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
Max Heinemeyer
Global Field CISO
Share
07
Feb 2019
For security professionals around the world, it is hardly a secret that cyber-attacks are becoming ever more difficult to detect — incorporating stealthier tactics and even automated elements to breach the network perimeter. Yet despite the increasing sophistication of these threats, the greatest security risk confronting today’s businesses, governments, and nonprofits continues to be their own employees.
Such credentialed network users present a relatively easy avenue into the digital estate for cyber-criminals who manage to deceive them. From banking trojans that are spread using social engineering to cryptocurrency mining carried out by disgruntled workers, the past year witnessed a significant upswing in threats that either exploited the fallibility of employees or which were authored by employees themselves.
By monitoring and analyzing raw traffic from all our clients’ users, internet-connected devices, and cloud deployments, we saw a number of trends emerge in 2018. As the second installment of a two-part series, this article will review specifically those attack trends that involve trickery, subtlety, and the art of deception. Because, as organizations deploy the latest technologies and tools to improve their cyber defenses, the weakest link in our network security is not a machine — it is human.
Banking trojan attacks increased by 239%
Named after the legendary act of Grecian subterfuge, today a trojan horse refers to a malicious computer program that misleads its user of its actual purpose, taking advantage of the fundamental weakness of human error inherent to any security posture. Over the last 12 months, the incidence of banking trojans in particular — which harvest the credentials of online banking customers from infected machines — has increased by a staggering 239% across our customer base.
This dramatic increase may be a consequence of the declining popularity of ransomware for monetary gain: it seems that banking trojans are, at least at present, a more profitable tool for cyber-criminals. Unlike ransomware, banking trojans do not rely on a victim’s conscious willingness to pay; rather, they use deception to perform transactions without the victim’s knowledge. And as the number of ransomware incidents declined in 2018, it seems that subtler attacks have become the weapons of choice for cyber-crime.
The proliferation of banking trojans has been accompanied by a growing sophistication in the malware itself, with many banking trojans having expanded beyond their original target of online banking access. Indeed, advanced trojans like Emotet now deliver other forms of malware as payloads, after using fraudulent emails, online advertisements, and other forms of social engineering to breach the perimeter.
Cryptocurrency-related incidents up 78%
Figure 1: Cryptocurrency values declined precipitously in 2018 after rapid growth.
Alongside the increase in banking trojans, Darktrace detected 78% growth in the frequency of another under-the-radar threat: crypto-jacking. Defined as the secret usage of computing power to mine cryptocurrency, crypto-jacking operates by the opposite logic of ransomware, acting as a parasite on an organization’s computing systems or injecting hidden code into an organization’s web pages. Whereas ransomware attackers demand payment immediately, cryptocurrency miners seek to go unnoticed for as long as possible.
Deceptive threats like banking trojans and crypto-jacking are particularly elusive when they originate from insiders. In one Fortune 500 e-commerce company this year, Darktrace discovered a privileged access user — a disgruntled systems administrator — hijacking power sources from the company’s infrastructure for his own monetary gain. The employee co-opted other users’ credentials and service accounts to stealthily take over multiple machines for the purpose of crypto-mining.
At the same time, the growth rate of cryptocurrency-related threats is less than in the previous year, likely as a result of the dramatic fall in the value of most cryptocurrencies (see Figure 1). But with many experts anticipating these values to bounce back, we expect crypto-jacking to become far more common in the years to come. The cyber-criminal ecosystem still responds to macroeconomic factors, and as payment systems continue to evolve, so too will attackers’ revenue streams.
The weakest link: still people
The rapid escalation of deceptive and subtle threats — from banking trojans that gain access with social engineering to crypto-jacking carried out by insiders to targeted spear phishing emails — is the product of a fundamental flaw with the traditional approach to cyber defense, which entails securing the perimeter against known threats. Indeed, once an employee, maliciously or inadvertently, compromises the network from the inside, protecting the perimeter does little good. And as we look ahead to 2019, a year likely to be even more dominated by deceptive attacks and internal threats, organizations must seek to better understand their own networks to recognize whenever something is, ever so slightly, amiss.
