ブログ
/
Email
/
April 20, 2022

Email Compromise To Mass Phishing Campaign

Read Darktrace's in-depth analysis on the shift from business email compromise to mass phishing campaigns. Gain the knowledge to safeguard your business.
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
Shuh Chin Goh
Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
Default blog image
20
Apr 2022

It is common for attackers to send large volumes of malicious emails from the email accounts which they compromise. Before carrying out this mass-mailing activity, there are predictable, preparatory steps which attackers take, such as registering mass-mailing applications and creating new inbox rules. In this blog, we will provide details of an attack observed in February 2022 in which a threat actor conducted a successful mass-mailing attack at a financial company based in Africa.

Attack summary

In February 2022, an attacker attempted to infiltrate the email environment of a financial services company based in Africa. At the beginning of February, the attacker likely gained a foothold in the company’s email environment by tricking an internal user into entering the credentials of their corporate email account into a phishing page. Over the following week, the attacker used the compromised account credentials to conduct a variety of activities, such as registering a mass-mailing application and creating a new inbox rule.

After taking these preparatory steps, the attacker went on to send out large volumes of phishing emails from the internal user’s email account. The attacker consequently obtained the credentials of several further internal corporate accounts. They used the credentials of one of these accounts to carry out similar preparatory steps (registering a mass-mailing application and creating a new inbox rule). After taking these steps, the attacker again sent large volumes of phishing emails from the account. At this point, the customer requested assistance from Darktrace’s SOC to aid investigation, and the intrusion was consequently contained by the company.

Since the attacker carried out their activities using a VPN and an Amazon cloud service, the endpoints from which the activities took place did not serve as particularly helpful indicators of an attack. However, prior to sending out phishing emails from internal users’ accounts, the attacker did carry out other predictable, preparatory activities. One of the main goals of this blog is to highlight that these behaviors serve as valuable signs of preparation for mass-mailing activity.

Attack timeline

Figure 1: Timeline of the intrusion

On February 3, the attacker sent a phishing email to the corporate account of an employee. The email was sent from the corporate account of an employee at a company with business ties to the victim enterprise. It is likely that the attacker had compromised this account prior to sending the phishing email from it. The phishing email in question claimed to be an overdue payment reminder. Within the email, there was a link hidden behind the display text “view invoice”. The hostname of the phishing link’s URL was a subdomain of questionpro[.]eu — an online survey platform. The page referred to by the URL was a fake Microsoft Outlook login page.

Figure 2: Destination of phishing link within the email sent by the attacker

Antigena Email, Darktrace’s email security solution, identified the highly unusual linguistic structure of the email, given its understanding of ‘normal’ for that sender. This was reflected in an inducement shift score of 100. However, in this case, the original URL of the phishing link was rewritten by Mimecast’s URL protection service in a way which made the full URL impossible to extract. Consequently, Antigena Email did not know what the original URL of the link was. Since the link was rewritten by Mimecast’s URL protection service, the email’s recipient will have received a warning notification in their browser upon clicking the link. It seems that the recipient ignored the warning, and consequently divulged their email account credentials to the attacker.

For Antigena Email to hold an email from a user’s mailbox, it must judge with high confidence that the email is malicious. In cases where the email contains no suspicious attachments or links, it is difficult for Antigena Email to obtain such high degrees of confidence, unless the email displays clear payload-independent malicious indicators, such as indicators of spoofing or indicators of extortion. In this case, the email, as seen by Antigena Email, didn’t contain any suspicious links or attachments (since Mimecast had rewritten the suspicious link) and the email didn’t contain any indicators of spoofing or extortion.

Figure 3: The email’s high inducement shift score highlights that the email’s linguistic content and structure were unusual for the email’s sender

Shortly after receiving the email, the internal user’s corporate device was observed making SSL connections to the questionpro[.]eu phishing endpoint. It is likely that the user divulged their email account credentials during these connections.

Figure 4: The above screenshot — obtained from Advanced Search — depicts the connections made by the account owner’s device on February 3

Between February 3 and February 7, the attacker logged into the user’s email account several times. Since these logins were carried out using a common VPN service, they were not identified as particularly unusual by Darktrace. However, during their login sessions, the attacker exhibited behavior which was highly unusual for the email account’s owner. The attacker was observed creating an inbox rule called “ _ ” on the user’s email account,[1] as well as registering and granting permissions to a mass-mailing application called Newsletter Software SuperMailer. These steps were taken by the attacker in preparation for their subsequent mass-mailing activity.

