December 4, 2025

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

Atomic Stealer is rapidly emerging as a significant macOS threat, using infostealing and backdoor capabilities to target Apple users worldwide. Darktrace observed campaigns in 24 countries, detecting activity across multiple kill chain stages and providing recommended actions to contain attacks.

Written by

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

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

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

Dec 2025

The Rise of Infostealers Targeting Apple Users

In a threat landscape historically dominated by Windows-based threats, the growing prevalence of macOS information stealers targeting Apple users is becoming an increasing concern for organizations. Infostealers are a type of malware designed to steal sensitive data from target devices, often enabling attackers to extract credentials and financial data for resale or further exploitation. Recent research identified infostealers as the largest category of new macOS malware, with an alarming 101% increase in the last two quarters of 2024 [1].

What is Atomic Stealer?

Among the most notorious is Atomic macOS Stealer (or AMOS), first observed in 2023. Known for its sophisticated build, Atomic Stealer can exfiltrate a wide range of sensitive information including keychain passwords, cookies, browser data and cryptocurrency wallets.

Originally marketed on Telegram as a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS), Atomic Stealer has become a popular malware due to its ability to target macOS. Like other MaaS offerings, it includes services like a web panel for managing victims, with reports indicating a monthly subscription cost between $1,000 and $3,000 [2]. Although Atomic Stealer’s original intent was as a standalone MaaS product, its unique capability to target macOS has led to new variants emerging at an unprecedented rate

Even more concerning, the most recent variant has now added a backdoor for persistent access [3]. This backdoor presents a significant threat, as Atomic Stealer campaigns are believed to have reached an around 120 countries. The addition of a backdoor elevates Atomic Stealer to the rare category of backdoor deployments potentially at a global scale, something only previously attributed to nation-state threat actors [4].

This level of sophistication is also evident in the wide range of distribution methods observed since its first appearance; including fake application installers, malvertising and terminal command execution via the ClickFix technique. The ClickFix technique is particularly noteworthy: once the malware is downloaded onto the device, users are presented with what appears to be a legitimate macOS installation prompt. In reality, however, the user unknowingly initiates the execution of the Atomic Stealer malware.

This blog will focus on activity observed across multiple Darktrace customer environments where Atomic Stealer was detected, along with several indicators of compromise (IoCs). These included devices that successfully connected to endpoints associated with Atomic Stealer, those that attempted but failed to establish connections, and instances suggesting potential data exfiltration activity.

Darktrace’s Coverage of Atomic Stealer

As this evolving threat began to spread across the internet in June 2025, Darktrace observed a surge in Atomic Stealer activity, impacting numerous customers in 24 different countries worldwide. Initially, most of the cases detected in 2025 affected Darktrace customers within the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. However, later in the year, Darktrace began to observe a more even distribution of cases across EMEA, the Americas (AMS), and Asia Pacific (APAC). While multiple sectors were impacted by Atomic Stealer, Darktrace customers in the education sector were the most affected, particularly during September and October, coinciding with the return to school and universities after summer closures. This spike likely reflects increased device usage as students returned and reconnected potentially compromised devices to school and campus environments.

Starting from June, Darktrace detected multiple events of suspicious HTTP activity to external connections to IPs in the range 45.94.47.0/24. Investigation by Darktrace’s Threat Research team revealed several distinct patterns ; HTTP POST requests to the URI “/contact”, identical cURL User Agents and HTTP requests to “/api/tasks/[base64 string]” URIs.

Within one observed customer’s environment in July, Darktrace detected two devices making repeated initiated HTTP connections over port 80 to IPs within the same range. The first, Device A, was observed making GET requests to the IP 45.94.47[.]158 (AS60781 LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.), targeting the URI “/api/tasks/[base64string]” using the “curl/8.7.2” user agent. This pattern suggested beaconing activity and triggered the ‘Beaconing Activity to External Rare' model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK, with Device A’s Model Event Log showing repeated connections. The IP associated with this endpoint has since been flagged by multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors as being associated with Atomic Stealer [5].

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of Device A showing repeated connections to the suspicious IP address over port 80, indicative of beaconing behavior.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst subsequently launched an investigation into the activity, uncovering that the GET requests resulted in a ‘503 Service Unavailable’ response, likely indicating that the server was temporarily unable to process the requests.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst Incident showing the 503 Status Code, indicating that the server was temporarily unavailable.

