ブログ
/
Network
/
February 5, 2026

AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign

This blog explores a macOS phishing campaign that leverages social engineering, AppleScript loaders, and attempted abuse of the macOS’ TCC feature to gain privileged access. It highlights a broader trend: attackers increasingly exploit user trust rather than system vulnerabilities, using staged payload delivery and persistence techniques to maintain long‑term access.
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead
Default blog image
05
Feb 2026

Introduction

Darktrace security researchers have identified a campaign targeting macOS users through a multistage malware campaign that leverages social engineering and attempted abuse of the macOS Transparency, Consent and Control (TCC) privacy feature.

The malware establishes persistence via LaunchAgents and deploys a modular Node.js loader capable of executing binaries delivered from a remote command-and-control (C2) server.

Due to increased built-in security mechanisms in macOS such as System Integrity Protection (SIP) and Gatekeeper, threat actors increasingly rely on alternative techniques, including fake software and ClickFix attacks [1] [2]. As a result, macOS threats rely more heavily on social engineering instead of vulnerability exploitation to deliver payloads, a trend Darktrace has observed across the threat landscape [3].

Technical analysis

The infection chain starts with a phishing email that prompts the user to download an AppleScript file named “Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt”, which attemps to masquerade as a legitimate Microsoft document.

The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.
Figure 1: The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.

Once the user opens the AppleScript file, they are presented with a prompt instructing them to run the script, supposedly due to “compatibility issues”. This prompt is necessary as AppleScript requires user interaction to execute the script, preventing it from running automatically. To further conceal its intent, the malicious part of the script is buried below many empty lines, assuming a user likely will not to the end of the file where the malicious code is placed.

Curl request to receive the next stage.
Figure 2: Curl request to receive the next stage.

This part of the script builds a silent curl request to “sevrrhst[.]com”, sending the user’s macOS operating system, CPU type and language. This request retrieves another script, which is saved as a hidden file at in ~/.ex.scpt, executed, and then deleted.

The retrieved payload is another AppleScript designed to steal credentials and retrieve additional payloads. It begins by loading the AppKit framework, which enables the script to create a fake dialog box prompting the user to enter their system username and password [4].

 Fake dialog prompt for system password.
Figure 3: Fake dialog prompt for system password.

The script then validates the username and password using the command "dscl /Search -authonly <username> <password>", all while displaying a fake progress bar to the user. If validation fails, the dialog window shakes suggesting an incorrect password and prompting the user to try again. The username and password are then encoded in Base64 and sent to: https://sevrrhst[.]com/css/controller.php?req=contact&ac=<user>&qd=<pass>.

Figure 4: Requirements gathered on trusted binary.

Within the getCSReq() function, the script chooses from trusted Mac applications: Finder, Terminal, Script Editor, osascript, and bash. Using the codesign command codesign -d --requirements, it extracts the designated code-signing requirement from the target application. If a valid requirement cannot be retrieved, that binary is skipped. Once a designated requirement is gathered, it is then compiled into a binary trust object using the Code Signing Requirement command (csreq). This trust object is then converted into hex so it can later be injected into the TCC SQLite database.

To bypass integrity checks, the TCC directory is renamed to com.appled.tcc using Finder. TCC is a macOS privacy framework designed to restrict application access to sensitive data, requiring users to explicitly grant permissions before apps can access items such as files, contacts, and system resources [1].

Example of how users interact with TCC.
Figure 5: TCC directory renamed to com.appled.TCC.
Figure 6: Example of how users interact with TCC.

After the database directory rename is attempted, the killall command is used on the tccd daemon to force macOS to release the lock on the database. The database is then injected with the forged access records, including the service, trusted binary path, auth_value, and the forged csreq binary. The directory is renamed back to com.apple.TCC, allowing the injected entries to be read and the permissions to be accepted. This enables persistence authorization for:

  • Full disk access
  • Screen recording
  • Accessibility
  • Camera
  • Apple Events 
  • Input monitoring

The malware does not grant permissions to itself; instead, it forges TCC authorizations for trusted Apple-signed binaries (Terminal, osascript, Script Editor, and bash) and then executes malicious actions through these binaries to inherit their permissions.

