Blog
/
/
April 4, 2022

Explore Internet-Facing System Vulnerabilities

Read about 2021's top four incidents and how Darktrace's advanced threat detection technology identified and mitigated vulnerabilities. Learn more.
Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
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
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
Default blog image
04
Apr 2022

By virtue of their exposure, Internet-facing systems (i.e., systems which have ports open/exposed to the wider Internet) are particularly susceptible to compromise. Attackers typically compromise Internet-facing systems by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in applications they run. During 2021, critical zero-day vulnerabilities in the following applications were publicly disclosed:

Internet-facing systems running these applications were consequently heavily targeted by attackers. In this post, we will provide examples of compromises of these systems observed by Darktrace’s SOC team in 2021. As will become clear, successful exploitation of weaknesses in Internet-facing systems inevitably results in such systems doing things which they do not normally do. Rather than focusing on identifying attempts to exploit these weaknesses, Darktrace focuses on identifying the unusual behaviors which inevitably ensue. The purpose of this post is to highlight the effectiveness of this approach.

Exchange server compromise

In January, researchers from the cyber security company DEVCORE reported a series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyLogon’.[1] ProxyLogon consists of a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26855) and a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-27065). Attackers were observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild from as early as January 6.[2] In April, DEVCORE researchers reported another series of critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange which they dubbed ‘ProxyShell’.[3] ProxyShell consists of a pre-authentication path confusion vulnerability (CVE-2021-34473), a privilege elevation vulnerability (CVE-2021-34523), and a post-authentication RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-31207). Attackers were first observed exploiting these vulnerabilities in the wild in August.[4] In many cases, attackers exploited the ProxyShell and ProxyLogon vulnerabilities in order to create web shells on the targeted Exchange servers. The presence of these web shells provided attackers with the means to remotely execute commands on the compromised servers.

In early August 2021, by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerabilities, an attacker gained the rights to remotely execute PowerShell commands on an Internet-facing Exchange server within the network of a US-based transportation company. The attacker subsequently executed a number of PowerShell commands on the server. One of these commands caused the server to make a 28-minute-long SSL connection to a highly unusual external endpoint. Within a couple of hours, the attacker managed to strengthen their foothold within the network by installing AnyDesk and CobaltStrike on several internal devices. In mid-August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed Cobalt Strike to conduct network reconnaissance and to transfer terabytes of data to the cloud storage service, MEGA. At the end of August, the attacker got the devices on which they had installed AnyDesk to execute Conti ransomware and to spread executable files and script files to further internal devices.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of ProxyShell immediately resulted in the Exchange Server making a long SSL connection to an unusual external endpoint. This connection caused the model Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint to breach. The subsequent reconnaissance, lateral movement, C2, external data transfer, and encryption behavior brought about by the attacker were also picked up by Darktrace’s models.

A non-exhaustive list of the models that breached as a result of the behavior brought about by the attacker:

  • Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint
  • Device / ICMP Address Scan
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
  • Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
  • Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
  • Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days
  • Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
  • Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
  • Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
  • Compliance / SMB Drive Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio and Unusual SMB
  • Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
  • Unusual Activity / Anomalous SMB Move & Write
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual Internal Data Volume as Client or Server
  • Device / Suspicious File Writes to Multiple Hidden SMB Shares
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Masqueraded Executable SMB Write
  • Device / SMB Lateral Movement
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches

Confluence server compromise

Atlassian’s Confluence is an application which provides the means for building collaborative, virtual workspaces. In the era of remote working, the value of such an application is undeniable. The public disclosure of a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) in Confluence in August 2021 thus provided a prime opportunity for attackers to cause havoc. The vulnerability, which arises from the use of Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL) in Confluence’s tag system, provides attackers with the means to remotely execute code on vulnerable Confluence server by sending a crafted HTTP request containing a malicious parameter.[5] Attackers were first observed exploiting this vulnerability towards the end of August, and in the majority of cases, attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable servers.[6]

At the beginning of September 2021, an attacker was observed exploiting CVE-2021-26084 in order to install the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as a shell script, onto an Internet-facing Confluence server within the network of an EMEA-based television and broadcasting company. Within a couple of hours, the attacker installed files associated with the crypto-mining malware, Kinsing, onto the server. The Kinsing-infected server then immediately began to communicate over HTTP with the attacker’s C2 infrastructure. Around the time of this activity, the server was observed using the MinerGate crypto-mining protocol, indicating that the server had begun to mine cryptocurrency.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of CVE-2021-26084 immediately resulted in the Confluence server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with curl in this case) to a rare external IP. This behavior caused the models Device / New User Agent, Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname, and Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location to breach. The subsequent file downloads, C2 traffic and crypto-mining activity also resulted in several models breaching.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

  • Device / New User Agent
  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
  • Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
  • Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
  • Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

GitLab server compromise

GitLab is an application providing services ranging from project planning to source code management. Back in April 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (CVE-2021-22205) in GitLab was publicly reported by a cyber security researcher via the bug bounty platform, HackerOne.[7] The vulnerability, which arises from GitLab’s use of ExifTool for removing metadata from image files, [8] enables attackers to remotely execute code on vulnerable GitLab servers by uploading specially crafted image files.[9] Attackers were first observed exploiting CVE-2021-22205 in the wild in June/July.[10] A surge in exploitations of the vulnerability was observed at the end of October, with attackers exploiting the flaw in order to assemble botnets.[11] Darktrace observed a significant number of cases in which attackers exploited the vulnerability in order to install crypto-mining tools onto vulnerable GitLab servers.