This unusual activity prompted Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability to recommend several blocking actions for the device in an attempt to stop the malicious activity. However, as the customer’s Autonomous Response configuration was set to Human Confirmation Mode, Darktrace was unable to automatically apply these actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled, these connections would have been blocked, likely rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its malicious command-and-control (C2) infrastructure.

Figure 3: Autonomous Response’s suggested actions to block suspicious connectivity on Device A in the first customer environment.

In another customer environment in August, Darktrace detected similar IoCs, noting a device establishing a connection to the external endpoint 45.94.47[.]149 (ASN: AS57043 Hostkey B.V.). Shortly after the initial connections, the device was observed making repeated requests to the same destination IP, targeting the URI /api/tasks/[base64string] with the user agent curl/8.7.1, again suggesting beaconing activity. Further analysis of this endpoint after the fact revealed links to Atomic Stealer in OSINT reporting [6].

Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst investigation finding a suspicious URI and user agent for the offending device within the second customer environment.

As with the customer in the first case, had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response been properly configured on the customer’s network, it would have been able to block connectivity with 45.94.47[.]149. Instead, Darktrace suggested recommended actions that the customer’s security team could manually apply to help contain the attack.

Figure 5: Autonomous Response’s suggested actions to block suspicious connectivity to IP 45.94.47[.]149 for the device within the second customer environment.

In the most recent case observed by Darktrace in October, multiple instances of Atomic Stealer activity were seen across one customer’s environment, with two devices communicating with Atomic Stealer C2 infrastructure. During this incident, one device was observed making an HTTP GET request to the IP 45.94.47[.]149 (ASN: AS60781 LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.). These connections targeted the URI /api/tasks/[base64string, using the user agent curl/8.7.1.

Shortly afterward, the device began making repeated connections over port 80 to the same external IP, 45.94.47[.]149. This activity continued for several days until Darktrace detected the device making an HTTP POST request to a new IP, 45.94.47[.]211 (ASN: AS57043 Hostkey B.V.), this time targeting the URI /contact, again using the curl/8.7.1 user agent. Similar to the other IPs observed in beaconing activity, OSINT reporting later linked this one to information stealer C2 infrastructure [7].

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious beaconing connectivity with the suspicious IP 45.94.47.211.

Further investigation into this customer’s network revealed that similar activity had been occurring as far back as August, when Darktrace detected data exfiltration on a second device. Cyber AI Analyst identified this device making a single HTTP POST connection to the external IP 45.94.47[.]144, another IP with malicious links [8], using the user agent curl/8.7.1 and targeting the URI /contact.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst investigation finding a successful POST request to 45.94.47[.]144 for the device within the third customer environment.

A deeper investigation into the technical details within the POST request revealed the presence of a file named “out.zip”, suggesting potential data exfiltration.

Figure 8: Advanced Search log in Darktrace / NETWORK showing “out.zip”, indicating potential data exfiltration for a device within the third customer environment.

Similarly, in another environment, Darktrace was able to collect a packet capture (PCAP) of suspected Atomic Stealer activity, which revealed potential indicators of data exfiltration. This included the presence of the “out.zip” file being exfiltrated via an HTTP POST request, along with data that appeared to contain details of an Electrum cryptocurrency wallet and possible passwords.

Read more about Darktrace’s full deep dive into a similar case where this tactic was leveraged by malware as part of an elaborate cryptocurrency scam.

Figure 9: PCAP of an HTTP POST request showing the file “out.zip” and details of Electrum Cryptocurrency wallet.

Although recent research attributes the “out.zip” file to a new variant named SHAMOS [9], it has also been linked more broadly to Atomic Stealer [10]. Indeed, this is not the first instance where Darktrace has seen the “out.zip” file in cases involving Atomic Stealer either. In a previous blog detailing a social engineering campaign that targeted cryptocurrency users with the Realst Stealer, the macOS version of Realst contained a binary that was found to be Atomic Stealer, and similar IoCs were identified, including artifacts of data exfiltration such as the “out.zip” file.

Conclusion‍

The rapid rise of Atomic Stealer and its ability to target macOS marks a significant shift in the threat landscape and should serve as a clear warning to Apple users who were traditionally perceived as more secure in a malware ecosystem historically dominated by Windows-based threats.