Although the malware is attempting to manipulate TCC state via Finder, a trusted system component, Apple has introduced updates in recent macOS versions that move much of the authorization enforcement into the tccd daemon. These updates prevent unauthorized permission modifications through directory or database manipulation. As a result, the script may still succeed on some older operating systems, but it is likely to fail on newer installations, as tcc.db reloads now have more integrity checks and will fail on Mobile Device Management (MDM) systems as their profiles override TCC.

 Snippet of decoded Base64 response.
Figure 7: Snippet of decoded Base64 response.

A request is made to the C2, which retrieves and executes a Base64-encoded script. This script retrieves additional payloads based on the system architecture and stores them inside a directory it creates named ~/.nodes. A series of requests are then made to sevrrhst[.]com for:

/controller.php?req=instd

/controller.php?req=tell

/controller.php?req=skip

These return a node archive, bundled Node.js binary, and a JavaScript payload. The JavaScript file, index.js, is a loader that profiles the system and sends the data to the C2. The script identified the system platform, whether macOS, Linux or Windows, and then gathers OS version, CPU details, memory usage, disk layout, network interfaces, and running process. This is sent to https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=init as a JSON object. The victim system is then registered with the C2 and will receive a Base64-encoded response.

LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.
Figure 8: LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.

The Base64-encoded response decodes to an additional Javacript that is used to set up persistence. The script creates a folder named com.apple.commonjs in ~/Library and copies the Node dependencies into this directory. From the C2, the files package.json and default.js are retrieved and placed into the com.apple.commonjs folder. A LaunchAgent .plist is also downloaded into the LaunchAgents directory to ensure the malware automatically starts. The .plist launches node and default.js on load, and uses output logging to log errors and outputs.

Default.js is Base64 encoded JavaScript that functions as a command loop, periodically sending logs to the C2, and checking for new payloads to execute. This gives threat actors ongoing and the ability to dynamically modify behavior without having to redeploy the malware. A further Base64-encoded JavaScript file is downloaded as addon.js.

Addon.js is used as the final payload loader, retrieving a Base64-encoded binary from https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next. The binary is decoded from Base64 and written to disk as “node_addon”, and executed silently in the background. At the time of analysis, the C2 did not return a binary, possibly because certain conditions were not met.  However, this mechanism enables the delivery and execution of payloads. If the initial TCC abuse were successful, this payload could access protected resources such as Screen Capture and Camera without triggering a consent prompt, due to the previously established trust.

Conclusion

This campaign shows how a malicious threat actor can use an AppleScript loader to exploit user trust and manipulate TCC authorization mechanisms, achieving persistent access to a target network without exploiting vulnerabilities.

Although recent macOS versions include safeguards against this type of TCC abuse, users should keep their systems fully updated to ensure the most up to date protections.  These findings also highlight the intentions of threat actors when developing malware, even when their implementation is imperfect.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

88.119.171[.]59

sevrrhst[.]com

https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next

https://stomcs[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next
https://techcross-es[.]com

Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt - d3539d71a12fe640f3af8d6fb4c680fd

EDD_Questionnaire_Individual_Blank_Form.docx.scpt - 94b7392133935d2034b8169b9ce50764

Investor Profile (Japan-based) - Shiro Arai.pdf.scpt - 319d905b83bf9856b84340493c828a0c

MITRE ATTACK

T1566 - Phishing

T1059.002 - Command and Scripting Interpreter: Applescript

T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

T1059.007 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript

T1222.002 – File and Directory Permissions Modification

T1036.005 – Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location

T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

T1547.001 – Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Launch Agent

T1553.006 – Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing Policy Modification

