ブログ
/
Cloud
/
January 13, 2025

Agent vs. Agentless Cloud Security: Why Deployment Methods Matter

Cloud security solutions can be deployed with agentless or agent-based approaches or use a combination of methods. Organizations must weigh which method applies best to the assets and data the tool will protect.
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
Kellie Regan
Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security
Default blog image
13
Jan 2025

The rapid adoption of cloud technologies has brought significant security challenges for organizations of all sizes. According to recent studies, over 70% of enterprises now operate in hybrid or multi-cloud environments, with 93% employing a multi-cloud strategy[1]. This complexity requires robust security tools, but opinions vary on the best deployment method—agent-based, agentless, or a combination of both.

Agent-based and agentless cloud security approaches offer distinct benefits and limitations, and organizations often make deployment choices based on their unique needs depending on the function of the specific assets covered, the types of data stored, and cloud architecture, such as hybrid or multi-cloud deployments.

For example, agentless solutions are increasingly favored for their ease of deployment and ability to provide broad visibility across dynamic cloud environments. These are especially useful for DevOps teams, with 64% of organizations citing faster deployment as a key reason for adopting agentless tools[2].

On the other hand, agent-based solutions remain the preferred choice for environments requiring deep monitoring and granular control, such as securing sensitive high-value workloads in industries like finance and healthcare. In fact, over 50% of enterprises with critical infrastructure report relying on agent-based solutions for their advanced protection capabilities[3].

As the debate continues, many organizations are turning to combined approaches, leveraging the strengths of both agent-based and agentless tools to address the full spectrum of their security needs for comprehensive coverage. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of these methods is critical to building an effective cloud security strategy that adapts to evolving threats and complex infrastructures.

Agent-based cloud security

Agent-based security solutions involve deploying software agents on each device or system that needs protection. Agent-based solutions are great choices when you need in-depth monitoring and protection capabilities. They are ideal for organizations that require deep security controls and real-time active response, particularly in hybrid and on-premises environments.

Key advantages include:

1. Real-time monitoring and protection: Agents detect and block threats like malware, ransomware, and anomalous behaviors in real time, providing ongoing protection and enforcing compliance by continuously monitoring workload activities.  Agents enable full control over workloads for active response such as blocking IP addresses, killing processes, disabling accounts, and isolating infected systems from the network, stopping lateral movement.

2. Deep visibility for hybrid environments: Agent-based approaches allow for full visibility across on-premises, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments by deploying agents on physical and virtual machines. Agents offer detailed insights into system behavior, including processes, files, memory, network connections, and more, detecting subtle anomalies that might indicate security threats. Host-based monitoring tracks vulnerabilities at the system and application level, including unpatched software, rogue processes, and unauthorized network activity.

3. Comprehensive coverage: Agents are very effective in hybrid environments (cloud and on-premises), as they can be installed on both physical and virtual machines.  Agents can function independently on each host device onto which they are installed, which is especially helpful for endpoints that may operate outside of constant network connectivity.

Challenges:

1. Resource-intensive: Agents can consume CPU, memory, and network resources, which may affect performance, especially in environments with large numbers of workloads or ephemeral resources.

2. Challenging in dynamic environments: Managing hundreds or thousands of agents in highly dynamic or ephemeral environments (e.g., containers, serverless functions) can be complex and labor-intensive.

3. Slower deployment: Requires agent installation on each workload or instance, which can be time-consuming, particularly in large or complex environments.  

Agentless cloud security

Agentless security does not require software agents to be installed on each device. Instead, it uses cloud infrastructure and APIs to perform security checks. Agentless solutions are highly scalable with minimal impact on performance, and ideal for cloud-native and highly dynamic environments like serverless and containerized. These solutions are great choices for your cloud-native and multi-cloud environments where rapid deployment, scalability, and minimal impact on performance are critical, but response actions can be handled through external tools or manual processes.

Key advantages include:

1. Scalability and ease of deployment: Because agentless security doesn’t require installation on each individual device, it is much easier to deploy and can quickly scale across a vast number of cloud assets. This approach is ideal for environments where resources are frequently created and destroyed (e.g., serverless, containerized workloads), as there is no need for agent installation or maintenance.

2. Reduced system overhead: Without the need to run local agents, agentless security minimizes the impact on system performance. This is crucial in high-performance environments.

3. Broad visibility: Agentless security connects via API to cloud service providers, offering near-instant visibility and threat detection. It provides a comprehensive view of your cloud environment, making it easier to manage and secure large and complex infrastructures.