Atomic Stealer’s growing popularity is now challenging that perception, expanding its reach and accessibility to a broader range of victims. Even more concerning is the emergence of a variant embedded with a backdoor, which is likely to increase its appeal among a diverse range of threat actors. Darktrace’s ability to adapt and detect new tactics and IoCs in real time delivers the proactive defense organizations need to protect themselves against emerging threats before they can gain momentum.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Dylan Hinz (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

References

1. https://www.scworld.com/news/infostealers-targeting-macos-jumped-by-101-in-second-half-of-2024

2. https://www.kandji.io/blog/amos-macos-stealer-analysis

3. https://www.broadcom.com/support/security-center/protection-bulletin/amos-stealer-adds-backdoor

4. https://moonlock.com/amos-backdoor-persistent-access

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.94.47.158/detection

6. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/25/i/an-mdr-analysis-of-the-amos-stealer-campaign.html

7. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.94.47.211/detection

8. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/45.94.47.144/detection

9. https://securityaffairs.com/181441/malware/over-300-entities-hit-by-a-variant-of-atomic-macos-stealer-in-recent-campaign.html

10. https://binhex.ninja/malware-analysis-blogs/amos-stealer-atomic-stealer-malware.html

Darktrace Model Detections

Darktrace / NETWORK

Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New IP
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
Device / New User Agent
Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname
Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

Autonomous Response

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block
Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block
Antigena / Network / External Threat::Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

List of IoCs

45.94.47[.]149 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
45.94.47[.]144 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
45.94.47[.]158 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
45.94.47[.]211 – IP – Atomic C2 Endpoint
out.zip - File Output – Possible ZIP file for Data Exfiltration

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping:

Tactic –Technique – Sub-Technique

Execution - T1204.002 - User Execution: Malicious File

Credential Access - T1555.001 - Credentials from Password Stores: Keychain

Credential Access - T1555.003 - Credentials from Web Browsers

Command & Control - T1071 - Application Layer Protocol

Exfiltration - T1041 - Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

Written by

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Isabel Evans

Cyber Analyst

•

October 21, 2026

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

•

October 22, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

AI

October 23, 2026

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

The disclosure of CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619 placed immediate pressure on organizations running PHP. Both vulnerabilities can allow unauthenticated remote code execution, including in products and appliances where PHP is embedded, and updates depend on third-party vendors [1].

Early guidance focused on patching internet-facing systems and monitoring for behavior associated with successful exploitation, including unexpected command execution, Webroot changes and outbound connections from PHP servers.

Darktrace observed widespread scanning across monitored environments involving hundreds of distinct source IP addresses that public reporting has associated with activity targeting the PHP vulnerabilities. The volume of scanning was significantly greater than the evidence available for successful exploitation. For analysts, that distinction is important. Scanning demonstrates interest in exposed infrastructure; establishing compromise requires evidence of subsequent behavior on the targeted system, including command execution, file modification or unexpected outbound communication.

PHP is not an isolated example. Imperva subsequently demonstrated remote code execution against a vulnerable Node.js build through malicious Brotli data, reproducing execution through compressed HTTP responses and configured request parsers. The same inputs were rejected by the patched runtime. Imperva linked its Node2Shell and PHP2Shell research to the increasing speed of vulnerability discovery and exploit development. [2]

While Darktrace has not observed direct evidence of CVE-2026-109618 or CVE-2026-109619 exploitation, on October 21^st we observed a six-month high in detections consistent with zero-day exploitation activity, representing a 64% increase compared to historic data. This increase has not been confirmed as related to the PHP vulnerabilities. Darktrace’s behavioral approach is designed to detect anomalous activity without relying solely on rules written for a specific exploit. Comparable increases were observed around the Log4j disclosure and other globally significant vulnerability disclosures.

AI-assisted vulnerability research

The PHP disclosure arrives as AI systems have become more capable at vulnerability research [3]. OpenAI launched Daybreak in June 2026, combining GPT-5.5-Cyber, Codex Security and partnerships with security researchers and software maintainers. OpenAI says its models have been applied to discovering and generating patches for vulnerabilities in browsers, network infrastructure, FreeBSD and the Linux kernel. Darktrace joined the OpenAI Daybreak Cyber Partner Program in June to explore how OpenAI's cyber capabilities could be integrated within Darktrace products and services [4][10].

OpenAI reported in August that Codex Security Cloud had analyzed more than 30 million commits across more than 30,000 codebases. According to OpenAI, Cloudflare uses models accessed through Daybreak to investigate customer-authorized code and combines findings with live traffic and security signals to assess whether affected routes are active or receiving suspicious traffic, with proposed mitigations and patches remaining subject to customer review [5][6].