On October 29, an attacker successfully exploited CVE-2021-22205 on an Internet-facing GitLab server within the network of a UK-based education provider. The organization was trialing Darktrace when this incident occurred. The attacker installed several executable files and shell scripts onto the server by exploiting the vulnerability. The attacker communicated with the compromised server (using unusual ports) for several days, before making the server transfer large volumes of data externally and download the crypto-mining tool, XMRig, as well as the botnet malware, Mirai. The server was consequently observed making connections to the crypto-mining pool, C3Pool.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the vulnerability in GitLab immediately resulted in the server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Wget in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname and Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location breached as a result of this behavior. The attacker’s subsequent activity on the server over the next few days resulted in frequent model breaches.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the attacker’s activity on the server:

  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location
  • Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port
  • Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New IPs
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
  • Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device
  • Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
  • Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
  • Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
  • Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity
  • Compliance / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining
  • Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
  • Compromise / Monero Mining
  • Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
  • Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
  • Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
  • Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
  • Anomalous File / Numeric Exe Download

Log4j server compromise

On December 9 2021, a critical RCE vulnerability (dubbed ‘Log4Shell’) in version 2 of Apache’s Log4j was publicly disclosed by researchers at LunaSec.[12] As a logging library present in potentially millions of Java applications,[13] Log4j constitutes an obscured, yet ubiquitous feature of the digital world. The vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228), which arises from Log4j’s Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) Lookup feature, enables an attacker to make a vulnerable server download and execute a malicious Java class file. To exploit the vulnerability, all the attacker must do is submit a specially crafted JNDI lookup request to the server. The fact that Log4j is present in so many applications and that the exploitation of this vulnerability is so simple, Log4Shell has been dubbed the ‘most critical vulnerability of the last decade’.[14] Attackers have been exploiting Log4Shell in the wild since at least December 1.[15] Since then, attackers have been observed exploiting the vulnerability to install crypto-mining tools, Cobalt Strike, and RATs onto vulnerable servers.[16]

On December 10, one day after the public disclosure of Log4Shell, an attacker successfully exploited the vulnerability on a vulnerable Internet-facing server within the network of a US-based architecture company. By exploiting the vulnerability, the attacker managed to get the server to download and execute a Java class file named ‘Exploit69ogQNSQYz.class’. Executing the code in this file caused the server to download a shell script file and a file related to the Kinsing crypto-mining malware. The Kinsing-infected server then went on to communicate over HTTP with a C2 server. Since the customer was using the Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, they were immediately alerted to this activity, and the server was subsequently quarantined, preventing crypto-mining activity from taking place.

In this example, the attacker’s exploitation of the zero-day vulnerability immediately resulted in the vulnerable server making an HTTP GET request with an unusual user-agent string (one associated with Java in this case) to a rare external IP. The models Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device and Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname breached as a result of this behavior. The device’s subsequent file downloads and C2 activity caused several Darktrace models to breach.

A non-exhaustive list of the models which breached as a result of the unusual behavior brought about by the attacker:

  • Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device
  • Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
  • Anomalous File / Internet Facing System File Download
  • Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location
  • Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise
  • Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Round-up

It is inevitable that attackers will attempt to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in applications running on Internet-facing devices. Whilst identifying these attempts is useful, the fact that attackers regularly exploit new zero-days makes the task of identifying attempts to exploit them akin to a game of whack-a-mole. Whilst it is uncertain which zero-day vulnerability attackers will exploit next, what is certain is that their exploitation of it will bring about unusual behavior. No matter the vulnerability, whether it be a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, Confluence, GitLab, or Log4j, Darktrace will identify the unusual behaviors which inevitably result from its exploitation. By identifying unusual behaviors displayed by Internet-facing devices, Darktrace thus makes it almost impossible for attackers to successfully exploit zero-day vulnerabilities without being detected.

For Darktrace customers who want to find out more about detecting potential compromises of internet-facing devices, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

Thanks to Andy Lawrence for his contributions.

Footnotes

1. https://devco.re/blog/2021/08/06/a-new-attack-surface-on-MS-exchange-part-1-ProxyLogon/

2. https://www.volexity.com/blog/2021/03/02/active-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-zero-day-vulnerabilities/

3. https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2021/8/17/from-pwn2own-2021-a-new-attack-surface-on-microsoft-exchange-proxyshell

4. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/12/proxyshell-more-widespread-exploitation-of-microsoft-exchange-servers/

5. https://www.kaspersky.co.uk/blog/confluence-server-cve-2021-26084/23376/

6. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/atlassian-confluence-flaw-actively-exploited-to-install-cryptominers/

7. https://hackerone.com/reports/1154542

8. https://security.humanativaspa.it/gitlab-ce-cve-2021-22205-in-the-wild/

9.https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2021/04/14/security-release-gitlab-13-10-3-released/

10. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/11/01/gitlab-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-cve-2021-22205-exploited-in-the-wild/

11. https://www.hackmageddon.com/2021/12/16/1-15-november-2021-cyber-attacks-timeline/

12. https://www.lunasec.io/docs/blog/log4j-zero-day/

13. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3644472/apache-log4j-vulnerability-actively-exploited-impacting-millions-of-java-based-apps.html

14. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/10/software-flaw-most-critical-vulnerability-log-4-shell

15. https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/12/15/the-everypersons-guide-to-log4shell-cve-2021-44228/

16. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/12/11/guidance-for-preventing-detecting-and-hunting-for-cve-2021-44228-log4j-2-exploitation/

Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
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
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

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

•
August 19, 2026
Rushanth Ramanathan
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches
May 20, 2026
2
How Empowering End Users can Improve Your Email Security and Decrease the Burden on the SOC
May 8, 2024
3
Elevating Network Security: Confronting Trust, Ransomware, & Novel Attacks
Jun 21, 2024
4
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners
Apr 9, 2024
5
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
May 13, 2024

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
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