On February 7, the attacker sent out phishing emails from the user’s account. The emails were sent to hundreds of internal and external mailboxes. The email claimed to be an overdue payment reminder and it contained a questionpro[.]eu link hidden behind the display text “view invoice”. It is likely that the inbox rule created by the attacker caused all responses to this phishing email to be deleted. Attackers regularly create inbox rules on the email accounts which they compromise to ensure that responses to the malicious emails which they distribute are hidden from the accounts’ owners.[2]

Since Antigena Email does not have visibility of internal-to-internal emails, the phishing email was delivered fully weaponized to hundreds of internal mailboxes. On February 7, after the phishing email was sent from the compromised internal account, more than twenty internal devices were observed making SSL connections to the relevant questionpro[.]eu endpoint, indicating that many internal users had clicked the phishing link and possibly revealed their account credentials to the attacker.

Figure 5: The above screenshot — obtained from Advanced Search — depicts the large volume of connections made by internal devices to the phishing endpoint

Over the next five days, the attacker was observed logging into the corporate email accounts of at least six internal users. These logins were carried out from the same VPN endpoints as the attacker’s original logins. On February 11, the attacker was observed creating an inbox rule named “ , ” on one of these accounts. Shortly after, the attacker went on to register and grant permissions to the same mass-mailing application, Newsletter Software SuperMailer. As with the other account, these steps were taken by the attacker in preparation for subsequent mass-mailing activity.

Figure 6: The above screenshot — obtained from Advanced Search — outlines all of the actions involving the mass-mailing application that were taken by the attacker (accounts have been redacted)

On February 11, shortly after 08:30 (UTC), the attacker widely distributed a phishing email from this second user’s account. The phishing email was distributed to hundreds of internal and external mailboxes. Unlike the other phishing emails used by the attacker, this one claimed to be a purchase order notification, and it contained an HTML file named PurchaseOrder.html. Within this file, there was a link to a suspicious page on the public relations (PR) news site, everything-pr[.]com. After the phishing email was sent from the compromised internal account, more than twenty internal devices were observed making SSL connections to the relevant everything-pr[.]com endpoint, indicating that many internal users had opened the malicious attachment.

Figure 7: The above screenshot — obtained from Advanced Search — depicts the connections made by internal devices to the endpoint referenced in the malicious attachment

On February 11, the customer submitted an Ask the Expert (ATE) request to Darktrace’s SOC team. The guidance provided by the SOC helped the security team to contain the intrusion. The attacker managed to maintain a presence within the organization’s email environment for eight days. During these eight days, the attacker sent out large volumes of phishing emails from two corporate accounts. Before sending out these phishing emails, the attacker carried out predictable, preparatory actions. These actions included registering a mass-mailing application with Azure AD and creating an inbox rule.

Darktrace guidance

There are many learning points for this particular intrusion. First, it is important to be mindful of signs of preparation for malicious mass-mailing activity. After an attacker compromises an email account, there are several actions which they will likely perform before they send out large volumes of malicious emails. For example, they may create an inbox rule on the account, and they may register a mass-mailing application with Azure AD. The Darktrace models SaaS / Compliance / New Email Rule and SaaS / Admin / OAuth Permission Grant are designed to pick up on these behaviors.

Second, in cases where an attacker succeeds in sending out phishing emails from an internal, corporate account, it is advised that customers make use of Darktrace’s Advanced Search to identify users that may have divulged account credentials to the attacker. The phishing email sent from the compromised account will likely contain a suspicious link. Once the hostname of the link has been identified, it is possible to ask Advanced Search to display all HTTP or SSL connections to the host in question. If the hostname is www.example.com, you can get Advanced Search to display all SSL connections to the host by using the Advanced Search query, @fields.server_name:"www.example.com", and you can get Advanced Search to display all HTTP connections to the host by using the query, @fields.host:"www.example.com".

Third, it is advised that customers make use of Darktrace’s ‘watched domains’ feature[3] in cases where an attacker succeeds in sending out malicious emails from the accounts they compromise. If a hostname is added to the watched domains list, then a model named Compromise / Watched Domain will breach whenever an internal device is observed connecting to it. If Antigena Network is configured, then observed attempts to connect to the relevant host will be blocked if the hostname is added to the watched domains list with the ‘flag for Antigena’ toggle switched on. If an attacker succeeds in sending out a malicious email from an internal, corporate account, it is advised that customers add hostnames of phishing links within the email to the watched domains list and enable the Antigena flag. Doing so will cause Darktrace to identify and thwart any attempts to connect to the relevant phishing endpoints.

Figure 8: The above screenshot — obtained from the Model Editor — shows that Antigena Network prevented ten internal devices from connecting to phishing endpoints after the relevant phishing hostnames were added to the watched domains list on February 11

For Darktrace customers who want to find out more about phishing detection, refer here for an exclusive supplement to this blog.

‍

MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed

Thanks to Paul Jennings for his contributions.

Footnotes

1. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/exchange/new-inboxrule?view=exchange-ps

2. https://www.fireeye.com/current-threats/threat-intelligence-reports/rpt-fin4.html

3. https://customerportal.darktrace.com/product-guides/main/watched-domains

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
Shuh Chin Goh
Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher

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