Hacker's AI agents breach about 100 companies, researchers say

Low-cost, agentic AI models drive a surge in breaches, changing the economics of digital exploitation

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time3 min
Over the past month, a wave of sophisticated, autonomous cyberattacks driven by artificial intelligence has underscored a fundamental shift in the economics of digital exploitation. Starting in late September, a hacker deployed AI agents that autonomously broke into around 100 companies, costing roughly $50 per successful breach. This tactic has also been used to attack a coding platform and steal data from tens of thousands of bank customers in South Korea, signalling a dangerous new era for cybersecurity.

On September 25, a hacker set off an army of AI agents that, over several weeks, attempted to compromise more than 1,200 websites, according to cybersecurity researchers. The agents, powered by tokens from DeepSeek and Anthropic's Claude Code models, cost about $5,000 to run and successfully breached roughly 100 companies, including farm equipment maker Deere, appliance manufacturer SharkNinja, and engine producer Cummins.

The economics of these attacks are transforming the threat landscape. Jessica Ji, a senior research analyst at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), told Fortune that autonomous attacks are becoming more common because the tools have "gotten meaningfully better" over the past year. She cited improvements in coding skills and a move towards agentic capabilities, meaning models can use other software to complete tasks. "These AI systems are now both more capable of hacking and are able to act more autonomously," Ji said.

Varun Chandrasekaran, Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois' Grainger College of Engineering, noted that agents powered by large language models can run continuously at a "fraction of the cost of human attackers." This, he said, "fundamentally changes the economics of exploitation."

The trend accelerated in October. An autonomous AI agent launched a 48-hour attack on OpenCode, an AI-powered coding platform. "Non-stop trying to attack our systems for the past 48 hours," OpenCode founder Dax Raad posted on X. The agent broke into user accounts, affecting 1.4% of users, and spent their money, with some people losing as much as $1,700. OpenCode fought back with its own AI agents but initially saw its defense models refuse requests. OpenAI, after granting access to its advanced Daybreak Blue program, refunded the affected users in what appears to be a first.

In the most severe incident reported, South Korean banks were breached by hackers likely based in China. They used both Anthropic's Claude Code and a Chinese state-developed AI tool called Artex, built on open models. Data from an estimated 68,000 people was stolen. "Cybersecurity attacks powered by AI agents have been increasing in South Korea, and I expect they will grow in number worldwide in the future," said Mun Chong-hyun, head of Genians Security Center, a Seoul cybersecurity analytics firm.

The rise of these attacks has sharpened the debate over open-weight AI models, which are publicly downloadable and customisable. The wide availability of low-cost, powerful open models is one reason Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned they pose a risk. However, proponents point to a case where Hugging Face successfully defended itself against an AI agent by using an open model after a closed model refused the defensive task due to its security guardrails. OpenAI executive Dean Ball said such refusal was required to prevent bad actors from using models for "sustained autonomous cyberattacks."

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The cost of sophisticated cyberattacks is collapsing. A breach that once required a skilled team can now be executed autonomously for as little as $50 per target.
  • This democratisation of attack capability threatens critical infrastructure, financial systems and consumer data at an unprecedented scale.
  • The trend directly influences the global policy debate on whether powerful open-weight AI models should be restricted.

Background

The effectiveness of these attacks relies on the recent convergence of two developments: dramatically improved coding skills in large language models, and the rise of agentic capabilities. Agentic AI can use other software to accomplish tasks, rather than just outputting text. This allows a single prompt from a human to trigger a chain of exploitation attempts running autonomously, day and night. The potential for such misuse has driven a split in the AI community over whether the most capable models should be widely distributed.

Key Perspectives

[Security Researchers and Economists]: The shift is alarming. The combination of better coding skills and agentic abilities creates a powerful, low-cost weapon for attackers. As Chandrasekaran stated, the economics have fundamentally changed, enabling attacks that run around the clock at minimal cost.

[AI Companies and Safety Advocates]: There is a critical need for safety measures and regulations, particularly around open-weight models, which could easily be weaponised at scale. This justifies guardrails that can sometimes frustrate legitimate users, but are seen as necessary to prevent the worst outcomes.

[Open Model Defenders]: Open models provide crucial defensive capabilities, as demonstrated by Hugging Face. Restricting them would hamstring defenders while determined attackers would still access capabilities through closed-source models or private tooling.

What to Watch

  • Government scrutiny and potential regulation of open-weight AI models, especially following this clear demonstration of real-world harm.
  • Adoption of AI-versus-AI defense systems as the standard for protecting online platforms and financial services.
  • An increase in attacks targeting financial endpoints and user accounts where value can be extracted automatically, following the pattern seen in the OpenCode and South Korean bank incidents.

Sources

Checked

12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 5 supported.

Show each claim
  1. Partly supportedA hacker’s AI agents breached about 100 companies, researchers say.Fortune | FORTUNE: “The agents successfully breached about 100 companies, including farm equipment maker Deere , home appliance ​company SharkNinja, and engine manufacturer Cummins, according to Reuters, which first reported the incident, discovered by cybersecurity researchers.”
  2. SupportedLow-cost, agentic AI models are driving a surge in breaches and changing the economics of exploitation.Fortune | FORTUNE: “Powerful new AI models are powering a growing wave of cyber attacks, experts say.”
  3. Partly supportedA wave of sophisticated, autonomous AI cyberattacks over the past month underscored a fundamental shift in digital exploitation.Fortune | FORTUNE: “Autonomous attacks powered by AI agents are becoming more common”
  4. Not in the sourcesThe incidents signal a dangerous new era for cybersecurity.
  5. SupportedThe first campaign cost roughly $50 per successful breach.Fortune | FORTUNE: “That’s roughly $50 per successful breach.”
  6. Partly supportedJessica Ji said the tools had “gotten meaningfully better” over the past year.Fortune | FORTUNE: “This is primarily happening because the tools have “gotten meaningfully better” over the past year or so, she said.”
  7. SupportedDax Raad posted that the agent was “Non-stop trying to attack our systems for the past 48 hours.”Fortune | FORTUNE: “a hacker unleashed an autonomous AI model on OpenCode that was “non-stop trying to attack our systems for the past 48 hours,” OpenCode founder Dax Raad posted on X on Oct. 18.”
  8. SupportedThe OpenCode attack affected 1.4% of users.Fortune | FORTUNE: “The attackers broke into certain OpenCode user accounts, affecting 1.4% of its users, according to the company.”
  9. Partly supportedOpenCode initially saw its defense models refuse requests.Fortune | FORTUNE: “OpenCode had been running its defense with an OpenAI model, which started to refuse its requests in the middle of the attack.”
  10. SupportedOpenAI granted access to Daybreak Blue and refunded affected users in what appears to be a first.Fortune | FORTUNE: “In what appears to be a first, OpenAI refunded OpenCode users who lost money in the attack”
  11. Partly supportedHackers likely based in China breached South Korean banks.Fortune | FORTUNE: “The attackers were likely based in China, according to Reuters, and used a combination of a Chinese state-developed AI tool called Artex, built on open models, as well as Anthropic Claude Code.”
  12. Partly supportedData from an estimated 68,000 people was stolen in the South Korean bank incident.Fortune | FORTUNE: “They stole data from an estimated 68,000 people, The Wall Street Journal reported.”

Zotpaper

Written by Rex Doyle on the Tech & AI desk. Claims checked by Ines Fairley, verification. Edited by Angus Burke, chief sub. Plate by Ollie Flash, picture desk.

1 source5 of 12 claims matched to a sourcefirst published updated once
Meet the newsroomHow we workSubscribe