Challenges

1. Infrastructure-level monitoring: Agentless solutions rely on cloud service provider logs and API calls, meaning that detection might not be as immediate as agent-based solutions. They collect configuration data and logs, focusing on infrastructure misconfigurations, identity risks, exposed resources, and network traffic, but lack visibility and access to detailed, system-level information such as running processes and host-level vulnerabilities.

2. Cloud-focused: Primarily for cloud environments, although some tools may integrate with on-premises systems through API-based data gathering. For organizations with hybrid cloud environments, this approach fragments visibility and security, leading to blind spots and increasing security risk.

3. Passive remediation: Typically provides alerts and recommendations, but lacks deep control over workloads, requiring manual intervention or orchestration tools (e.g., SOAR platforms) to execute responses. Some agentless tools trigger automated responses via cloud provider APIs (e.g., revoking permissions, adjusting security groups), but with limited scope.

Combined agent-based and agentless approaches

A combined approach leverages the strengths of both agent-based and agentless security for complete coverage. This hybrid strategy helps security teams achieve comprehensive coverage by:

  • Using agent-based solutions for deep, real-time protection and detailed monitoring of critical systems or sensitive workloads.
  • Employing agentless solutions for fast deployment, broader visibility, and easier scalability across all cloud assets, which is particularly useful in dynamic cloud environments where workloads frequently change.

The combined approach has distinct practical applications. For example, imagine a financial services company that deals with sensitive transactions. Its security team might use agent-based security for critical databases to ensure stringent protections are in place. Meanwhile, agentless solutions could be ideal for less critical, transient workloads in the cloud, where rapid scalability and minimal performance impact are priorities. With different data types and infrastructures, the combined approach is best.

Best of both worlds: The benefits of a combined approach

The combined approach not only maximizes security efficacy but also aligns with diverse operational needs. This means that all parts of the cloud environment are secured according to their risk profile and functional requirements. Agent-based deployment provides in-depth monitoring and active protection against threats, suitable for environments requiring tight security controls, such as financial services or healthcare data processing systems. Agentless deployment complements agents by offering broader visibility and easier scalability across diverse and dynamic cloud environments, ideal for rapidly changing cloud resources.

There are three major benefits from combining agent-based and agentless approaches.

1. Building a holistic security posture: By integrating both agent-based and agentless technologies, organizations can ensure that all parts of their cloud environments are covered—from persistent, high-risk endpoints to transient cloud resources. This comprehensive coverage is crucial for detecting and responding to threats promptly and effectively.

2. Reducing overhead while boosting scalability: Agentless systems require no software installation on each device, reducing overhead and eliminating the need to update and maintain agents on a large number of endpoints. This makes it easier to scale security as the organization grows or as the cloud environment changes.

3. Applying targeted protection where needed: Agent-based solutions can be deployed on selected assets that handle sensitive information or are critical to business operations, thus providing focused protection without incurring the costs and complexity of universal deployment.

Use cases for a combined approach

A combined approach gives security teams the flexibility to deploy agent-based and agentless solutions based on the specific security requirements of different assets and environments. As a result, organizations can optimize their security expenditures and operational efforts, allowing for greater adaptability in cloud security use cases.

Let’s take a look at how this could practically play out. In the combined approach, agent-based security can perform the following:

1. Deep monitoring and real-time protection:

  • Workload threat detection: Agent-based solutions monitor individual workloads for suspicious activity, such as unauthorized file changes or unusual resource usage, providing high granularity for detecting threats within critical cloud applications.
  • Behavioral analysis of applications: By deploying agents on virtual machines or containers, organizations can monitor behavior patterns and flag anomalies indicative of insider threats, lateral movement, or Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs).
  • Protecting high-sensitivity environments: Agents provide continuous monitoring and advanced threat protection for environments processing sensitive data, such as payment processing systems or healthcare records, leveraging capabilities like memory protection and file integrity monitoring.

2. Cloud asset protection:

  • Securing critical infrastructure: Agent-based deployments are ideal for assets like databases or storage systems that require real-time defense against exploits and ransomware.
  • Advanced packet inspection: For high-value assets, agents offer deep packet inspection and in-depth logging to detect stealthy attacks such as data exfiltration.
  • Customizable threat response: Agents allow for tailored security rules and automated responses at the workload level, such as shutting down compromised instances or quarantining infected files.

At the same time, agentless cloud security provides complementary benefits such as:

1. Broad visibility and compliance:‍

  • Asset discovery and management: Agentless systems can quickly scan the entire cloud environment to identify and inventory all assets, a crucial capability for maintaining compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA, which require up-to-date records of data locations and usage.
  • Regulatory compliance auditing and configuration management: Quickly identify gaps in compliance frameworks like PCI DSS or SOC 2 by scanning configurations, permissions, and audit trails without installing agents. Using APIs to check configurations across cloud services ensures that all instances comply with organizational and regulatory standards, an essential aspect for maintaining security hygiene and compliance.
  • Shadow IT Detection: Detect and map unauthorized cloud services or assets that are spun up without security oversight, ensuring full inventory coverage.