T1082 – System Information Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

References

[1] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/from-the-depths-analyzing-the-cthulhu-stealer-malware-for-macos

[2] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/unpacking-clickfix-darktraces-detection-of-a-prolific-social-engineering-tactic

[3] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/crypto-wallets-continue-to-be-drained-in-elaborate-social-media-scam

[4] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit

[5] https://www.huntress.com/blog/full-transparency-controlling-apples-tcc

Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Proactive Security

/

June 3, 2026

Stopping Stealth Attacks with Precision: How Núclea Prevented a Breach Without Disruption

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Núclea is a Brazilian data and technology company that supports the country’s financial system by delivering digital services exclusively to banks and financial institutions. Operating in an environment where trust, availability, and data integrity are critical, the company faces a threat landscape that has evolved rapidly—particularly with the rise of AI-driven cyberattacks.

Brazil has experienced a wave of successful cyber incidents targeting financial institutions, many of them enabled by insiders or compromised credentials. The result was a noticeable shift in attacker strategy: instead of focusing on end customers, threat actors began targeting the institutions and platforms that underpin the financial ecosystem itself.

“Attacks became far more directed and contextual,” explains Guilherme, who leads incident response within Núclea’s security platform engineering team. “They weren’t noisy or obviously malicious—they were precise, patient, and designed to blend into normal operations.”

That precision was on full display in January 2026, when Núclea faced one of the most convincing phishing attacks the team had seen.

A real attack, built on trust and context

The attack began with a seemingly routine email.

It was sent from a real Brazilian government institution, using legitimate infrastructure and valid credentials that were later confirmed to have been compromised. Núclea had an established, ongoing relationship with this organization, and the email’s language, tone, and subject matter aligned perfectly with the type of communication the recipient team handled every day.

Attached to the email was a PDF document containing content that looked entirely legitimate.

The problem? A single URL embedded inside that PDF.

“The message itself was correct. The sender was real. The context was familiar. Even the document content made sense,” Guilherme explains. “There was just one small element that didn’t belong.”

That small detail was enough to initiate a full attack chain.

What the attackers were trying to do

If clicked, the URL would have downloaded a malicious payload designed to:

  • Collect information about the user and device
  • Identify where the system was located within the financial ecosystem
  • Install remote access tools to maintain control
  • Deploy an infostealer to extract sensitive data
  • Execute anti-forensic scripts to erase traces of the intrusion

In other words, it was a carefully engineered operation designed for persistence and stealth, not immediate disruption.

The attack also employed urgency—a classic social engineering technique. When the link didn’t open as expected, employees requested assistance from the security team, insisting the document was important and needed to be accessed quickly.

This is precisely the kind of scenario where traditional security tools struggle: almost everything about the interaction is legitimate.

Where Darktrace made the difference

Instead of blocking the entire message or relying on known indicators of compromise, Darktrace focused on behavioral context.

Darktrace recognized:

  • That the sending organization was normally trusted
  • That the communication pattern matched historical behavior
  • That the PDF content itself was not suspicious

But it also identified that the URL embedded within the document deviated from established behavioral patterns.

Rather than disrupting business operations, Darktrace took precise action: it rewrote the URL, preventing the malicious download while leaving the rest of the email untouched.

“When we analyzed it afterward, it became clear how dangerous the attack would have been,” says Guilherme. “But it never progressed—because Darktrace acted at exactly the right point.”

Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the payload’s malicious intent. The attack never succeeded.

Precision over disruption

For Núclea, this incident reinforced a critical lesson: modern attacks don’t always look malicious—they hide within normal activity.

“What stands out to me is the precision,” Guilherme says. “Darktrace doesn’t rely on big, obvious signals. It’s effective in situations that fall outside the standard patterns we all know.”

Building resilience in a high trust ecosystem

For Núclea, cybersecurity is not just a defensive measure—it’s a business enabler.