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.
Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems
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.
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.
Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach
Kubernetes has become a foundational technology for modern cloud-native infrastructure. It can orchestrate everything from customer-facing applications to data pipelines and, increasingly, AI workloads. This is due to the highly scalable nature of Kubernetes, making it cost efficient and reliable.
Gartner projects that by 2028, 95% of new AI deployments will run on Kubernetes, up from less than 30% today1. However, the same qualities that make Kubernetes powerful also make it uniquely challenging to secure, leaving many organizations with limited visibility into their clusters. This lack of visibility increases risk - it’s difficult to secure what you can’t see.
However, this risk is often looked at as purely a posture management challenge. While Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) solutions can tell you how a cluster should be configured, they don’t tell you what it is doing in real time. This requires runtime behavioral monitoring of clusters to detect active threats.
Yet existing approaches to securing Kubernetes by most Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) and Network Detection and Response (NDR) vendors often have limited coverage or require a third-party integration to forward traffic and metadata. This means that capabilities can be limited and detections can lack the context of the wider environment, which slows down triage, investigation and response.
Why Kubernetes is hard to secure
Traditional security tooling was built for persistent, long-term infrastructure such as servers and virtual machines with fixed identities that last months or years. Some elements of Kubernetes environments can have a much shorter lifespan, breaking many assumptions those tools rely on:
Increased complexity
Kubernetes environments can be complex in comparison to traditional infrastructure, with many different elements to consider such as nodes, clusters, containers, pods and the workloads themselves.
Ephemeral by design
Kubernetes pods can spin up and terminate in seconds. A container that was compromised may no longer exist by the time a deeper investigation is required, leaving no artifact to analyze. This poses a unique challenge for security operations.
Weaker workload boundaries
Kubernetes containers use lightweight, shared-kernel isolation rather than separate virtual machines, improving efficiency but reducing separation between workloads and the host. As a result, a compromised container may have a greater potential impact on the node and neighboring workloads than a compromised virtual machine (VM).2
Recent vulnerabilities have shown that threat actors can escape a container and gain access to the underlying host.3, 4
Everything is API-driven
Dozens or hundreds of microservices communicate over internal APIs, and the Kubernetes control plane itself is an API. This creates a large and dynamic attack surface, making it difficult to distinguish legitimate activity from malicious behavior.
Without identity-aware runtime visibility, threat actors can move laterally between pods and exploit misconfigured role-based access controls (RBAC) with little chance of detection.
Rising to the challenge of securing Kubernetes
With the release of Darktrace 7.2, Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK can extend behavioral security into Kubernetes, delivering visibility, detection and response capabilities across runtime activity. Darktrace addresses the challenges of securing Kubernetes environments in several ways.
Behavioral detection, not static rules
Many Kubernetes runtime tools rely on predefined rules and signatures - a fixed list of “bad” behaviors to match against. That approach struggles with novel attacks and generates noise at scale. Darktrace takes a different approach: our Adaptive AI builds a Unique Behavioral Profile for each organization from the ground up, learning the normal behavior of every workload, node and identity in your cluster. It then uses this understanding to detect meaningful deviations from expected behavior, which serves as the basis for surfacing suspicious and malicious activity.
A pod reaching out to an unfamiliar destination, an unexpected executable launching inside a workload, or an identity performing an action it has never performed, all surface as anomalies without anyone having to write a rule in advance.
Darktrace surfaces unexpected Kubernetes activity that does not align with an organization’s Unique Behavioral Profile
Visibility across the network, the process, and the control plane
Darktrace monitors Kubernetes at three levels that together provide comprehensive runtime visibility:
Network-layer
Traffic between pods, across nodes and out to the internet. This helps to detect lateral movement and unusual connectivity, whether internal or external.
Process-layer
What is executing inside your containers. If a process reads a sensitive credential file or spawns an unexpected shell inside a production pod, Darktrace can identify that activity and use it as context for further detections.
