ブログ
/
Network
/
September 6, 2023

The Rise of MaaS & Lumma Info Stealer

Discover the rise of the Lumma info stealer and its implications for cybersecurity. Learn how this malware targets sensitive information.
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
Default blog image
06
Sep 2023

What are Malware-as-a-Service information stealers?

The Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) model continues provide would-be threat actors with an inexpensive and relatively straightforward way to carry out sophisticated cyber attacks and achieve their nefarious goals. One common type of MaaS are information stealers that specialize in gathering and exfiltrating sensitive data, such as login credentials and bank details, from affected devices, potentially resulting in significant financial losses for organizations and individuals alike.

What is Lumma Information Stealer?

One such information stealer, dubbed “Lumma”, has been advertised and sold on numerous dark web forums since 2022. Lumma stealer primarily targets cryptocurrency wallets, browser extensions and two-factor authentication (2FA), before ultimately stealing sensitive information from compromised machines. The number of sightings of this malware being distributed on dark web forums is on the rise [1], and thus far, more than a dozen command-and-control (C2) servers have been observed in the wild.

Between January and April 2023, Darktrace observed and investigated multiple instances of Lumma stealer activity across the customer base. Thanks to its anomaly-based approach to threat detection, Darktrace is able to successfully identify and provide visibility over activity associated with such info-stealers, from C2 activity through to the eventual exfiltration of sensitive data.

Lumma Stealer Background

Lumma stealer, previously known as LummaC2, is a subscription-based information stealer that has been observed in the wild since 2022. It is believed to have been developed by the threat actor “Shamel”, under the the alias “Lumma”. The info-stealer has been advertised on dark web forums and also a channel on the Telegram messenger server, which boasts over a thousand subscribers as of May 2023 [2], and is also available on Lumma’s official seller page for as little as USD 250 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: LummaC2’s official seller website [3].

Research on the Russian Market selling stolen credentials has shown that Lumma stealer has been an emerging since early 2023, and joins the list of info stealers that have been on the rise, including Vidar and Racoon [1].

Similar to other info-stealers, Lumma is able to obtain system and installed program data from compromised devices, alongside sensitive information such as cookies, usernames and passwords, credit card numbers, connection history, and cryptocurrency wallet data.

Between January and April 2023, Darktrace has observed Lumma malware activity across multiple customer deployments mostly in the EMEA region, but also in the US. This included data exfiltration to external endpoints related to the Lumma malware. It is likely that this activity resulted from the download of trojanized software files or users falling victim to malicious emails containing Lumma payloads.

Lumma Attack Details and Darktrace Coverage

Typically, Lumma has been distributed disguised as cracked or fake popular software like VLC or ChatGPT. Recently though, threat actors have also delivered the malware through emails containing payloads in the form of attachments or links impersonating well-known companies. For example, in February 2023, a streamer in South Korea was targeted with a spear-phishing email in which the sender impersonated the video game company Bandai Namco [4].

Lumma is known to target Windows operating systems from Windows 7 to 11 and at least 10 different browsers including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla Firefox [5]. It has also been observed targeting crypto wallets like Binance and Ethereum, as well as crypto wallet and 2FA browser extensions like Metamask and Authenticator respectively [6]. Data from applications such as AnyDesk or KeePass can also be exfiltrated by the malware [7].

An infection with Lumma can lead to the user's information being abused for fraud, for example, using stolen credentials to hijack bank accounts, which in turn could result in significant financial losses.

Once the targeted data is obtained, it is exfiltrated to a C2 server, as Darktrace has observed on multiple customer environments affected with Lumma stealer. Darktrace identified multiple infected devices exfiltrating data via HTTP POST requests to known Lumma C2 servers. During these connections, DETECT commonly observed the URI “/c2sock” and the user agent “TeslaBrowser/5.5”.

In one instance, Darktrace detected a device using the “TeslaBrowser/5.5” user agent, which it recognized as a new user agent for this device, whilst making a HTTP post request to an unusual IP address, 82.117.255[.]127 (Figure 3). Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI understood that this represented a deviation from expected behavior for this device and brought it to the attention of the customer’s security team.

Figure 2: Device Event Log on the Darktrace DETECT Threat Visualizer showing activity from a device infected with Lumma stealer and the DETECT models it breached.

Further investigation revealed that accessing the IP address using a web browser and changing the the URI to “/login”, would take a user to a Russian Lumma control panel access page (Figure 4)

Figure 3: One of Lumma stealer’s C2 servers accessed via a web browser in a secured environment.

A deep dive into the packet captures (PCAP) of the HTTP POST requests taken from one device also confirmed that browser data, including Google Chrome history files, system information in the form of a System.txt file, and other program data such as AnyDesk configuration files were being exfiltrated from the customer’s network(Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 4: HTTP objects observed during Lumma Stealer POSTing of data to another one of its  C2 servers.
Figure 5: PCAP of HTTP stream showing the different types of data being exfiltrated.