Availability failures or successful breaches in the financial ecosystem can have immediate, large-scale consequences, from financial loss to reputational damage. Preventing those outcomes protects not just Núclea, but its partners and customers as well.

“Cyber resilience means keeping the business running—even under attack,” Guilherme explains. “And that requires people, processes, and technology working together.”

As AI continues to accelerate both attacks and defenses, the role of security is evolving. Precision, behavioral understanding, and intelligent automation are no longer optional—they’re essential.

“The easy days were yesterday,” Guilherme says. “The challenges ahead are bigger. We need to be prepared—internally and with partners that help us build resilience.”

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

AI

/

June 2, 2026

効率化の裏にあるリスク:AI導入が製造現場にもたらす見えない脆弱性

Default blog imageDefault blog image

AIエージェントが製造業に与える影響

製造業界のセキュリティチームやIT担当者は、生産を守り、稼働時間を維持し、重要資産を保護するという絶え間ないプレッシャー下にあります。そしてAIは非常に大きなチャンスとともに、新たなサイバーリスクももたらしています。製造業全体で、AIはワークフローや意思決定に組み込まれつつあり、自律型AIエージェントが従業員やシステムに代わって行動する場面が増えています。

エージェント型システムは独立して行動できるため強力ですが、その同じ自律性がサイバーリスク、運用上のリスクも生み出します。エージェントは広範な権限を持ち、複雑なタスクの実行、意思決定、ツールや外部システムとのやり取りを、ほとんどまたは全く人間の介入なしに行うことができます。

あらかじめ定義されたタスクを実行する従来のAIモデルとは異なり、AIエージェントは高度なテクニックを使用して人間の意思決定プロセスを模倣することにより、新たな課題に動的に適応し、また自らの判断に基づいて意思決定し、アクションを実行します。彼らは業務の上では従業員のように見えますが、人間が持つ判断力、倫理観、または行動の結果に対する恐れが欠けています。これは、サイバー犯罪者によって簡単に操られる可能性があることを意味しており、OTネットワーク全体に埋め込まれたAIエージェントは、データ漏洩をはるかに超える脅威を生み出します。たとえば、BMWでは、AI は溶接プロセスのエラーの発生を識別するのに使われています。同社のスパータンバーグ(米サウスカロライナ州)の工場では、すべてのSUVフレーム上の300-400個のスタッドの溶接をAIが監視し、スタッドの配置間違いや欠陥を検知し直ちに修正します。このAIシステムが破損すれば壊滅的な品質管理問題につながる恐れがあります。

製造全体にエージェント型AIシステムを導入することについて多くのセキュリティチームはさまざまな懸念を示しています。ダークトレースの行ったAIサイバーセキュリティの現状調査では、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの78%が従業員によるAIエージェントの利用に懸念を抱いており、これは彼らの最も大きな危惧でした。それに続く問題点が従業員によるCopilotやChatGPT等の生成AIツールの使用であり、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの76%が懸念を抱いていました。これらのツールがますます多くのビジネスデータやプロセスにアクセスし、組織内でより多くの自律性を持つようになるにつれ、エージェントのアクティビティがほとんど可視化されていない現在、セキュリティチームにおいては機密データの露出(60%)や偶発的なポリシーおよび規制違反(59%)への懸念が高まっています。

外部からのAIによる脅威も急激に進化

製造業を変革しているのと同じAIの能力が、サイバー攻撃の形も変貌させています。

AIにより攻撃者は偵察を自動化し、標的をより高度に絞り込み、リアルタイムで適応できるようになっています。かつては人手による作業と時間を要していたことが、今では継続的かつ大規模に実行できるようになりました。そして、製造業はすでにその影響を実感しています。当社が調査した製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの76%は、すでにAIを活用した脅威の影響を受けており、90%がAIによってソーシャルエンジニアリング攻撃の成功率が高まっていると回答しています。

