May 23, 2023

Darktrace’s Detection of a Hive Ransomware-as-Service

This blog investigates a new strain of ransomware, Hive, a ransomware-as-a-service. Darktrace was able to provide full visibility over the attacks.

Written by

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber 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

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber Analyst

May 2023

Update: On January 26, 2023, the Hive ransomware group was dismantled and servers associated with the sale of the ransomware were taken offline following an investigation by the FBI, German law enforcement and the National Crime Agency (NCA). The activity detailed in this blog took place in 2022, whilst the group was still active.‍

RaaS in Cyber Security

The threat of ransomware continues to be a constant concern for security teams across the cyber threat landscape. With the growing popularity of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), it is becoming more and more accessible for even inexperienced would-be attackers. As a result of this low barrier to entry, the volume of ransomware attacks is expected to increase significantly.

What’s more, RaaS is a highly tailorable market in which buyers can choose from varied kits and features to use in their ransomware deployments meaning attacks will rarely behave the same. To effectively detect and safeguard against these differentiations, it is crucial to implement security measures that put the emphasis on detecting anomalies and focusing on deviations in expected behavior, rather than relying on depreciated indicators of compromise (IoC) lists or playbooks that focus on attack chains unable to keep pace with the increasing speed of ransomware evolution.

In early 2022, Darktrace DETECT/Network™ identified several instances of Hive ransomware on the networks of multiple customers. Using its anomaly-based detection, Darktrace was able to successfully detect the attacks and multiple stages of the kill chain, including command and control (C2) activity, lateral movement, data exfiltration, and ultimately data encryption and the writing of ransom notes.

Hive Ransomware

Hive ransomware is a relatively new strain that was first observed in the wild in June 2021. It is known to target a variety of industries including healthcare, energy providers, and retailers, and has reportedly attacked over 1,500 organizations, collecting more than USD 100m in ransom payments [1].

Hive is distributed via a RaaS model where its developers update and maintain the code, in return for a percentage of the eventual ransom payment, while users (or affiliates) are given the tools to carry out attacks using a highly sophisticated and complex malware they would otherwise be unable to use. Hive uses typical tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) associated with ransomware, though they do vary depending on the Hive affiliate carrying out the attack.

In most cases a double extortion attack is carried out, whereby data is first exfiltrated and then encrypted before a ransom demand is made. This gives attackers extra leverage as victims are at risk of having their sensitive data leaked to the public on websites such as the ‘HiveLeaks’ TOR website.

Attack Timeline

Owing to the highly customizable nature of RaaS, the tactics and methods employed by Hive actors are expected to differ on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless in the majority of Hive ransomware incidents identified on Darktrace customer environments, Darktrace DETECT observed the following general attack stages and features. This is possibly indicative of the attacks originating from the same threat actor(s) or from a widely sold batch with a particular configuration to a variety of actors.

Figure 1: A typical timeline of a Hive attack observed by Darktrace.

Initial Access

Although Hive actors are known to gain initial access to networks through multiple different vectors, the two primary methods reported by security researchers are the exploitation of Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities, or the distribution of phishing emails with malicious attachments [2][3].

In the early stages of one Hive ransomware attack observed on the network of a Darktrace customer, for example, Darktrace detected a device connecting to the rare external location 23.81.246[.]84, with a PowerShell user agent via HTTP. During this connection, the device attempted to download an executable file named “file.exe”. It is possible that the file was initially accessed and delivered via a phishing email; however, as Darktrace/Email was not enabled at the time of the attack, this was outside of Darktrace’s purview. Fortunately, the connection failed the proxy authentication was thus blocked as seen in the packet capture (PCAP) in Figure 2.

Shortly after this attempted download, the same device started to receive a high volume of incoming SSL connections from a rare external endpoint, namely 146.70.87[.]132. Darktrace logged that this endpoint was using an SSL certificate signed by Go Daddy CA, an easily obtainable and accessible SSL certificate, and that the increase in incoming SSL connections from this endpoint was unusual behavior for this device.

It is likely that this highly anomalous activity detected by Darktrace indicates when the ransomware attack began, likely initial payload download.