2. Rapid environmental assessment:

  • Vulnerability assessment of new deployments: In environments where new code is frequently deployed, agentless security can quickly assess new instances, containers, or workloads in CI/CD pipelines for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations, enabling secure deployments at DevOps speed.
  • Misconfiguration alerts: Detect and alert on common cloud configuration issues, such as exposed storage buckets or overly permissive IAM roles, across cloud providers like AWS, Azure, and GCP.
  • Policy enforcement: Validate that new resources adhere to established security baselines and organizational policies, preventing security drift during rapid cloud scaling.

Combining agent-based and agentless approaches in cloud security not only maximizes the protective capabilities, but also offers flexibility, efficiency, and comprehensive coverage tailored to the diverse and evolving needs of modern cloud environments. This integrated strategy ensures that organizations can protect their assets more effectively while also adapting quickly to new threats and regulatory requirements.

Darktrace offers complementary and flexible deployment options for holistic cloud security

Powered by multilayered AI, Darktrace / CLOUD is a Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solution that is agentless by default, with optional lightweight, host-based server agents for enhanced real-time actioning and deep inspection. As such, it can deploy in cloud environments in minutes and provide unified visibility and security across hybrid, multi-cloud environments.

With any deployment method, Darktrace supports multi-tenant, hybrid, and serverless cloud environments. Its Self-Learning AI learns the normal behavior across architectures, assets, and users to identify unusual activity that may indicate a threat. With this approach, Darktrace / CLOUD quickly disarms threats, whether they are known, unknown, or completely novel. It then accelerates the investigation process and responds to threats at machine speed.

Learn more about how Darktrace / CLOUD secures multi and hybrid cloud environments in the Solution Brief.

References:

1. Flexera 2023 State of the Cloud Report

2. ESG Research 2023 Report on Cloud-Native Security

3. Gartner, Market Guide for Cloud Workload Protection Platforms, 2023

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
Kellie Regan
Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

October 26, 2026

PHP脆弱性、ARTEX、そしてサイバー攻撃におけるAIの役割拡大

Default blog imageDefault blog image

BCVE-2026-109618およびCVE-2026-109619の公開により、PHPを運用している組織は緊急対応を余儀なくされました。どちらの脆弱性も許可のないリモートコード実行を可能にするものであり、対象はPHPが組み込まれ、サードパーティベンダーにアップデートを依存する製品およびアプライアンスも含まれていました[1]。

初期のガイダンスではインターネットに接続されたシステムにパッチを適用し、予期しないコマンド実行やWebroot変更、PHPサーバーからのアウトバウンド接続など、エクスプロイトの成功に関連した振る舞いを監視することに重点が置かれました。

Darktraceは監視中の環境においてスキャニングが広範に発生していることを観測し、これにはPHP脆弱性を標的としたアクティビティに関連すると報告されている数百の個別のIPアドレスが関係していました。スキャニングの量はエクスプロイトの成功を示す証拠の数を著しく上回るものでした。アナリストにとってはこの違いが重要です。スキャニングは露出したインフラへの関心を表すものです。侵害を確認するには、標的とされたシステム上でこれに続く振る舞い、たとえばコマンド実行、ファイル変更、予期しないアウトバウンド接続などの証拠が必要です。

PHPは例外的なケースではありません。その後、Imperva社が脆弱なNode.jsビルドに対するリモートコード実行を悪意あるBrotliデータを通じて実証し、圧縮HTTPレスポンスおよび設定済みリクエストパーサーを通じたコード実行を再現しました。同じ入力はパッチ適用済みのランタイムからは拒否されました。Imperva社はNode2ShellおよびPHP2Shellに対する研究結果を、脆弱性探索とエクスプロイト開発スピードの上昇と結びつけています。[2]

DarktraceはCVE-2026-109618あるいはCVE-2026-109619エクスプロイトの直接的証拠を観測していませんが、10月21日にゼロデイエクスプロイトのアクティビティと一致する過去6か月間で最大の脅威検知を観測し、これは過去のデータと比較して64%上昇を示すものでした。この上昇とPHP脆弱性との関連性は確認されていません。Darktraceの振る舞いベースのアプローチは、特定のエクスプロイトに対して記述されたルールだけに頼ることなく異常なアクティビティを検知するよう設計されています。同様の検知の増加はLog4j脆弱性の公表、およびその他の世界的に重大な脆弱性公表時にも観測されています。