Faster discovery still leaves defenders with the work of locating affected software, testing fixes and completing remediation. The PHP case shows that gap clearly, particularly when vulnerable runtimes are embedded inside other products.

Enterprise agents as an attack surface

Darktrace Signal Labs has also examined how a trusted enterprise agent could be abused after an attacker has already obtained access to an environment. In a controlled simulation, researchers demonstrated that, in that post-compromise scenario, the Claude platform’s memory stores feature could be abused to establish a live C2 channel between an external operator and internal Claude Code agents. The external operator was able to dynamically assign network discovery, credential access, and data exfiltration tasks to the agents via this C2 channel. Detection of the agents’ activities relied on the correlation of process creation and network traffic activity from agent harness processes, alongside behavioral analysis to identify deviations from expected behavior. Darktrace has not claimed it observed this memory-store command-and-control technique in operational attacks [7].

AI-assisted attacks in Japan

Evidence from Japan indicates AI being used for vulnerability scanning and attacks outside controlled research. On 21 October, JPCERT/CC published findings from an investigation into recent unauthorized access incidents affecting organizations in Japan. JPCERT/CC states that it confirmed attackers had used AI to scan for known vulnerabilities and conduct attacks through APIs. According to JPCERT/CC, its examination of attack infrastructure found evidence of Android application analysis, API discovery and testing for weaknesses including server-side request forgery, and the infrastructure also targeted services intended for users outside Japan [8].

JPCERT/CC does not identify ARTEX by name in that publication. The named ARTEX attribution comes from separate investigations, including Microsoft's analysis of Storm-0940.

AI in offensive operations

Microsoft describes ARTEX as an open-source, multi-agent penetration-testing system capable of automating activity with limited human interaction. Microsoft reported that Storm-0940, which it assesses to be a China state-aligned actor active since 2021, used ARTEX against hundreds of organizations, and Microsoft attributed the ConnectWise supply-chain compromise [9].

Microsoft observed ARTEX accelerating scanning, reconnaissance, password spraying and OAuth application abuse. Several ARTEX-driven operations reached privileged cloud access less than three hours after initial targeting. Following the ConnectWise compromise, Storm-0940 attempted to authenticate to more than 2,250 tenants at rates of up to 2,900 attempts per minute [9].

Darktrace Threat Research found activity in its own telemetry involving infrastructure later associated with the campaign. On 13 October, Darktrace recorded failed authentication activity involving 144.172.64[.]128, one of the addresses Microsoft later identified as performing sign-ins and Microsoft Graph activity in ConnectWise customer environments. Darktrace analysis identified 65 failed authentication attempts in around 20 minutes.

*Figure 1: Darktrace Advanced Search showing failed authentication events involving 144.172.64[.]128 on 13 October 2026, (customer-identifying information redacted).*

The telemetry establishes repeated failed authentication from infrastructure later associated with the campaign. It does not establish ARTEX execution or successful compromise. At the time of observation, Microsoft's later attribution was unavailable. Analysts therefore had the behavior itself: repeated failed authentication from the same source over a short period, together with any related identity, application or network activity inside the environment.

Microsoft documented a wider password-spray campaign against 327 accounts across eight organizations between 10 and 14 October. It recorded more than 151,000 failed logons, including more than 111,000 on 11 October, but no successful authentication, token issuance, Graph call or directory change from that campaign. Microsoft also reported that most Storm-0940 targeting was unsuccessful [9].

Where the actor progressed beyond authentication, Microsoft observed service-principal sign-ins followed by Graph and directory operations. Activity included reconnaissance, application credential changes and attempts to modify privileges. Microsoft recommends correlating service-principal sign-ins with Graph activity, directory changes and resource access [9].

Behavior before attribution

The PHP and ARTEX cases begin with different information. PHP defenders knew which software required urgent remediation but initially had limited information about exploitation. Process execution, file modification and outbound communication could still provide evidence of compromise.

The PHP and ARTEX observations also illustrate the difference between volume and impact. Darktrace observed broad scanning around the PHP disclosure, while the ARTEX-associated infrastructure produced concentrated authentication activity. Neither observation independently demonstrates compromise and in each case examining the behavior that follows the initial interaction is the investigative clue.