Darktrace DETECT models:

Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External
Anomalous Server Activity / New Internet Facing System

Figure 2: PCAP of the HTTP connection to the rare endpoint 23.81.246[.]84 showing the failed proxy authentication.

C2 Beaconing

Following the successful initial access, Hive actors begin to establish their C2 infrastructure on infected networks through numerous connections to C2 servers, and the download of additional stagers.

On customer networks infected by Hive ransomware, Darktrace identified devices initiating a high volume of connections to multiple rare endpoints. This very likely represented C2 beaconing to the attacker’s infrastructure. In one particular example, further open-source intelligence (OSINT) investigation revealed that these endpoints were associated with Cobalt Strike.

Darktrace DETECT models:

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP
Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score
Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase
Compromise / Suspicious HTTP Beacons to Dotted Quad
Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon
Device / Lateral Movement and C2 Activity

Internal Reconnaissance, Lateral Movement and Privilege Escalation

After C2 infrastructure has been established, Hive actors typically begin to uninstall antivirus products in an attempt to remain undetected on the network [3]. They also perform internal reconnaissance to look for vulnerabilities and open channels and attempt to move laterally throughout the network.

Amid the C2 connections, Darktrace was able to detect network scanning activity associated with the attack when a device on one customer network was observed initiating an unusually high volume of connections to other internal devices. A critical network device was also seen writing an executable file “mimikatz.exe” via SMB which appears to be the Mimikatz attack tool commonly used for credential harvesting.

There were also several detections of lateral movement attempts via RDP and DCE-RPC where the attackers successfully authenticated using an “Administrator” credential. In one instance, a device was also observed performing ITaskScheduler activity. This service is used to remotely control tasks running on machines and is commonly observed as part of malicious lateral movement activity. Darktrace DETECT understood that the above activity represented a deviation from the devices’ normal pattern of behavior and the following models were breached:

Darktrace DETECT models:

Anomalous Connection / Anomalous DRSGetNCChanges Operation
Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control
Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session
Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity
Compliance / SMB Drive Write
Device / Anomalous ITaskScheduler Activity
Device / Attack and Recon Tools
Device / Attack and Recon Tools In SMB
Device / EXE Files Distributed to Multiple Devices
Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
Device / Increase in New RPC Services
User / New Admin Credentials on Server

Data Exfiltration

At this stage of the attack, Hive actors have been known to carry out data exfiltration activity on infected networks using a variety of different methods. The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) reported that “Hive actors exfiltrate data likely using a combination of Rclone and the cloud storage service Mega[.]nz” [4]. Darktrace DETECT identified an example of this when a device on one customer network was observed making HTTP connections to endpoints related to Mega, including “w.apa.mega.co[.]nz”, with the user agent “rclone/v1.57.0” with at least 3 GiB of data being transferred externally (Figure 3). The same device was also observed transferring at least 3.6 GiB of data via SSL to the rare external IP, 158.51.85[.]157.

Figure 3: A summary of a device’s external connections to multiple endpoints and the respective amounts of data exfiltrated to Mega storage endpoints.

In another case, a device was observed uploading over 16 GiB of data to a rare external endpoint 93.115.27[.]71 over SSH. The endpoint in question was seen in earlier beaconing activity suggesting that this was likely an exfiltration event.

However, Hive ransomware, like any other RaaS kit, can differ greatly in its techniques and features, and it is important to note that data exfiltration may not always be present in a Hive ransomware attack. In one incident detected by Darktrace, there were no signs of any data leaving the customer environment, indicating data exfiltration was not part of the Hive actor’s objectives.

Darktrace DETECT models:

Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
Anomalous Connection / Lots of New Connections
Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL
Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
Device / New User Agent and New IP
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoints
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer
Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

Ransomware Deployment

In the final stage of a typical Hive ransomware attack, the ransomware payload is deployed and begins to encrypt files on infected devices. On one customer network, Darktrace detected several devices connecting to domain controllers (DC) to read a file named “xxx.exe”. Several sources have linked this file name with the Hive ransomware payload [5].

In another example, Darktrace DETECT observed multiple devices downloading the executable files “nua64.exe” and “nua64.dll” from a rare external location, 194.156.90[.]25. OSINT investigation revealed that the files are associated with Hive ransomware.