Additionally, on one particular device, Darktrace observed malicious external connections related to other malware strains, like Laplas Clipper, Raccoon Stealer, Vidar, RedLine info-stealers and trojans, around the same time as the Lumma C2 connections. These info-stealers are commonly marketed as MaaS and can be bought and used for a relatively inexpensive price by even the most inexperienced threat actors. It is also likely that the developers of these info-stealers have been making efforts to integrate their strains into the activities of traffer teams [8], organized cybercrime groups who specialize in credential theft with the use of info-stealers.

Conclusion

Mirroring the general emergence and rise of information stealers across the cyber threat landscape, Lumma stealer continues to represent a significant concern to orgaizations and individuals alike.

Moreover, as yet another example of MaaS, Lumma is readily available for threat actors to launch their attacks, regardless of their level of expertise, meaning the number of incidents is only likely to rise. As such, it is essential for organizations to have security measures in place that are able to recognize unusual behavior that may be indicactive of an info-stealer compromise, while not relying on a static list of indicators of compromise (IoCs).

Darktrace's anomaly-based detection enabled it to uncover the presence of Lumma across multiple customer environments across different regions and industries. From the detection of unusual connections to C2 infrastructure to the ultimate exfiltration of customer data, Darktrace provided affected customers full visibility over Lumma infections, allowing them to identify compromised devices and take action to prevent further data loss and reduce the risk of incurring significant financial losses.

Credit to: Emily Megan Lim, Cyber Security Analyst, Signe Zaharka, Senior Cyber Security Analyst

Appendices

Darktrace DETECT Models

·      Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname  

·      Device / New User Agent and New IP

·      Device / New User Agent

·      Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

·      Possible HTTP Command and Control

·      Possible HTTP Command and Control to Multiple Endpoints

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

144.76.173[.]247

IP address

Lumma C2 Infrastructure

45.9.74[.]78

IP address

Lumma C2 Infrastructure

77.73.134[.]68

IP address

Lumma C2 Infrastructure

82.117.255[.]127

IP address

Lumma C2 Infrastructure

82.117.255[.]80

IP address

Lumma C2 Infrastructure

82.118.23[.]50

IP address

Lumma C2 Infrastructure

/c2sock

URI

Lumma C2 POST Request

TeslaBrowser/5.5

User agent

Lumma C2 POST Request

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic: Command and Control -

Technique: T1071.001 – Web Protocols

References

[1] https://www.kelacyber.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KELA_Research_Infostealers_2023_full-report.pdf

[2] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/the-new-info-stealing-malware-operations-to-watch-out-for/

[3] https://blog.cyble.com/2023/01/06/lummac2-stealer-a-potent-threat-to-crypto-users/

[4] https://medium.com/s2wblog/lumma-stealer-targets-youtubers-via-spear-phishing-email-ade740d486f7

[5] https://socradar.io/malware-analysis-lummac2-stealer/

[6] https://outpost24.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-lummac2-stealer

[7] https://asec.ahnlab.com/en/50594/

[8] https://blog.sekoia.io/bluefox-information-stealer-traffer-maas/

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2025

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

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

July 6, 2026

NIST Just Proved It: AI Security Can’t Be Solved With Rules

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Static AI guardrails are inherently limited

As organizations adopt generative AI, many still assume that the right set of guardrails will be enough. The problem is you can’t anticipate every way these systems might be misused, abused or attacked. What NIST has done is put a mathematical foundation under that intuition.

In recent research building on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which showed that any system built on a fixed set of rules will always have gaps, NIST demonstrates that there is no finite set of guardrails that can be universally robust against adversarial prompts. In plain terms, if your defense is based on a fixed set of rules, there will always be inputs that bypass them. Not because the rules are badly written, but because the problem space is bigger than static rules can ever cover.

This is not new in cybersecurity - detection rules have always had to live with this trade-off. What is different with GenAI is the scale and shape of that problem. These systems are built on human language, and human language is not bounded. It is fluid, contextual and deliberately ambiguous. The number of ways intent can be hidden is effectively limitless. You are not defending against a defined protocol or a fixed exploit chain. You are defending against the entire expressive capacity of people.

So attempting to create a complete set of rules is the wrong starting point. It assumes the problem can be deterministically described. NIST’s work shows that it cannot. Organizations still need a way to manage AI risk, but the traditional approach of defining allowed and disallowed patterns is always going to lag behind what is actually happening. The same input can be benign in one context and risky in another, and static rules struggle to capture that distinction.

The question then is what fills that gap?

AI security must shift from rules to behavior

What's required is a shift in what you are trying to understand. Rules try to describe what should and shouldn't happen. Behavior shows you what is happening. Or to put it another way, if inputs are unbounded and adversaries adapt, the only stable signal is behavior.