The Darktrace ARTEX-related observation began with authentication behavior. Microsoft publicly attributed the source infrastructure eight days later. That attribution added context, but it did not change what had originally been recorded in the environment.

AI is now present at several points in this cycle. Daybreak applies models to vulnerability discovery and remediation. Darktrace Signal Labs demonstrated how a trusted enterprise agent could be co-opted in a controlled environment. JPCERT/CC confirmed AI-assisted vulnerability scanning and API attacks in recent incidents. Microsoft documented ARTEX being used by Storm-0940 in active operations [4][7][8][9].

Microsoft's findings also show why scale and impact must be assessed separately. One ARTEX-associated campaign produced more than 151,000 failed logons without successful access, while other operations reached privileged cloud access in less than three hours. Security teams have to distinguish high-volume attempts from activity that progresses through authentication, privilege changes and resource access.

The evidence required to assess these cases remains familiar: authentication records, process execution, application and directory changes, file activity and network communication. AI can increase the rate at which those behaviors occur. Defenders still need to establish their sequence and impact.

Credit to Emma Foulger, Sam Lister, Dylan Evans, Moishe Tajtelbaum

References

[1] NCSC-NL, php2shell vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-109618, CVE-2026-109619), 21 October 2026. https://github.com/NCSC-NL/php2shell

[2] Imperva, https://www.imperva.com/blog/node2shell-from-brotli-data-to-remote-code-execution/

[3] Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, https://www.csa.gov.sg/alerts-and-advisories/alerts/al-2026-151/

[4] OpenAI, Daybreak: Tools for securing every organization in the world, 22 June 2026. https://openai.com/index/daybreak-securing-the-world/

[5] OpenAI Developers, Scaling cyber defenders with Daybreak, 21 August 2026. https://developers.openai.com/blog/scaling-cyber-defenders-with-daybreak

[6] OpenAI, Cloudflare links vulnerability discovery to defense with OpenAI, 21 October 2026. https://openai.com/index/cloudflare-cyber/

[7] Darktrace Signal Labs, Shared Memories as a Covert C2 Channel, draft research supplied for review.

[8] JPCERT/CC, Recent AI-Assisted Cyber Attacks in Japan: Investigating Attack Infrastructure and Techniques, 21 October 2026. https://blogs.jpcert.or.jp/en/2026/10/web_api_attacks.html

[9] Microsoft Security Research and Microsoft Threat Intelligence, AI-driven, large-scale nation-state campaign using ARTEX enables supply chain compromise, 21 October 2026. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/10/21/storm-0940-uses-artex-agentic-ai-connectwise-supply-chain-compromise/

[10] Darktrace, Advancing the Use of Frontier AI in Cybersecurity: Darktrace Joins the OpenAI Daybreak Cyber Partner Program to Explore Defensive AI Integrations, 22 June 2026. https://www.darktrace.com/blog/advancing-the-use-of-frontier-ai-in-cybersecurity-darktrace-joins-the-openai-daybreak-cyber-partner-program-to-explore-defensive-ai-integrations

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Blog

OT

October 23, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

In October 2026, hundreds of supermarkets across France were reportedly affected by a cyberattack targeting their refrigeration systems. According to public reports, the attackers gained access to internet-connected controllers and modified their settings, forcing refrigeration units into high and extremely low temperatures and causing significant disruption. Total losses have been reported to reach several million euros.

The incident drew attention to the security of industrial refrigeration systems, particularly older devices with exposed management interfaces and known vulnerabilities.

The exact details of how the attackers gained access have not been confirmed, however it is speculated that the public-facing web server could be accessed with the username “admin” and password being the current date. Researchers from Claroty’s Team82 identified a vulnerability in Danfoss AK-SM 8xxA Series in 2025, “CVE-2025-41450", allowing for administrative access using a time-based “code-of-the-day" for authentication [1].

Default credentials, outdated firmware and publicly accessible administrative interfaces have been an issue for years. And yet these systems continue to appear in internet scans and require little sophistication to gain admin access. A simple search of internet-connected devices shows a range of exposed devices from Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and remote gateways, to, yes, more fridges.

Darktrace malware researchers identified hundreds of IoT and OT devices publicly exposed on the internet, many of which are configured with no authentication, weak credentials, or default credentials. As shown in Figure 1, an exposed Copeland XWEB web interface, used to manage Dixell equipment, including refrigerators, can provide the ability to remotely control connected devices.