Figure 4: Security vendor analysis of the malicious file hash [6] associated with Hive ransomware.

Shortly after the download of this executable, multiple devices were observed performing an unusual amount of file encryption, appending randomly generated strings of characters to file extensions.

Although it has been reported that earlier versions of Hive ransomware encrypted files with a “.hive” extension [7], Darktrace observed across multiple customers that encrypted files had extensions that were partially-randomized, but consistently 20 characters long, matching the regular expression “[a-zA-Z0-9\-\_]{8}[\-\_]{1}[A-Za-z0-9\-\_]{11}”.

Figure 5: Device Event Log showing SMB reads and writes of encrypted files with a randomly generated extension of 20 characters.

Following the successful encryption of files, Hive proceeds to drop a ransom note, named “HOW_TO_DECRYPT.txt”, into each affected directory. Typically, the ransom note will contain a link to Hive’s “sales department” and, in the event that exfiltration took place, a link to the “HiveLeaks” site, where attackers threaten to publish exfiltrated data if their demands are not met (Figure 6). In cases of Hive ransomware detected by Darktrace, multiple devices were observed attempting to contact “HiveLeaks” TOR domains, suggesting that endpoint users had followed links provided to them in ransom notes.

Figure 6: Sample of a Hive ransom note [4].

Examples of file extensions:

36C-AT9-_wm82GvBoCPC
36C-AT9--y6Z1G-RFHDT
36C-AT9-_x2x7FctFJ_q
36C-AT9-_zK16HRC3QiL
8KAIgoDP-wkQ5gnYGhrd
kPemi_iF_11GRoa9vb29
kPemi_iF_0RERIS1m7x8
kPemi_iF_7u7e5zp6enp
kPemi_iF_y4u7pB3d3f3
U-9Xb0-k__T0U9NJPz-_
U-9Xb0-k_6SkA8Njo5pa
zm4RoSR1_5HMd_r4a5a9

Darktrace DETECT models:

Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session
Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
Compliance / SMB Drive Write
Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity
Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB
Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Write
Compromise / High Priority Tor2Web
Compromise / Tor2Web
Device / EXE Files Distributed to Multiple Devices

Conclusion

As Hive ransomware attacks are carried out by different affiliates using varying deployment kits, the tactics employed tend to vary and new IoCs are regularly identified. Furthermore, in 2022 a new variant of Hive was written using the Rust programming language. This represented a major upgrade to Hive, improving its defense evasion techniques and making it even harder to detect [8].

Hive is just one of many RaaS offerings currently on the market, and this market is only expected to grow in usage and diversity of presentations. As ransomware becomes more accessible and easier to deploy it is essential for organizations to adopt efficient security measures to identify ransomware at the earliest possible stage.

Darktrace DETECT’s Self-Learning AI understands customer networks and learns the expected patterns of behavior across an organization’s digital estate. Using its anomaly-based detection Darktrace is able to identify emerging threats through the detection of unusual or unexpected behavior, without relying on rules and signatures, or known IoCs.

Credit to: Emily Megan Lim, Cyber Analyst, Hyeongyung Yeom, Senior Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead.