In a GenAI context, that means analyzing how an AI model is being used, how prompts evolve over time, how outputs are shaped, and where AI agent interactions start to drift from what is expected. It means moving from static definitions of bad to a more dynamic understanding of intent.

Instead of trying to predict every bad prompt, you focus on identifying when behavior starts to move outside expected norms. Instead of asking whether a single input matches a rule, you ask whether the overall pattern of activity makes sense for the system and how it’s being used.

Guardrails remain important but they are only one layer

This does not eliminate the need for guardrails. They still play a role. But they will never address the entire problem space and are simply one part of your defense in depth approach.

NIST’s proof is useful because it makes this explicit. It removes the assumption that with enough effort, a complete rule set is achievable. It isn’t.

Once you accept that, the shift becomes unavoidable. This is no longer a problem of writing better rules, but of understanding behavior in a space where the possible inputs are effectively unbounded.

For security leaders, that changes the nature of the problem. It is less about defining what should be allowed, and more about recognizing when something is no longer consistent with expected behavior.

That does not remove the need for guardrails, but it does change their role. They set boundaries, but they do not define understanding. The gap between the two is where risk now sits.

In the end, this is what “can’t be solved with rules” really means. Rules will always leave gaps, and those gaps are not theoretical. They show up in how systems actually behave Not what we expect them to do, or what we intended them to do, but what they are doing in practice. That is where the signal is, and increasingly, that is where the security problem sits.

References:

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-mathematical-proof-supports-transition-continuous-monitor-and-update

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11475847

Continue reading
About the author
Andrew Hollister
Principal Solutions Engineer, Cyber Technician

Blog

/

AI

/

July 1, 2026

5 Ways AI is changing traditional security models according to modern CISOs

Default blog imageDefault blog image

The Reality of Securing AI in Motion

Traditional security tools were built for environments defined by fixed rules and predictable workflows. But AI behavior is non-deterministic. The same prompt can produce different outcomes, and risk often emerges gradually as AI behavior adapts, and permissions drift over time. This creates a constantly shifting environment where security teams are working to define control in a system that resists stability. “In AI security, yesterday's priorities can become tomorrow's blind spots. The landscape shifts that fast,” warned the SVP and Head of Technology and Cybersecurity of a real estate investment trust. Conventional approaches, which rely on establishing and maintaining a steady baseline, struggle to keep up with that level of change.

At the same time, AI adoption is accelerating across organizations, often faster than security teams can implement the controls needed to manage it. “The car is being built while it’s already on the road,” explained the CISO of a global private fund administrator. “The threats we're securing against today won't be the threats we're facing tomorrow. What kept us up three months ago looks nothing like what we're dealing with today.”

As businesses move quickly to unlock value from AI, security teams are left closing gaps in real time, while also facing adversaries who are using AI to make their attacks more scalable, adaptive, and difficult to detect. In this recent roundtable discussion of CISOs and security leaders, five themes emerged around AI cyber risk.  

1. AI agents with human access but no human judgment

In Darktrace’s 2026 State of AI Cybersecurity report, 96% of the surveyed security professionals agree that AI significantly improves the speed and efficiency with which they work. Yet, 92% admitted that they’re concerned with the security implications of the use of AI agents across their workforce.

AI agents now operate with human-level permissions across systems, acting at machine speed, orchestrating actions across platforms, and making decisions without the judgment or caution a person would apply. Unlike human users, they cannot be expected to pause and question whether a given action is appropriate.

Their identities are also difficult to inventory, govern, and audit. As agents become easier to deploy than legacy IT systems ever were, organizations are quickly losing track of what is running, what it has access to, and what it is doing. This creates a growing class of highly privileged, autonomous actors operating without the visibility or oversight that traditional identity and access controls were designed to provide.“While AI adoption is critical to running a modern business, AI alone can’t solve all our cybersecurity challenges,” said a global financial sector CISO. “We still need think critically and use human judgement. Those are two things AI can’t do.”

This lack of human judgment becomes especially risky as new architectures, such as Model Context Protocol (MCP), can expand how agents connect to data, tools, and external systems. By design, MCP enables agents to dynamically discover and interact with new resources, increasing flexibility but also introducing new pathways for unintended access, data exposure, or abuse if not properly governed.

The CISO of a fund administrator highlighted one emerging vector as an example: rogue MCP servers. “Our developers want to move quickly and bring value to the business, but technologies like these can unintentionally expose sensitive data in ways that would never have happened before.”

2. Increased digital complexity and expanded attack surface

AI activity rarely stays contained. A single prompt can trigger a chain of actions across networks, email, cloud infrastructure, SaaS platforms, endpoints, identity systems, and development environments, spanning systems that were never designed to be secured as a single, connected flow. This expands both the scale and complexity of what security teams need to monitor and defend.

