February 9, 2023

Vidar Network: Analyzing a Prolific Info Stealer

Discover the latest insights on the Vidar network-based info stealer from our Darktrace experts and stay informed on cybersecurity threats.

Written by

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

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

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

Feb 2023

In the latter half of 2022, Darktrace observed a rise in Vidar Stealer infections across its client base. These infections consisted in a predictable series of network behaviors, including usage of certain social media platforms for the retrieval of Command and Control (C2) information and usage of certain URI patterns in C2 communications. In the blog post, we will provide details of the pattern of network activity observed in these Vidar Stealer infections, along with details of Darktrace’s coverage of the activity.

Background on Vidar Stealer

Vidar Stealer, first identified in 2018, is an info-stealer capable of obtaining and then exfiltrating sensitive data from users’ devices. This data includes banking details, saved passwords, IP addresses, browser history, login credentials, and crypto-wallet data [1]. The info-stealer, which is typically delivered via malicious spam emails, cracked software websites, malicious ads, and websites impersonating legitimate brands, is known to access profiles on social media platforms once it is running on a user’s device. The info-stealer does this to retrieve the IP address of its Command and Control (C2) server. After retrieving its main C2 address, the info-stealer, like many other info-stealers, is known to download several third-party Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs) which it uses to gain access to sensitive data saved on the infected device. The info-stealer then bundles the sensitive data which it obtains and sends it back to the C2 server.

Details of Attack Chain

In the second half of 2022, Darktrace observed the following pattern of activity within many client networks:

1. User’s device makes an HTTPS connection to Telegram and/or to a Mastodon server

2. User’s device makes an HTTP GET request with an empty User-Agent header, an empty Host header and a target URI consisting of 4 digits to an unusual, external endpoint

3. User’s device makes an HTTP GET request with an empty User-Agent header, an empty Host header and a target URI consisting of 10 digits followed by ‘.zip’ to the unusual, external endpoint

4. User’s device makes an HTTP POST request with an empty User-Agent header, an empty Host header, and the target URI ‘/’ to the unusual, external endpoint

Figure 1: The above network logs, taken from Darktrace’s Advanced Search interface, show an infected device contacting Telegram and then making a series of HTTP requests to 168.119.167[.]188

Figure 2: The above network logs, taken from Darktrace’s Advanced Search interface, show an infected device contacting a Mastadon server and then making a series of HTTP requests to 107.189.31[.]171

Each of these activity chains occurred as the result of a user running Vidar Stealer on their device. No common method was used to trick users into running Vidar Stealer on their devices. Rather, a variety of methods, ranging from malspam to cracked software downloads appear to have been used.

Once running on a user’s device, Vidar Stealer went on to make an HTTPS connection to either Telegram (https://t[.]me/) or a Mastodon server (https://nerdculture[.]de/ or https://ioc[.]exchange/). Telegram and Mastodon are social media platforms on which users can create profiles. Malicious actors are known to create profiles on these platforms and then to embed C2 information within the profiles’ descriptions [2]. In the Vidar cases observed across Darktrace’s client base, it seems that Vidar contacted Telegram and/or Mastodon servers in order to retrieve the IP address of its C2 server from a profile description. Since social media platforms are typically trusted, this ‘Dead Drop’ method of sharing C2 details with malware samples makes it possible for threat actors to regularly update C2 details without the communication of these changes being blocked.

Figure 3: A screenshot a profile on the Mastodon server, nerdculture[.]de. The profile’s description contains a C2 address

After retrieving its C2 address from the description of a Telegram or Mastodon profile, Vidar went on to make an HTTP GET request with an empty User-Agent header, an empty Host header and a target URI consisting of 4 digits to its C2 server. The sequences of digits appearing in these URIs are campaign IDs. The C2 server responded to Vidar’s GET request with configuration details that likely informed Vidar’s subsequent data stealing activities.

After receiving its configuration details, Vidar went on to make a GET request with an empty User-Agent header, an empty Host header and a target URI consisting of 10 digits followed by ‘.zip’ to the C2 server. This request was responded to with a ZIP file containing legitimate, third-party Dynamic Link Libraries such as ‘vcruntime140.dll’. Vidar used these libraries to gain access to sensitive data saved on the infected host.