AI支援による脆弱性探索

AIシステムが高い脆弱性探索能力を持つようになるなかで、PHPの脆弱性が発見されました[3]。OpenAIは2026年6月にDaybreakプログラムを発表し、GPT-5.5-CyberおよびCodex Securityをセキュリティ研究者やソフトウェア維持管理者とのパートナーシップと結びつけました。OpenAIはこれらのモデルがブラウザ、ネットワークインフラ、FreeBSDおよびLinuxカーネルの脆弱性の発見およびパッチ作成に適用されていると説明しています。ダークトレースは6月にOpenAI Daybreak Cyber Partner Programに参加し、OpenAIの提供するサイバー能力をDarktrace製品およびサービスにどのように統合できるかを研究しています [4][10]。

OpenAIは8月に、Codex Security Cloudが30,000以上のコードベースにおいて3000万件以上のコミットを分析したと報告しています。OpenAIによると、Cloudflare社はDaybreakを通じてアクセスするモデルを利用して、顧客の承認を受けたコードを調査し、その調査結果をリアルタイムのトラフィックやセキュリティシグナルと組み合わせて、影響を受けたルートがアクティブかどうか、または不審なトラフィックを受信しているかを評価し、顧客によるレビュー対象として緩和策やパッチを提案しているということです[5][6]。

迅速に発見することができても、影響を受けたソフトウェアを特定し、修正をテストし、是正措置を完了するという作業は、依然として防御者が行わなければなりません。PHPの事例は、特に脆弱なランタイムが他の製品に組み込まれている場合に、このギャップが問題となることを明確に示しています。

アタックサーフェスとしての企業AIエージェント

DarktraceSignal Labsは、攻撃者がすでに環境へのアクセス権を取得した後、信頼されたAIエージェントがどのように悪用される可能性があるかについても調査しました。ダークトレースの研究者は管理されたシミュレーション環境において、侵害後のシナリオとして、Claudeプラットフォームのメモリストア機能が悪用され、外部オペレーターと内部のClaude Codeエージェント間にライブC2チャネルを確立できることを実証しました。外部オペレーターは、このC2チャネルを介して、ネットワーク探索、認証情報へのアクセス、データの持ち出しといったタスクをエージェントに動的に割り当てることができました。エージェントのアクティビティの検知は、エージェントハーネスプロセスからのプロセス作成とネットワークトラフィックの相関付け、および予期された動作からの逸脱を特定するためのビヘイビア分析に基づいて行われました。ダークトレースはこのメモリストアを使ったC2テクニックを実際の攻撃で観測したとは主張していません[7]。

日本で観測されたAI支援による攻撃

日本で観測された証拠は、研究用環境を超えて、実際の脆弱性探索と攻撃にAIが使用されていることを示しています。10月21日、JPCERT/CCは最近の日本国内の組織に対する不正アクセスインシデントについての調査結果を発表しました。JPCERT/CCは攻撃者がAIを使って既知の脆弱性をスキャンしAPIを通じて攻撃を実行していることを確認したと報告しています。JPCERT/CCによると、攻撃インフラを調査した結果、Androidアプリケーションの分析、APIの探索、サーバーサイドリクエストフォージェリを含む脆弱性テストの痕跡が確認され、また、この攻撃インフラは日本国外のユーザー向けサービスも標的としていました[8]。

JPCERT/CCはこの公開資料の中ではARTEXを特定していません。ARTEXに対するアトリビューションは、Microsoft社によるStorm-0940の分析を含む、別の調査に基づいています。

攻撃オペレーションにおけるAI

Microsoft社は、ARTEXを限定的な人間の介入でアクティビティを自動化できる、オープンソースのマルチエージェント型ペネトレーションテストシステムと説明しています。Microsoft社は、2021年から活動している中国政府と連携した攻撃者と評価しているStorm-0940が、数百の組織に対してARTEXを使用したと報告し、ConnectWiseのサプライチェーン侵害がStorm-0940によるものであるとしました[9]。

Microsoft社は、ARTEXがスキャン、偵察、パスワードスプレー、OAuthアプリケーションの悪用を加速させていることを確認しました。ARTEXに駆動されたいくつかの攻撃オペレーションは、最初の標的設定から3時間未満で特権クラウドアクセスに到達しました。ConnectWiseの侵害後、Storm-0940は最大で毎分2,900回の頻度で、2,250を超えるテナントへの認証を試みました[9]。