‍

Figure 1: Copeland XWEB interface used to control systems including refrigerators and air conditioning.

However, it’s not only fridges; web management interfaces for industrial controls are also publicly accessible, often protected only by weak credentials. Figure 2 shows an example of a publicly exposed WAGO interface. The WAGO management interface is a configuration and administration panel for controllers. Through it, a logged-in user can view device details and diagnostics, manage user accounts and passwords, update firmware, back up or restore the full configuration, set the clock, and manage SD card storage. While it typically doesn’t manage switch outputs or read live process values, someone with access could still disrupt operation by changing network or Modbus settings, loading bad firmware or configurations, or by resetting passwords and enabling insecure services.

‍

‍

The issue extends beyond management interfaces. During our research, we identified publicly accessible web interfaces belonging to PLCs, including Rockwell Automation Allen-Bradley devices. In each case, the risk arises from how the devices have been deployed and configured, not from a flaw in the vendors’ products.

‍

Figure 3: Web interface for Allen-Bradley CompactLogix controller.

‍

Figure 3 shows the web interface of an Allen-Bradley CompactLogix controller. Unlike the previous examples, this interface provides a view into the controller's operation, including running tasks, network connections, memory usage and diagnostic information. Rockwell Automation's CompactLogix controllers are commonly used to automate industrial processes, from manufacturing and packaging lines to water treatment and material handling systems. Depending on their configuration, these controllers can operate motors, pumps, valves and other physical equipment.

Although in this example the interface shown does not provide direct control over the PLC's logic, it exposes information about the model, firmware, network layout, and connections, which is useful reconnaissance for a bigger attack.

The concern is not necessarily that every exposed interface allows an attacker to immediately manipulate industrial processes. However, these devices are accessible from the public internet in the first place, providing information about systems that may be responsible for controlling physical equipment.

The attacks on refrigeration systems in France highlight the consequences of poorly secured industrial devices. As demonstrated throughout this research, publicly accessible management interfaces are not limited to refrigeration controllers but extend to PLCs and other systems used to manage industrial equipment.

Finding these devices requires little effort. Internet scanners make it possible to identify publicly exposed interfaces quickly, and in some cases these interfaces rely on publicly documented default credentials or have no authentication at all. As attackers increasingly use AI tools, such attacks may be identified and carried out faster and at a greater scale.

The consequences of this access depend on the device and the functionality exposed. While some interfaces provide little more than diagnostic information, others allow users to modify configurations, disrupt communications, or change settings that affect physical equipment. In industrial environments, this can result in operational downtime, damaged equipment and financial losses.

Weak passwords, default credentials and exposed administrative interfaces are not new security issues. Yet their continued presence on internet-connected industrial systems demonstrates how easily preventable weaknesses can leave physical operations vulnerable to attack.

Exposed devices often come from third-party suppliers and contractors, who frequently install refrigeration controllers, gateways and PLCs without the organization ever being aware they are connected to the internet. Asset visibility remains an important foundation, but organizations should assume that some unknown assets and services will exist. Effective security therefore also depends on continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, network segmentation and rapid response, so that risky exposure and unusual activity can be identified and addressed before it becomes disruptive.

Darktrace helps security teams gain visibility across IT and OT and respond to risks: https://www.darktrace.com/products/operational-technology.

Copeland, Dixell, WAGO, Rockwell Automation, Allen-Bradley and CompactLogix are trademarks of their respective owners. Their use here is for identification only and does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by those owners.

References

1. https://claroty.com/team82/research/freeze-the-controller-defrost-the-food-uncovering-vulnerabilities-in-danfoss-refrigeration-controllers

‍

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

Atomic Stealer: Darktrace’s Investigation of a Growing macOS Threat

The Rise of Infostealers Targeting Apple Users

What is Atomic Stealer?

Darktrace’s Coverage of Atomic Stealer

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Detections

List of IoCs

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

CikaBika Bot: Inside a Discord RAT

A Chain Reaction: Blockchain-Hosted Infostealer Campaign Targets Windows and macOS

Blog

AI

October 23, 2026

PHP Vulnerabilities, ARTEX and the Growing Role of AI in Cyber Attacks

AI-assisted vulnerability research

Enterprise agents as an attack surface

AI-assisted attacks in Japan

AI in offensive operations

Behavior before attribution

References

Blog

OT

October 23, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

References