Controlplane
Activity against the Kubernetes API itself: someone executes a command in a running pod, RBAC changes, or unusual administrative actions. Many high-impact security events involve the control plane, an area that is often less visible to solutions that only analyze or scan network-layer telemetry.
Misconfiguration and vulnerability awareness
Runtime detection is strongest when combined with posture and exposure management. Darktrace surfaces risky pod configurations, such as privileged containers, host networking, and over-permissive service accounts as workloads are deployed, and links CVEs from images to the workloads running them. Security teams can go beyond simply knowing that a vulnerability exists and see exactly where it is in the cluster. When combined with behavior-based detections, this provides invaluable context that can help prioritize incidents and proactively identify areas that need further attention. For example, anomalous workload behavior on its own might not be very interesting to a security team at first, but if that same workload is known to host sensitive data, is known to have critical vulnerabilities associated with it, or is publicly accessible, then this narrative becomes much more suspicious and demanding of their attention.
Darktrace highlights Kubernetes misconfigurations such as privileged containers, host networking, and missing security controls, helping teams prioritize runtime alerts with valuable exposure and risk context
Response, tailored to Kubernetes
Detection is most effective when paired with response. Darktrace can take precise actions on Kubernetes workloads, including blocking a malicious connection at the pod level, helping to safely contain threats while security teams investigate. Response actions can be taken fully autonomously or via a human-in-the-loop process, which is completely configurable depending on the desired level of autonomy and scope. Darktrace is expanding the number of Kubernetes-native response actions to give customers even more flexibility when containing threats.
Forensics that survive the workload
Because containers are so short-lived, evidence disappears fast and this can make it very difficult to answer questions related to the initial detections. Darktrace solves this with Forensic Acquisition & Investigation capabilities that extend to Kubernetes containers, allowing investigations to be triggered manually by an analyst, or automatically from an alert, preserving evidence before the workload is gone.
For incident responders, this addresses a key challenge in container security: being able to answer “what actually happened?” after an ephemeral workload has vanished.
One platform, not another silo
Kubernetes doesn't exist in isolation, and neither should its security. Darktrace correlates cluster activity with the surrounding cloud environment, including AWS, Azure and GCP identities, network activity and cloud assets, allowing analysts to pivot between a Kubernetes workload and its wider context. A single anomalous action can be traced from the control plane to the pod, and from the pod to the cloud identity behind it, all within a single investigation workflow. This can also include alerts from other areas of hybrid infrastructure or third-party sources where relevant, adding more context to investigations and speeding up workflows for human analysts.
Built to deploy easily
Operational complexity can be a barrier to security adoption. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK for Kubernetes installs with a single command, and for teams that manage their infrastructure as code, it supports raw manifests so the deployment can live in a Git repository and be managed through existing GitOps workflows. The same deployment approach works across Kubernetes environments in AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and on-premises infrastructure. Early adopters of Darktrace’s Kubernetes capabilities have highlighted the simplicity of deployment and time to value.
Darktrace can deploy across your Kubernetes environment and wider hybrid infrastructure, while also providing visibility into Kubernetes deployment structure and status
Next steps
Kubernetes environments are dynamic, ephemeral and API-driven in ways that challenge traditional security tooling. With Kubernetes usage increasing due to widespread AI adoption, it is essential to secure Kubernetes environments as part of securing what AI can do. Darktrace / HYBRID NETWORK addresses these challenges by learning normal behavior in Kubernetes environments across network, process and control-plane layers, identifying meaningful threats and enabling targeted response. Combined with the context of wider hybrid infrastructure and forensic investigation capabilities, Darktrace provides visibility into both emerging threats and active incidents.
To see how Darktrace can help secure your Kubernetes environment and your wider hybrid infrastructure, get in touch to arrange your free trial. Existing customers can contact their Darktrace Account Team for more information about deployment options and licensing.
Sources
[1] Gartner, Container Management research, 2025: "By 2028, 95% of new AI deployments will use Kubernetes, up from less than 30% today." https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7913109. (quote reproduced under Gartner reprint at https://www.kubermatic.com/magic-quadrant-and-critical-capabilities-for-container-management/)
.jpeg)