Appendices

MITRE AT&CK Mapping

Reconnaissance

T1595.001 – Scanning IP Blocks

T1595.002 – Vulnerability Scanning

Resource Development

T1583.006 – Web Services

Initial Access

T1078 – Valid Accounts

T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application

T1200 – Hardware Additions

Execution

T1053.005 – Scheduled Task

T1059.001 – PowerShell

Persistence/Privilege Escalation

T1053.005 – Scheduled Task

T1078 – Valid Accounts

Defense Evasion

T1078 – Valid Accounts

T1207 – Rogue Domain Controller

T1550.002 – Pass the Hash

Discovery

T1018 – Remote System Discovery

T1046 – Network Service Discovery

T1083 – File and Directory Discovery

T1135 – Network Share Discovery

Lateral Movement

T1021.001 – Remote Desktop Protocol

T1021.002 – SMB/Windows Admin Shares

T1021.003 – Distributed Component Object Model

T1080 – Taint Shared Content

T1210 – Exploitation of Remote Services

T1550.002 – Pass the Hash

T1570 – Lateral Tool Transfer

Collection

T1185 – Man in the Browser

Command and Control

T1001 – Data Obfuscation

T1071 – Application Layer Protocol

T1071.001 – Web Protocols

T1090.003 – Multi-hop proxy

T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol

T1102.003 – One-Way Communication

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

Exfiltration

T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel

T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage

Impact

T1486 – Data Encrypted for Impact

T1489 – Service Stop

List of IoCs

23.81.246[.]84 - IP Address - Likely Malicious File Download Endpoint

146.70.87[.]132 - IP Address - Possible Ransomware Endpoint

5.199.162[.]220 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

23.227.178[.]65 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

46.166.161[.]68 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

46.166.161[.]93 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

93.115.25[.]139 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

185.150.1117[.]189 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

192.53.123[.]202 - IP Address - C2 Endpoint

209.133.223[.]164 - IP Address - Likely C2 Endpoint

cltrixworkspace1[.]com - Domain - C2 Endpoint

vpnupdaters[.]com - Domain - C2 Endpoint

93.115.27[.]71 - IP Address - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint

158.51.85[.]157 - IP Address - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint

w.api.mega.co[.]nz - Domain - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint

*.userstorage.mega.co[.]nz - Domain - Possible Exfiltration Endpoint

741cc67d2e75b6048e96db9d9e2e78bb9a327e87 - SHA1 Hash - Hive Ransomware File

2f9da37641b204ef2645661df9f075005e2295a5 - SHA1 Hash - Likely Hive Ransomware File

hiveleakdbtnp76ulyhi52eag6c6tyc3xw7ez7iqy6wc34gd2nekazyd[.]onion - TOR Domain - Likely Hive Endpoint

References

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-disrupts-hive-ransomware-variant

[2] https://www.varonis.com/blog/hive-ransomware-analysis

[3] https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/ransomware-spotlight/ransomware-spotlight-hive

[4]https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa22-321a

[5] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/22/c/nokoyawa-ransomware-possibly-related-to-hive-.html

[6] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/60f6a63e366e6729e97949622abd9de6d7988bba66f85a4ac8a52f99d3cb4764/detection

[7] https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/what-is-hive-ransomware/

[8] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2022/07/05/hive-ransomware-gets-upgrades-in-rust/

Written by

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Emily Megan Lim

Cyber Analyst

Margaret Cunningham, PhD

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

August 21, 2026

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

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

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

The shift from model security to agent security

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

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

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

Securing AI agents in operation

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

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

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

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

Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior

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

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

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

Traditional governance vs. behavioral analytics

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

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

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

Margaret Cunningham, PhD

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

August 19, 2026

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

Key takeaways

‍

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

‍

The Growing Abuse of Generative AI

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

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

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

How a Fake Gemini Installer Delivered Vidar

Initial Access: From Search Result to Malware Download

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

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

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

‍

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

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

‍

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

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

‍

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

‍

Weaponizing Trusted Platforms

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

‍

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

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

Malware Analysis

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

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

‍

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

Darktrace's Autonomous Response

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

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

‍

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

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

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

‍

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

‍

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

MITRE ATT@CK Mapping

‍

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

About the author

Rushanth Ramanathan

Cyber Analyst

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Darktrace’s Detection of a Hive Ransomware-as-Service

Darktrace’s Detection of a Hive Ransomware-as-Service

RaaS in Cyber Security

Hive Ransomware

Attack Timeline

Initial Access

C2 Beaconing

Data Exfiltration

Ransomware Deployment

Conclusion

Appendices

MITRE AT&CK Mapping

List of IoCs

References

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

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

When AI Agents Attack: The Case for Behavioral Anomaly Detection

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

9 Stages of Ransomware & How AI Responds

Blog

August 21, 2026

AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action

The shift from model security to agent security

Securing AI agents in operation

Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior

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

Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior

Traditional governance vs. behavioral analytics

Blog

August 19, 2026

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

Key takeaways

The Growing Abuse of Generative AI

How a Fake Gemini Installer Delivered Vidar

Initial Access: From Search Result to Malware Download

Weaponizing Trusted Platforms

Malware Analysis

Conclusion

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT@CK Mapping