Yet no single control has visibility across that entire chain. “You can’t defend effectively what you can’t see,” cautioned the private fund administrator CISO. As AI-driven activity moves fluidly across environments, gaps in coverage become inevitable, creating blind spots that attackers can exploit.

Threat actors are already capitalizing on this lack of visibility. “Threat actors have advanced their use of generative AI to launch more convincing phishing campaigns, automate social engineering, and scale attacks with greater precision down to the individual level,” said the SVP of Technology and Cybersecurity for the real estate investment trust. What was once manual and targeted can now be automated and personalized at scale, making attacks harder to detect and easier to execute.

At the same time, the pace of exploitation is accelerating. As a global CISO operating across 40+ countries described it: “Zero-day vulnerabilities are no longer zero day; it’s minus one day. By the time you get to it and address it, it’s already a problem.” By the time risk is identified, it has often already been realized.

The result is a rapidly expanding and increasingly interconnected attack surface that challenges security teams to maintain visibility, context, and control across AI-driven activity.

3. Shadow AI is already everywhere

76% of organizations now cite shadow AI as a problem, one that is spreading through organizations in ways that are hard to track and even harder to control.

Employees are experimenting with publicly available Gen AI tools. Teams are spinning up low-code automations on their own. SaaS providers are quietly embedding AI into existing products. Developers are plugging AI services directly into workflows, often without pausing to consider what that exposure means.

The result is a lack of visibility into:

  • What AI tools are being used
  • What data those tools can access
  • Where prompts and outputs are going
  • Which AI agents are interacting with enterprise systems

The SVP of Cybersecurity at a real estate investment trust described the shift: “Before, I was worried about someone sending data erroneously to their personal email. Now we have all these agents online that people are utilizing, and we’re looking at those vectors as well.” For security teams, this means operating without a complete view of how AI is being used, what it can access, and where risk may already be emerging.

4. Built-in guardrails are not enough

Organizations often assume that native AI guardrails or provider-level controls are sufficient to manage AI risk. But securing AI requires ongoing visibility, oversight, and governance, not just controls configured at deployment. "It’s a misconception that adopting AI is going to solve all your problems,” warns a global financial services CISO.

Security leaders are increasingly recognizing the limitations of these controls as:

  • Fragmented and difficult to enforce consistently across multiple AI systems, workflows, and environments
  • Ambiguous in terms of accountability due to shared responsibility for AI governance between IT, security, developers, business teams, and third-party providers
  • Limited in end-to-end oversight, leaving gaps that stretch from the initial prompt all the way through to the downstream impact of an agent's actions

Securing AI demands more than simple prompt filtering or static policy enforcement. It requires understanding intent, behavior, and context across both human and AI activity.

The next phase of cybersecurity: securing AI

To safely and responsibly adopt AI at scale, organizations need a new operational model for cybersecurity that’s capable of:

• Understanding AI behavior

• Identifying risk in real time

• Maintaining governance without slowing innovation

The CSO of a $10 billion municipal utility organization described the challenge with precision: “We have to move at the speed of innovation and risk, because both are accelerating faster than ever.”

Embrace AI with confidence with Darktrace / SECURE AI

Darktrace has introduced Darktrace / SECURE AI™, a new product within the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform™  ,designed to provide enterprise-wide security for AI by applying industry leading behavioral analysis to how prompts, agents, and AI systems are used.

Darktrace / SECURE AITM delivers real-time visibility and control across Enterprise and SaaS GenAI prompts, AI agent identities, development and production environments, and Shadow AI - detecting even subtle misuse, misconfiguration, and drift that traditional, rule-based controls simply do not understand. By interpreting context and intent across humans and machines, Darktrace enables organizations to adopt AI at scale without introducing unmanaged risk

What makes this possible is Darktrace’s decade-long maturity and expertise in behavioral understanding and AI-native cybersecurity. Achieved with Self-Learning AI that has been proven across more than 10,000 organizations, Darktrace understands what “normal” looks like for a business, across its users, systems, and now AI, so that meaningful deviations can be detected and acted on before they become incidents.

With one CISO describing Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI as “a leap forward compared to other tools” and another as a “force multiplier,” the technology can interpret ambiguous interactions, understand how access accumulates over time, and recognize when behavior, human or machine, begins to drift.

“Strategically, we’re looking to gain more visibility into how AI is operating across the environment and achieve greater control over what AI should be allowed to access and do,” shared the CISO at a private fund administrator.  

“What I’ve seen from Darktrace / SECURE AI is extremely promising. I have tremendous confidence in Darktrace’s vision for where this is headed and its ability to execute on this new solution.”

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community
あなたのデータ × DarktraceのAI
唯一無二のDarktrace AIで、ネットワークセキュリティを次の次元へ