また、攻撃のテクニック自体も進化しています。製造業界全体で、AIを利用した攻撃の経路の多様化に対する懸念が高まっています。特にリアルタイムで進化する適応型マルウェアについて、調査対象の製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの半数近く(49%)が懸念しており、これは全産業の平均よりも9%高い数値です。AIを使った適応型マルウェアに続くその他の懸念には次が含まれます:

  • 自動化された脆弱性スキャンとエクスプロイトチェイニング(48%):Anthropicの新しいMythos AIモデルにより脆弱性探索が深刻化する中で、この問題は一層差し迫ったものとなっています。
  • 超パーソナライズされたフィッシングキャンペーン(46%):フィッシングは依然としてハッカーの主力兵器の1つであり、AIによってフィッシングメールはより説得力が高く検知困難なものとなり、その効果は増幅されました。

これは単に攻撃の量の増加だけでなく、攻撃の展開につれて静的な防御が対応できるよりも速く進化する脅威への変化なのです。

こうした認識が高まっているにもかかわらず、製造業の多くはまだこの変化に対応する準備ができていません。半数以上(51%)がAI駆動の脅威への準備が十分にできていないと回答し、AIの導入を管理する正式なポリシーを持っている組織はわずか37%でした。  

可視性、コンテキスト、およびガードレールを通じてAIのセキュリティを確保

これらの問題に対処するためにAIイノベーションを遅らせる必要はありません。それには、AIと同じスピードと規模で動作できる、これまでとは異なるアプローチのセキュリティが必要です。具体的には、製造業がAIの力を活用する上で、次の3つの優先課題が浮上しています。

可視性はすべての土台  

AIがどこで使用されているか、何にアクセスできるか、そしてITおよびOT環境にわたってどのように動作するかを理解する必要があります。それがなければ、リスクを測定したり管理したりすることはできません。ダークトレースの調査において、製造業のセキュリティプロフェッショナルの91%が、AIを信頼する前に、それがどのように意思決定を行うかを理解する必要があると回答したのは当然のことです。OT環境においてこのことはさらに重要です。稼働の中断は安全や環境、財務、および評判に大きな影響を及ぼすからです。

可視性をアクションにつなげるにはコンテキストが必要  

AIによって形作られる環境において、正常とされる挙動は絶えず変化します。つまり、脅威を検知するにはビヘイビアベースのアプローチが必要なのです。組織全体で生活パターンを理解し、わずかな逸脱をリアルタイムに検知すること- これは従来のセキュリティとリスク管理に対するアプローチからの根本的な変化です。

エージェントからの露出を防ぐガードレール  

AIシステムがより大きな責任を担うようになるなかで、組織はAIが何をできるか、そしていつ独立して行動できるかについて、明確な境界を設ける必要があります。これらのコントロールは何かがあってから適用されるのではなく、システム自体に組み込んでおかなければなりません。  

製造業のITおよびOT環境におけるAIエージェントのセキュリティ

エージェント型AIの出現は製造業を変革し、次世代のオペレーションを支える一方で、脅威ランドスケープも一変させています。これは単なる脅威の増加ではなく、自律型システムへの移行、挙動の絶え間ない変化、そしてマシンスピードで進行するリスクです。AIを活用しつつリスクを管理するという課題に取り組む組織にとって、可視性、コンテキスト、ガードレールはセキュリティの基盤となります。

Darktraceはこの基盤を実現することにより、製造業の安全なAIアプローチ構築を支援します。ITおよびOT環境全体を可視化し、異常なアクティビティに対するリアルタイムの検知および対応を提供することにより、従業員が使用するプロンプトや構築するエージェントから、それらのエージェントの環境全体での動作に至るまで、AIアクティビティの理解を可能にします。これにより、AIの導入を拡大する製造業はコントロールを犠牲にすることなくイノベーションの基盤を構築することができます。

Continue reading
About the author
Dr. Oakley Cox-Robinson
Senior Director of Product
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