March 14, 2023

Protecting Yourself from Laplas Clipper Crypto Theives

Explore strategies to combat Laplas Clipper attacks and enhance your defenses against cryptocurrency theft in the digital landscape.

Written by

Anna Gilbertson

Cyber Security Analyst

Written by

Hanah Darley

Director of Threat Research

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

Anna Gilbertson

Cyber Security Analyst

Written by

Hanah Darley

Director of Threat Research

Mar 2023

Between June 2021 and June 2022, crypto-currency platforms around the world lost an estimated 44 billion USD to cyber criminals, whose modus operandi range from stealing passwords and account recovery phrases, to cryptojacking and directly targeting crypto-currency transactions.

There has been a recent rise in cases of cyber criminals’ using information stealer malware to gather and exfiltrate sensitive crypto-currency wallet details, ultimately leading to the theft of significant sums of digital currency. Having an autonomous decision maker able to detect and respond to potential compromises is crucial to safeguard crypto wallets and transactions against would-be attackers.

In late 2022, Darktrace observed several threat actors employing a novel attack method to target crypto-currency users across its customer base, specifically the latest version of the Laplas Clipper malware. Using Self-Learning AI, Darktrace DETECT/Network™ and Darktrace RESPOND/Network™ were able to uncover and mitigate Laplas Clipper activity and intervene to prevent the theft of large sums of digital currency.

Laplas Clipper Background

Laplas Clipper is a variant of information stealing malware which operates by diverting crypto-currency transactions from victims’ crypto wallets into the wallets of threat actors [1]. Laplas Clipper is a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) offering available for purchase and use by a variety of threat actors. It has been observed in the wild since October 2022, when 180 samples were identified and linked with another malware strain, namely SmokeLoader [2]. This loader has itself been observed since at least 2011 and acts as a delivery mechanism for popular malware strains [3].

SmokeLoader is typically distributed via malicious attachments sent in spam emails or targeted phishing campaigns but can also be downloaded directly by users from file hosting pages or spoofed websites. SmokeLoader is known to specifically deliver Laplas Clipper onto compromised devices via a BatLoader script downloaded as a Microsoft Word document or a PDF file attached to a phishing email. These examples of social engineering are relatively low effort methods intended to convince users to download the malware, which subsequently injects malicious code into the explorer.exe process and downloads Laplas Clipper.

Laplas Clipper activity observed across Darktrace’s customer base generally began with SmokeLoader making HTTP GET requests to Laplas Clipper command and control (C2) infrastructure. Once downloaded, the clipper loads a ‘build[.]exe’ module and begins monitoring the victim’s clipboard for crypto-currency wallet addresses. If a wallet address is identified, the infected device connects to a server associated with Laplas Clipper and downloads wallet addresses belonging to the threat actor. The actor’s addresses are typically spoofed to appear similar to those they replace in order to evade detection. The malware continues to update clipboard activity and replaces the user’s wallet addresses with a spoofed address each time one is copied for a for crypto-currency transactions.

Darktrace Coverage of Laplas Clipper and its Delivery Methods

In October and November 2022, Darktrace observed a significant increase in suspicious activity associated with Laplas Clipper across several customer networks. The activity consisted largely of:

User devices connecting to a suspicious endpoint.
User devices making HTTP GET requests to an endpoint associated with the SmokeLoader loader malware, which was installed on the user’s device.
User devices making HTTP connections to the Laplas Clipper download server “clipper[.]guru”, from which it downloads spoofed wallet addresses to divert crypto-currency payments.

In one particular instance, a compromised device was observed connecting to endpoints associated with SmokeLoader shortly before connecting to a Laplas Clipper download server. In other instances, devices were detected connecting to other anomalous endpoints including the domains shonalanital[.]com, transfer[.]sh, and pc-world[.]uk, which appears to be mimicking the legitimate endpoint thepcworld[.]com.

Additionally, some compromised devices were observed attempting to connect malicious IP addresses including 193.169.255[.]78 and 185.215.113[.]23, which are associated with the RedLine stealer malware. Additionally, Darktrace observed connections to the IP addresses 195.178.120[.]154 and 195.178.120[.]154, which are associated with SmokeLoader, and 5.61.62[.]241, which open-source intelligence has associated with Cobalt Strike.

*Figure 1: Beacon to Young Endpoint model breach demonstrating Darktrace’s ability to detect external connections that are considered extremely rare for the network.*

*Figure 2: The event log of an infected device attempting to connect to IP addresses associated with the RedLine stealer malware, and the actions RESPOND took to block these attempts.*

The following DETECT/Network models breached in response to these connections:

Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint
Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity to External Rare
Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days
Compromise / Beaconing Activity to External Rare
Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity to Rare Endpoint
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoints
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination
Compromise / Post and Beacon to Rare External
Anomalous Connection / Callback on Web Facing Device

DETECT/Network is able to identify such activity as its models operate based on a device’s usual pattern of behavior, rather than a static list of indicators of compromise (IOCs). As such, Darktrace can quickly identify compromised devices that deviate for their expected pattern of behavior by connecting to newly created malicious endpoints or C2 infrastructure, thereby triggering an alert.

In one example, RESPOND/Network autonomously intercepted a compromised device attempting to connect to the Laplas Clipper C2 server, preventing it from downloading SmokeLoader and subsequently, Laplas Clipper itself.