Figure 4: The above PCAP provides an example of the configuration details provided by a C2 server in response to Vidar’s first GET request

Figure 5: Examples of DLLs included within ZIP files downloaded by Vidar samples

After downloading a ZIP file containing third-party DLLs, Vidar made a POST request containing hundreds of kilobytes of data to the C2 endpoint. This POST request likely represented exfiltration of stolen information.

Darktrace Coverage

After infecting users’ devices, Vidar contacted either Telegram or Mastodon, and then made a series of HTTP requests to its C2 server. The info-stealer’s usage of social media platforms, along with its usage of ZIP files for tool transfer, complicate the detection of its activities. The info-stealer’s HTTP requests to its C2 server, however, caused the following Darktrace DETECT/Network models to breach:

Anomalous File / Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Numeric File Download
Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

These model breaches did not occur due to users’ devices contacting IP addresses known to be associated with Vidar. In fact, at the time that the reported activities occurred, many of the contacted IP addresses had no OSINT associating them with Vidar activity. The cause of these model breaches was in fact the unusualness of the devices’ HTTP activities. When a Vidar-infected device was observed making HTTP requests to a C2 server, Darktrace recognised that this behavior was highly unusual both for the device and for other devices in the network. Darktrace’s recognition of this unusualness caused the model breaches to occur.

Vidar Stealer infections move incredibly fast, with the time between initial infection and data theft sometimes being less than a minute. In cases where Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology was active, Darktrace RESPOND/Network was able to autonomously block Vidar’s connections to its C2 server immediately after the first connection was made.

Figure 6: The Event Log for an infected device, shows that Darktrace RESPOND/Network autonomously intervened 1 second after the device first contacted the C2 server 95.217.245[.]254

Conclusion

In the latter half of 2022, a particular pattern of activity was prolific across Darktrace’s client base, with the pattern being seen in the networks of customers across a broad range of industry verticals and sizes. Further investigation revealed that this pattern of network activity was the result of Vidar Stealer infection. These infections moved fast and were effective at evading detection due to their usage of social media platforms for information retrieval and their usage of ZIP files for tool transfer. Since the impact of info-stealer activity typically occurs off-network, long after initial infection, insufficient detection of info-stealer activity leaves victims at risk of attackers operating unbeknownst to them and of powerful attack vectors being available to launch broad compromises.

Despite the evasion attempts made by the operators of Vidar, Darktrace DETECT/Network was able to detect the unusual HTTP activities which inevitably resulted from Vidar infections. When active, Darktrace RESPOND/Network was able to quickly take inhibitive actions against these unusual activities. Given the prevalence of Vidar Stealer [3] and the speed at which Vidar Stealer infections progress, Autonomous Response technology proves to be vital for protecting organizations from info-stealer activity.

Thanks to the Threat Research Team for its contributions to this blog.

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of IOCs

107.189.31[.]171 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

168.119.167[.]188 – Vidar C2 Endpoint

77.91.102[.]51 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

116.202.180[.]202 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

79.124.78[.]208 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

159.69.100[.]194 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

195.201.253[.]5 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

135.181.96[.]153 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

88.198.122[.]116 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

135.181.104[.]248 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

159.69.101[.]102 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

45.8.147[.]145 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

159.69.102[.]192 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

193.43.146[.]42 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

159.69.102[.]19 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

185.53.46[.]199 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

116.202.183[.]206 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

95.217.244[.]216 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

78.46.129[.]14 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

116.203.7[.]175 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

45.159.249[.]3 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

159.69.101[.]170 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

116.202.183[.]213 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

116.202.4[.]170 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

185.252.215[.]142 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

45.8.144[.]62 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

74.119.192[.]157 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

78.47.102[.]252 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

212.23.221[.]231 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

167.235.137[.]244 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

88.198.122[.]116 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

5.252.23[.]169 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

45.89.55[.]70 - Vidar C2 Endpoint

References

[1] https://blog.cyble.com/2021/10/26/vidar-stealer-under-the-lens-a-deep-dive-analysis/

[2] https://asec.ahnlab.com/en/44554/

[3] https://blog.sekoia.io/unveiling-of-a-large-resilient-infrastructure-distributing-information-stealers/

Written by

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Roberto Romeu

Senior SOC Analyst

Malware Research Lead

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

May 28, 2026

From Efficiency to Exposure: How AI Adoption Is Creating Unseen Vulnerabilities on the Factory Floor

How AI agents impact the manufacturing industry

Security teams and IT personnel across the manufacturing industry are under constant pressure to protect production, maintain uptime, and safeguard critical assets but the rise of AI is bringing huge new opportunities alongside new cyber risks. Across manufacturing, AI is embedded into workflows, decision-making, and increasingly, autonomous AI agents are acting on behalf of employees and systems.