ダークトレースの脅威調査チームは、後にこのキャンペーンとの関連が判明したインフラに関するアクティビティを、Darktraceテレメトリー内で発見しました。10月13日、Darktraceは、Microsoftが後にConnectWiseの顧客環境でサインインおよびMicrosoft Graphのアクティビティを実行していたと特定したアドレスの1つである144.172.64[.]128に関連する認証アクティビティの失敗を記録しました。Darktraceの分析では、約20分間に65回の認証失敗が確認されました。

図1:2026年10月13日、144.172.64[.]128が関与した認証失敗イベントを示すDarktrace Advanced Searchの結果(顧客を特定できる情報は削除済み)。

Darktraceのテレメトリーは、後にこのキャンペーンとの関連が確認されたインフラから、認証の失敗が繰り返し発生していたことを明らかにしています。これはARTEXの実行や侵害の成功を立証するものではありません。観測時点では、Microsoft社による後のアトリビューションについての情報はありませんでした。つまり、アナリストが把握していたのは振る舞いそのものでした。短時間に同一の送信元から認証に繰り返し失敗したということ、および関連するアイデンティティ、アプリケーション、ネットワークティビティについてのデータです。

Microsoft社は、10月10日から14日にかけて、8組織の327アカウントを対象とした、より広範なパスワードスプレー攻撃を報告しました。151,000件を超えるログオン失敗が記録され、なかでも11月10日には111,000件を超えていましたが、このキャンペーンによる認証成功、トークン発行、Graph呼び出し、ディレクトリ変更はいずれもありませんでした。また、Microsoftは、Storm-0940による標的化の大半が成功しなかったとも報告しています[9]。

攻撃者が認証を突破したケースでは、Microsoft社はサービスプリンシパルによるサインインに続いて、Graphおよびディレクトリ操作が行われたことを確認しました。アクティビティには、偵察、アプリケーション認証情報の変更、権限の変更を試みる行為が含まれていました。Microsoft社はサービスプリンシパルによるサインインとGraphアクティビティ、ディレクトリ変更およびリソースアクセスを相関づけることを推奨しています[9]。

アトリビューションの前に振る舞い

PHPとARTEXの事例は、異なる情報から始まっています。PHPの防御担当者は、どのソフトウェアに緊急の対策が必要かを把握していたものの、当初はエクスプロイトついての情報が限られていました。それでも、プロセスの実行、ファイルの変更、外部への通信は、侵害の証拠となったでしょう。

PHPとARTEXの観測結果は、量と影響範囲の違いも示しています。DarktraceはPHPの脆弱性公開時期に広範なスキャンを観測しました。一方ARTEX関連のインフラでは認証アクティビティが集中して発生していました。どちらの観察結果も、それ単独では侵害を実証するものではなく、いずれのケースにおいても、最初のやり取りに続く振る舞いを調べることが調査上の手がかりとなります。

DarktraceのARTEX関連の検知は、認証関連の振る舞いから始まりました。Microsoft社が攻撃インフラのアトリビューションを公表したのはその8日後でした。アトリビューションはコンテキストを提供するものではありましたが、環境内で最初に記録された事象を変更するものではありませんでした。

AIは今や攻撃サイクルの複数のポイントに存在しています。Daybreakは脆弱性の発見と修正にモデルを適用しています。Darktrace Signal Labsは信頼される企業内AIエージェントがどのように悪用されうるかを、管理された環境内で実証しました。JPCERT/CCは最近のインシデントにおけるAI支援による脆弱性探索およびAPI攻撃を確認しました。Microsoft社は実際の攻撃でStorm-0940がARTEXを使用していることを報告しました [4][7][8][9]。

Microsoft社の研究結果はまた、攻撃の規模と影響は別に評価しなければならないことも示しています。ARTEXを使った1つのキャンペーンは151,000回以上のログオン失敗を生成し、アクセスに至らなかったものの、他のキャンペーンでは3時間未満で特権クラウドアクセスに到達した例もありました。セキュリティチームは大量の試行アクティビティと、認証を突破し権限の変更やリソースアクセスへと進むものを区別しなければなりません。

これらのケースを評価するのに必要な証拠は、これまでに良く知られているものです。つまり認証記録、プロセス実行、アプリケーションやディレクトリの変更、ファイルアクティビティやネットワーク通信です。AIはこれらの振る舞いの発生頻度を増大させます。防御者はこのような状況下でもそれらのシーケンスと影響を判断しなければならないのです。

担当:Emma Foulger、Sam Lister、Dylan Evans、Moishe Tajtelbaum

参考資料

[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

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Jones
SVP, Global Threat Intelligence

Blog

/

OT

/

October 23, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Default blog imageDefault blog image

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.

‍

Figure 2: WAGO Management interface.

‍

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

‍

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