*Figure 3: The event log of an infected device attempting to connect to the Laplas Clipper download server, and the actions RESPOND/Network took to block these attempts.*

In another example, DETECT/Network observed an infected device attempting to perform numerous DNS Requests to a crypto-currency mining pool associated with the Monero digital currency.

This activity caused the following DETECT/Network models to breach:

Compromise / Monero Mining
Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

RESPOND/Network quickly intervened, enforcing a previously established pattern of life on the device, ensuring it could not perform any unexpected activity, and blocking the connections to the endpoint in question for an hour. These actions carried out by Darktrace’s autonomous response technology prevented the infected device from carrying out crypto-mining activity, and ensured the threat actor could not perform any additional malicious activity.

*Figure 4. The event log of an infected devices showing DNS requests to the Monero crypto-mining pool, and the actions taken to block them by RESPOND/Network.*

Finally, in instances when RESPOND/Network was not activated, external connections to the Laplas Clipper C2 server were nevertheless monitored by DETECT/Network, and the customer’s security team were notified of the incident.

Conclusion

The rise of information stealing malware variants such as Laplas Clipper highlights the importance of crypto-currency and crypto-mining in the malware ecosystem and more broadly as a significant cyber security concern. Crypto-mining is often discounted as background noise for security teams or compliance issues that can be left untriaged; however, malware strains like Laplas Clipper demonstrate the real security risks posed to digital estates from threat actors focused on crypto-currency.

Leveraging its Self-Learning AI, DETECT/Network and RESPOND/Network are able to work in tandem to quickly identify connections to suspicious endpoints and block them before any malicious software can be downloaded, safeguarding customers.

Appendices

List of IOCs

a720efe2b3ef7735efd77de698a5576b36068d07 - SHA1 Filehash - Laplas Malware Download

conhost.exe - URI - Laplas Malware Download

185.223.93.133 - IP Address - Laplas C2 Endpoint

185.223.93.251 - IP Address - Laplas C2 Endpoint

45.159.189.115 - IP Address - Laplas C2 Endpoint

79.137.204.208 - IP Address - Laplas C2 Endpoint

5.61.62.241 - IP Address - Laplas C2 Endpoint

clipper.guru - URI - Laplas C2 URI

/bot/online?guid= - URI - Laplas C2 URI

/bot/regex?key= - URI - Laplas C2 URI

/bot/get?address - URI - Laplas C2 URI

Mitre Attack and Mapping

Initial Access:

T1189 – Drive By Compromise

T1566/002 - Spearphishing

Resource Development:

T1588 / 001 - Malware

Ingress Tool Transfer:

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

Command and Control:

T1071/001 – Web Protocols

T1071 – Application Layer Protocol

T1008 – Fallback Channels

T1104 – Multi-Stage Channels

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

T1102/003 – One-Way Communication

T1573 – Encrypted Channel

Persistence:

T1176 – Browser Extensions

Collection:

T1185 – Man in the Browser

Exfiltration:

T1041 – Exfiltration over C2 Channel

References

[1] https://blog.cyble.com/2022/11/02/new-laplas-clipper-distributed-by-smokeloader/

[2] https://thehackernews.com/2022/11/new-laplas-clipper-malware-targeting.html

[3] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0226/

Written by

Anna Gilbertson

Cyber Security Analyst

Written by

Hanah Darley

Director of Threat Research

Inside the SOC

Written by

Anna Gilbertson

Cyber Security Analyst

Written by

Hanah Darley

Director of Threat Research

•

October 21, 2026

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Senior Product Executive

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

OT

October 21, 2026

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.

‍

‍

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

‍

About the author

Tara Gould

Malware Research Lead

Blog

Network

October 20, 2026

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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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
1. 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.
Control plane
1. 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/)

[2] Palo Alto Networks (Unit 42) – Container Breakouts: Escape Techniques in Cloud Environments. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/container-escape-techniques/

[3] runC container-escape vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-31133, CVE-2025-52565, CVE-2025-52881), disclosed by a SUSE researcher on November 5, 2025. https://www.securityweek.com/runc-vulnerabilities-can-be-exploited-to-escape-containers/

[4] NVIDIAScape (CVE-2025-23266), CVSS 9.0. https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5659

[related-resource]

‍

About the author

Elise Longhurst

Senior Product Executive

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Protecting Yourself from Laplas Clipper Crypto Theives

Protecting Yourself from Laplas Clipper Crypto Theives

Between June 2021 and June 2022, crypto-currency platforms around the world lost an estimated 44 billion USD to cyber criminals, whose modus operandi range from stealing passwords and account recovery phrases, to cryptojacking and directly targeting crypto-currency transactions.

Laplas Clipper Background

Darktrace Coverage of Laplas Clipper and its Delivery Methods

Conclusion

Appendices

List of IOCs

Mitre Attack and Mapping

References

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

CikaBika Bot: Inside a Discord RAT

A Chain Reaction: Blockchain-Hosted Infostealer Campaign Targets Windows and macOS

Blog

OT

October 21, 2026

Beyond the Fridge: Exposed Industrial Control Systems

Introduction

References

Blog

Network

October 20, 2026

Why Kubernetes Security Needs A Behavioral Approach

Why Kubernetes is hard to secure

Rising to the challenge of securing Kubernetes

Behavioral detection, not static rules

Visibility across the network, the process, and the control plane

Misconfiguration and vulnerability awareness

Response, tailored to Kubernetes

Forensics that survive the workload

One platform, not another silo

Built to deploy easily

Next steps