Agentic systems are powerful because they can act independently, but that same autonomy also creates cyber and operational risk. Agents have extensive permissions and are capable of carrying out complex tasks, making decisions, and interacting with tools or external systems with little to no human intervention.

Unlike traditional AI models that perform predefined tasks, AI agents use advanced techniques to mimic human decision-making processes, dynamically adapting to new challenges, making decision and taking action based on their own judgement. They look like employees operationally but lack judgment, ethics, or fear of consequences like humans do. This means they can be easily manipulated by cybercriminals, and an AI agent embedded across an OT network creates threats that extend well beyond data exposure. For example, at BMW, AI identifies faults in welding processes as they occur. At its Spartanburg plant, AI monitors the weld of 300-400 metal studs onto every SUV frame to detect misplaced or faulty studs and correct them instantly. Corruption of BMW’s AI system could lead to catastrophic quality control errors.

Adopting agentic AI systems across manufacturing raises some concerns across security teams. New data from our State of AI Cybersecurity survey shows that 78% of manufacturing security professionals are worried about employee use of AI agents – their top concern. That’s followed by employee use of generative AI tools like CoPilot and ChatGPT, a worry for 76% of security professionals at manufacturing organizations. As these tools gain more access to business data and processes, and more autonomy within organizations, security teams, who today have minimal visibility of agent activity in their environments, increasingly have sensitive data exposure (a worry for 60%) and accidental policy and regulatory violations (59%) on their minds.

External AI-powered threats are evolving just as quickly

The same capabilities transforming manufacturing are also reshaping cyberattacks.

AI is enabling attackers to automate reconnaissance, refine targeting, and adapt in real time. What once required time and manual effort can now be executed continuously and at scale. Manufacturers are already seeing the impact. According to manufacturing security professionals we surveyed, 76% are already being impacted by AI-powered threats and 90% see AI increasing the success of social engineering attacks.

And the techniques themselves are evolving. Concerns across the manufacturing sector show growing anxiety about the range of AI-powered attack routes, most pressingly of adaptive malware that evolves in real-time – a prospect half (49%) of manufacturing security professionals we surveyed are worried by, a full 9% more than the average across industries. AI adaptive malware is followed by:

Automated vulnerability scanning and exploit chaining (48%) which has become even more pressing as Anthropic’s new Mythos AI Model supercharges vulnerability discovery

Hyper-personalized phishing campaigns (46%), which remain a mainstay in hackers’ arsenals, and AI has amplified their effectiveness by making phishing emails more convincing and harder to detect.

This is not just an increase in volume, it is a shift toward threats that evolve as they unfold - often faster than static defenses can respond.

Despite rising awareness, many manufacturers are not yet equipped to manage this shift. More than half (51%) say they are not adequately prepared for AI-driven threats, and only 37% have formal policies governing AI deployment.

Securing AI through visibility, context, and guardrails

Addressing this challenge does not require manufacturers to slow innovation. It requires a different approach to security, one that can operate at the same speed and scale as AI. Three specific priorities are emerging for manufacturers looking to take advantage of the power of AI.

Visibility is foundational.

Organizations need to understand where AI is being used, what it can access, and how it behaves across both IT and OT environments. Without that, risk cannot be measured or managed. It is no surprise that Darktrace’s research found that 91% of manufacturing security professionals said that they need to understand how AI makes decisions before trusting it. This is even more critical in operational settings where disruption has safety, environmental, financial, and reputational impacts.

Context is what turns visibility into action.

In environments shaped by AI, normal behavior is constantly shifting. Detecting threats requires a behavioral approach; understanding patterns of life across the organization and identifying subtle deviations in real time – a step change in organizations’ traditional approach to security and risk management.

Guardrails ensure that agency does not become exposure

As AI systems take on greater responsibility, organizations need clear boundaries around what they can do and when they can act independently. These controls must be embedded into systems themselves, not applied after the fact.

Securing AI Agents Across Manufacturing IT and OT

The rise of agentic AI is transforming manufacturing - powering next-generation operations while reshaping the security landscape. This is not just an increase in threats, but a shift to autonomous systems, continuously evolving behaviors, and risks moving at machine speed. For organizations trying to grapple with the challenge of enabling AI while managing the risk, visibility, context and guardrails should be foundational.

