suspicious network activity observed on the device. Subsequent open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis of the revealed multiple malicious associations [5].

Additional Darktrace detections included unusual SSL activity from the affected device. Analysis of related SSL telemetry identified 91.98.111[.]49 as additional infrastructure associated  with the activity [6].

Subsequent alerts from the customer's Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration later confirmed activity consistent with the theft of browser credentials and other sensitive data from the affected endpoint.

Taken together, these detections provided a clear picture of the attack, from the execution of a suspicious file and unusual network connections to indicators of C2 activity and credential theft.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of anomalous activity following the execution of the fake Gemini installer, seen in the Model Alert Event Log.

Darktrace's Autonomous Response

Following the detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response took immediate containment action, including blocking communication with suspicious external infrastructure, including 91.98.98[.]86, and quarantining the compromised device.

Despite the apparent legitimacy of the activity, with the installer hosted on a trusted platform and resembling a routine software download, Darktrace was able to detect and contain the attack because the device's behavior deviated from its normal pattern.

Figure 5: Automated containment actions implemented by Darktrace's Autonomous Response following the detection of activity associated with the fake Gemini installer.

Conclusion

This investigation highlights how threat actors continue to adapt established malware delivery techniques to emerging technology trends. While the malware itself was not new, the distribution method was. By disguising Vidar as a Google Gemini installer and hosting the malicious content on a trusted platform, the attack aligned its lure with a growing behavioral trend: users actively searching for AI tools and services as part of their day-to-day work.

Although fake installers are not a new phenomenon, the rapid rise of generative AI has created new opportunities for threat actors. Rather than relying solely on traditional delivery methods, attackers can now target users who are actively searching for AI applications. As AI adoption continues to accelerate across enterprise environments, organizations should remain alert to campaigns that exploit this interest through fake applications, malicious websites, manipulated search results, the misuse of trusted platforms, and AI-themed social engineering.

Credit to Rushanth Ramanathan (Cyber Analyst) Joanna Ng (Detection Engineer)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • Security Integration / C2 Activity and Integration Detection
  • Endpoint / New Suspicious Executable Launched
  • Endpoint / Process Connection / Unusual Connection from New Process
  • Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed
  • Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly /  Antigena Significant Security Integration and Network Activity Block

•Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly /  Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC Type Description
Download_Google_Gemini_For_Windows.exe File Fake Gemini-themed installer observed during the investigation.
GoogleAppInstaller.exe File Related executable identified through endpoint telemetry.
91.98.98[.]86 IP Address External destination contacted by the malicious executable.
91.98.111[.]49 IP Address Related infrastructure identified through SSL certificate pivoting.
dtm[.]kijangturbo88[.]top Domain Command-and-control endpoint identified during malware analysis.
1e13c2c9eac72daf63fd00a9946878949e159ae6ec51b54ec64f942d79d61913 SHA256 Malware sample associated with the fake Gemini installer.

MITRE ATT@CK Mapping


MITRE ATT&CK Mapping Tactic Technique
Initial Access T1204 User Execution
Execution T1204.002 User Execution: Malicious File
Defence Evasion T1036 Masquerading
Credential Access T1555 Credentials from Password Stores
Credential Access T1555.003 Credentials from Web Browsers
Command and Control T1071 Application Layer Protocol
Exfiltration T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Continue reading
About the author
Rushanth Ramanathan
Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI