ブログ
/
Network
/
November 7, 2022

[Part 1] Analysis of a Raccoon Stealer v1 Infection

Darktrace’s SOC team observed a fast-paced compromise involving Raccoon Stealer v1. See which steps the Raccoon Stealer v1 took to extract company data!
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
Mark Turner
SOC Shift Supervisor
Written by
Sam Lister
Specialist Security Researcher
Default blog image
07
Nov 2022

Introduction

Towards the end of March 2022, the operators of Raccoon Stealer announced the closure of the Raccoon Stealer project [1]. In May 2022, Raccoon Stealer v2 was unleashed onto the world, with huge numbers of cases being detected across Darktrace’s client base. In this series of blog posts, we will follow the development of Raccoon Stealer between March and September 2022. We will first shed light on how Raccoon Stealer functioned before its demise, by providing details of a Raccoon Stealer v1 infection which Darktrace’s SOC saw within a client network on the 18th March 2022. In the follow-up post, we will provide details about the surge in Raccoon Stealer v2 cases that Darktrace’s SOC has observed since May 2022.  

What is Raccoon Stealer?

The misuse of stolen account credentials is a primary method used by threat actors to gain initial access to target environments [2]. Threat actors have several means available to them for obtaining account credentials. They may, for example, distribute phishing emails which trick their recipients into divulging account credentials. Alternatively, however, they may install information-stealing malware (i.e, info-stealers) onto users’ devices. The results of credential theft can be devastating. Threat actors may use the credentials to gain access to an organization’s SaaS environment, or they may use them to drain users’ online bank accounts or cryptocurrency wallets. 

Raccoon Stealer is a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) info-stealer first publicized in April 2019 on Russian-speaking hacking forums. 

Figure 1: One of the first known mentions of Raccoon Stealer on a Russian-speaking hacking forum named ‘Hack Forums’ on the 13th April 2019

The team of individuals behind Raccoon Stealer provide a variety of services to their customers (known as ‘affiliates’), including access to the info-stealer, an easy-to-use automated backend panel, hosting infrastructure, and 24/7 customer support [3]. 

Once Raccoon Stealer affiliates gain access to the info-stealer, it is up to them to decide how to distribute it. Since 2019, affiliates have been observed distributing the info-stealer via a variety of methods, such as exploit kits, phishing emails, and fake cracked software websites [3]/[4]. Once affiliates succeed in installing Raccoon Stealer onto target systems, the info-stealer will typically seek to obtain sensitive information saved in browsers and cryptocurrency wallets. The info-stealer will then exfiltrate the stolen data to a Command and Control (C2) server. The affiliate can then use the stolen data to conduct harmful follow-up activities. 

Towards the end of March 2022, the team behind Raccoon Stealer publicly announced that they would be suspending their operations after one of their core developers was killed during the Russia-Ukraine conflict [5]. 

Figure 2: Raccoon Stealer resignation post on March 25th 2022

Recent details shared by the US Department of Justice [6]/[7] indicate that it was in fact the arrest, rather than the death, of a key Raccoon Stealer operator which led the Raccoon Stealer team to suspend their operations [8].  

The closure of the Raccoon Stealer project, which ultimately resulted from the FBI-backed dismantling of Raccoon Stealer’s infrastructure in March 2022, did not last long, with the completion of Raccoon Stealer v2 being announced on the Raccoon Stealer Telegram channel on the 17th May 2022 [9]. 

 

Figure 3: Telegram post about new version of Raccoon Stealer

In the second part of this blog series, we will provide details of the recent surge in Raccoon Stealer v2 activity. In this post, however, we will provide insight into how the old version of Raccoon Stealer functioned just before its demise, by providing details of a Raccoon Stealer v1 infection which occurred on the 18th March 2022. 

Attack Details

On the 18th March, at around 13:00 (UTC), a user’s device within a customer’s network was seen contacting several websites providing fake cracked software. 

Figure 4: The above figure — obtained from the Darktrace Event Log for the infected device — highlights its connections to cracked software websites such as ‘licensekeysfree[.]com’ and ‘hdlicense[.]com’ before contacting ‘lion-files[.]xyz’ and ‘www.mediafire[.]com’

The user’s attempt to download cracked software from one of these websites resulted in their device making an HTTP GET request with a URI string containing ‘autodesk-revit-crack-v2022-serial-number-2022’ to an external host named ‘lion-filez[.]xyz’

Figure 5: Screenshot from hdlicense[.]com around the time of the infection shows a “Download” button linking to the ‘lion-filez[.]xyz’ endpoint

The device’s HTTP GET request to lion-filez[.]xyz was immediately followed by an HTTPS connection to the file hosting service, www.mediafire[.]com. Given that threat actors are known to abuse platforms such as MediaFire and Discord CDN to host their malicious payloads, it is likely that the user’s device downloaded the Raccoon Stealer v1 sample over its HTTPS connection to www.mediafire[.]com.  

After installing the info-stealer sample, the user’s device was seen making an HTTP GET request with the URI string ‘/g_shock_casio_easy’ to 194.180.191[.]185. The endpoint responded to the request with data related to a Telegram channel named ‘G-Shock’.

Figure 6: Telegram channel ‘@g_shock_casio_easy’

The returned data included the Telegram channel’s description, which in this case, was a base64 encoded and RC4 encrypted string of characters [10]/[11]. The Raccoon Stealer sample decoded and decrypted this string of characters to obtain its C2 IP address, 188.166.49[.]196. This technique used by Raccoon Stealer v1 closely mirrors the espionage method known as ‘dead drop’ — a method in which an individual leaves a physical object such as papers, cash, or weapons in an agreed hiding spot so that the intended recipient can retrieve the object later on without having to come in to contact with the source. In this case, the operators of Raccoon Stealer ‘left’ the malware’s C2 IP address within the description of a Telegram channel. Usage of this method allowed the operators of Raccoon Stealer to easily change the malware’s C2 infrastructure.  

After obtaining the C2 IP address from the ‘G-Shock’ Telegram channel, the Raccoon Stealer sample made an HTTP POST request with the URI string ‘/’ to the C2 IP address, 188.166.49[.]196. This POST request contained a Windows GUID,  a username, and a configuration ID. These details were RC4 encrypted and base64 encoded [12]. The C2 server responded to this HTTP POST request with JSON-formatted configuration information [13], including an identifier string, URL paths for additional files, along with several other fields. This configuration information was also concealed using RC4 encryption and base64 encoding.  

Figure 7- Fields within the JSON-formatted configuration data [13]

In this case, the server’s response included the identifier string ‘hv4inX8BFBZhxYvKFq3x’, along with the following URL paths:

  • /l/f/hv4inX8BFBZhxYvKFq3x/77d765d8831b4a7d8b5e56950ceb96b7c7b0ed70
  • /l/f/hv4inX8BFBZhxYvKFq3x/0cb4ab70083cf5985b2bac837ca4eacb22e9b711
  • /l/f/hv4inX8BFBZhxYvKFq3x/5e2a950c07979c670b1553b59b3a25c9c2bb899b
  • /l/f/hv4inX8BFBZhxYvKFq3x/2524214eeea6452eaad6ea1135ed69e98bf72979

After retrieving configuration data, the user’s device was seen making HTTP GET requests with the above URI strings to the C2 server. The C2 server responded to these requests with legitimate library files such as sqlite3.dll. Raccoon Stealer uses these libraries to extract data from targeted applications. 

Once the Raccoon Stealer sample had collected relevant data, it made an HTTP POST request with the URI string ‘/’ to the C2 server. This posted data likely included a ZIP file (named with the identifier string) containing stolen credentials [13]. 

The observed infection chain, which lasted around 20 minutes, consisted of the following steps:

1. User’s device installs Raccoon Stealer v1 samples from the user attempting to download cracked software

2. User’s device obtains the info-stealer’s C2 IP address from the description text of a Telegram channel

3. User’s device makes an HTTP POST request with the URI string ‘/’ to the C2 server. The request contains a Windows GUID,  a username, and a configuration ID. The response to the request contains configuration details, including an identifier string and URL paths for additional files

4. User’s device downloads library files from the C2 server

5. User’s device makes an HTTP POST request with the URI string ‘/’ to the C2 server. The request contains stolen data

Darktrace Coverage 

Although RESPOND/Network was not enabled on the customer’s deployment, DETECT picked up on several of the info-stealer’s activities. In particular, the device’s downloads of library files from the C2 server caused the following DETECT/Network models to breach:

  • Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
Figure 8: Event Log for the infected device shows 'Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer' model breach after the device's download of a library file from the C2 server

Since the customer was subscribed to the Darktrace Proactive Threat Notification (PTN) service, they were proactively notified of the info-stealer’s activities. The quick response by Darktrace’s 24/7 SOC team helped the customer to contain the infection and to prevent further damage from being caused. Having been alerted to the info-stealer activity by the SOC team, the customer would also have been able to change the passwords for the accounts whose credentials were exfiltrated.

If RESPOND/Network had been enabled on the customer’s deployment, then it would have blocked the device’s connections to the C2 server, which would have likely prevented any stolen data from being exfiltrated.

Conclusion

Towards the end of March 2022, the team behind Raccoon Stealer announced that they would be suspending their operations. Recent developments suggest that the arrest of a core Raccoon Stealer developer was responsible for this suspension. Just before the Raccoon Stealer team were forced to shut down, Darktrace’s SOC team observed a Raccoon Stealer infection within a client’s network. In this post, we have provided details of the network-based behaviors displayed by the observed Raccoon Stealer sample. Since these v1 samples are no longer active, the details provided here are only intended to provide historical insight into the development of Raccoon Stealer’s operations and the activities carried out by Raccoon Stealer v1 just before its demise. In the next post of this series, we will discuss and provide details of Raccoon Stealer v2 — the new and highly prolific version of Raccoon Stealer. 

Thanks to Stefan Rowe and the Threat Research Team for their contributions to this blog.

References

[1] https://twitter.com/3xp0rtblog/status/1507312171914461188

[2] https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-29OTFFPI&ct=220411&st=sb

[3] https://www.cybereason.com/blog/research/hunting-raccoon-stealer-the-new-masked-bandit-on-the-block

[4] https://www.cyberark.com/resources/threat-research-blog/raccoon-the-story-of-a-typical-infostealer

[5] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/raccoon-stealer-malware-suspends-operations-due-to-war-in-ukraine/

[6] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/newly-unsealed-indictment-charges-ukrainian-national-international-cybercrime-operation

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsz6acw-ZJY

[8] https://riskybiznews.substack.com/p/raccoon-stealer-dev-didnt-die-in

[9] https://medium.com/s2wblog/raccoon-stealer-is-back-with-a-new-version-5f436e04b20d

[10] https://blog.cyble.com/2021/10/21/raccoon-stealer-under-the-lens-a-deep-dive-analysis/

[11] https://decoded.avast.io/vladimirmartyanov/raccoon-stealer-trash-panda-abuses-telegram/

[12] https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2021/09/threat-thursday-raccoon-infostealer

[13] https://cyberint.com/blog/research/raccoon-stealer/

Appendices

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
Mark Turner
SOC Shift Supervisor
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