Darktrace helps manufacturers build secure AI approaches by making those foundations possible. It provides visibility and real-time detection and response to unusual activity across IT and OT environments and allows organizations to understand AI activity from the prompts employees use and the agents they build to how those agents are behaving across the environment. For manufacturers scaling AI, this delivers a foundation for innovation without sacrificing control.

About the author

Oakley Cox

Director of Product

Blog

May 28, 2026

How to Evaluate AI Vendors: 5 Key categories for AI Adoption

Understanding the AI buyers’ market

AI adoption has become a central topic of discussion in boardrooms, drawing growing interest from business leaders. Ultimately, organizations hope that an investment in AI technology will have tremendous returns. However, the process of buying an AI solution is not as straight forward as it appears on the surface.

While business leaders may be eager to improve productivity across their operations, practitioners responsible for evaluating and selecting AI solutions may not always have the visibility or technical understanding needed to make the right decisions for their business. What is typically marketed as a holistic solution to their most critical problems is usually followed by uncertainty when AI tools are finally operationalized in real environments.

This guide is intended to support security leaders who are under growing pressure to adopt AI tools while navigating complex terminology, vendor claims, and increasingly crowded buying cycles. Ultimately, the goal is to help organizations evaluate and adopt AI in a safe, effective, and well-governed way. To support this, we’ve structured the evaluation framework across five key categories:

Governance, safety, and data controls

Data gathering and training

Model and technique choice

Performance and accuracy validation

Interpretability, adjustability, and transparency

What buying AI looks like in cybersecurity

While investing in AI can bring immense benefits to your security team, first-time buyers of AI cybersecurity solutions may not know where to start. They will have to determine the type of tool they want, know the options available, and evaluate vendors. Research and understanding are critical to ensure purchases are worth the investment.

With acceleration in AI adoption, accompanied by the recent boom in agentic AI and autonomous agents, CISOs must look “beneath the hood" of these tools to understand how they work, how they are governed, and to ensure the system is secure and compliant with internal policies.

Challenges in the AI buyers’ marketplace

The AI security software market is buzzing with hype and flashy promises, which, understandably, needs to be addressed with due diligence. Potential buyers, especially in the cybersecurity space, are hesitant when it comes to allowing AI autonomous capabilities across their workflows, and a lack of vendor transparency can exacerbate those feelings.

Reinforcing this sentiment, research from this year's Darktrace’s State of AI Cybersecurity report shows where confidence and hesitancy emerge amongst potential buyers. On the one hand, security professionals agree that they have good visibility into the logic and reasoning processes their AI solutions use. However, they lack the explainability and trust to allow AI to take independent remedial action.

89% say they have good visibility into the reasoning behind the outputs generated by AI solutions

92% say they need to understand how a defensive AI tool makes decisions before they can trust it

Only 14% say they allow AI to act independently, performing autonomous actions without human approval

74% say they are limiting the autonomy of AI taking action in their SOC until explainability improves

Given the desire for trust and explainability we are seeing from buyers, it's important for them to be equipped with the right questions to ask vendors during an assessment or POV of AI tools in order to demystify marketing hype from real operational outcomes.

Below is a list of categories in which buyers can assess AI vendors or AI Service Providers (AISPs) to help reach safe adoption and maximize their ROI.

5 categories of AI vendor assessment

Darktrace groups these AI-related questions into 5 categories: governance, data and training, model and technique choice, performance validation, and interpretability and adjustability. By asking questions regarding each of these 5 categories, buyers can gain a deeper understanding of how an AISP’s systems work and whether they suit their business requirements.

Governance, safety, and data controls

Governance of AI systems is critical for all AISPs. Whether their platform is based around a single model, or is a more complex, composite AI solution, strong governance is essential to ensure the system is safe, robust, and reliable.

A simple question you could ask is: ‍

What AI governance policies and frameworks do you follow, and/or certifications do you currently maintain?

For more questions you can ask vendors, download the full guide here.

Darktrace is certified to the ISO/IEC 42001 standard, the world’s first AI Management System (AIMS) standard. ISO/IEC 42001 addresses the unique ethical and technical challenges AI poses by setting out a structured way to manage risks such as transparency, accuracy, and misuse. This includes a commitment to ethical AI development, and effective management and monitoring of AI systems both prior to and continually after release.

Data gathering and training

Accurate, meaningful, and unbiased data gathering is the first important step in producing any AI system. An AI model trained using inaccurate, unbalanced, or poor-quality training data will fail to perform optimally.

To alleviate concerns regarding training data quality, a question you could ask is:

‍What steps do you take to prevent bias in your AI models and training data?

For more questions, download the full guide here.

AISPs should be able to provide information about the steps taken, workflows followed, and auditing performed to reduce AI bias where appropriate. While it’s sometimes impossible to fully remove bias from an AI model, appropriate actions should be taken to mitigate or reduce bias where relevant.

Model and technique choice

Different AI techniques are optimal for different tasks. For example, research from Gartner suggests that relying on a single “one-size-fits-all" model can lead to data gaps, especially in highly specialized domains.

To achieve more accurate and robust AI solutions, AI leaders should move beyond using just one model or technique, embrace composite AI practices, and adopt a holistic AI system perspective.

A straightforward question you could ask is simply:

‍What type(s) of AI model(s) do you utilize in your solution?

For more questions, download the full guide here.

While specific detailed information about custom systems used by AISPs is likely proprietary, buyers should expect vendors to be able to provide an overview of the broad techniques used. This will allow you as a buyer to determine if the type of model is appropriate for your use case.

Performance and accuracy validation

Testing and evaluation of performance is essential for all AI systems. Performance analysis should be performed both before release and continually after release to identify potential data or model drift.

A question you could ask to understand an AISPs testing workflow is:

‍How do you audit, test, evaluate, verify, and validate your AI model outputs?

For more questions, download the full guide here.

Testing workflows will likely vary depending on the type of model – measurements relevant to one system may not always be relevant to others. Assessment of systems should also extend beyond these standard accuracy and robustness tests, and should also feature physical performance, such as latency and resource consumption.

Interpretability, adjustability, and transparency

AI systems are typically a black box, simply providing an output without an explanation of how that output was attained. Interpretability and transparency are critical to ensure that both SOC teams and end-users trust the outputs of a system to be accurate and meaningful.

A question you could ask is:

‍How do you promote a trust relationship between human analysts and AI outputs?

For more questions, download the full guide here.

In the context of cybersecurity, trust and interpretability are even more essential. This is particularly relevant for generative AI-based systems (including most AI Agents), where the risk of hallucination can reduce trust in responses.

Cybersecurity systems often need to perform autonomous actions to block incoming threats – an email filtering system may hold potentially dangerous emails; a firewall may block malicious inbound connections. If SOC teams can’t trust these systems to perform accurately, these systems may be limited or disabled, critically reducing their defensive power.

Darktrace as an AI-native cybersecurity vendor

Darktrace has been building and applying AI in cybersecurity for over a decade, developing its capabilities alongside an increasingly complex and fast‑moving threat landscape. This experience has resulted in a mature, multi-layered approach to AI, which continuously learns the normal patterns of each organization to understand behavior, interpret context, and identify meaningful deviations — without relying on predefined rules or known attack signatures. Over time, this has enabled a proven behavioral understanding that helps uncover subtle signals of risk that may otherwise be missed.

With the backing of our ISO/IEC 42001 certification, stakeholders, customers, and partners can be confident that Darktrace is responsibly, ethically, and safely developing its AI systems, and managing the use of AI in day-to-day operations in a compliant and secure manner.

Explore the principles behind Darktrace’s responsible AI approach, informed by collaboration with global experts in academia and governments, detailing how accountability, explainability, and continuous validation are built into its cybersecurity technology.

How Darktrace secures AI systems

Darktrace now brings these capabilities to monitor and respond to risk generated from AI systems across organizations with Darktrace / SECURE AI. This solution analyzes how prompts, agents, and systems are used within the context of each organization, bringing every AI interaction into a single view. This unique approach helps teams understand intent, assess risk, protect sensitive data, and enforce policy across both human and AI agent activity.

Stay up to date

Sign up for the Secure AI Readiness Program here: This gives you exclusive access to the latest news on the latest AI threats, updates on emerging approaches shaping AI security, and insights into the latest innovations, including Darktrace’s ongoing work in this area.

Ready to talk with a Darktrace expert on securing AI? Register here to receive practical guidance on the AI risks that matter most to your business, paired with clarity on where to focus first across governance, visibility, risk reduction, and long-term readiness.