🔍 Read the full analysis: One Hacker, A Swarm Of AI Agents, 100+ Company Websites: What Changes When A Break-In Costs About $50 on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get privacy and security gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A Chinese-speaking operator used Cairn, an open-source platform for coordinating AI agents, in a campaign that probed more than 1,200 sites from late September to mid-October. Reuters, drawing on the operator’s exposed records, reported breaches at websites of more than 100 companies; how much information was accessed or taken remains unknown.
A Chinese-speaking operator used AI agents coordinated through the open-source platform Cairn to probe online shops and break into websites associated with more than 100 companies, Reuters reported, citing the operator’s activity records. The campaign, which began on September 25, targeted more than 1,200 sites by mid-October; the amount of data accessed or taken has not been established.
Security firm NorForge traced the activity after researcher Snorre Fagerland searched for exposed Cairn control panels and found some that could be accessed without a password. NorForge said it identified more than 20 panels it linked to likely malicious use. The researcher could observe activity through the exposed interfaces, while Reuters separately reviewed records and identified company websites it said had been breached.
Reuters named Deere, SharkNinja and Cummins among the companies whose websites were affected. Deere told Reuters it took “necessary remediation actions” and had “no indication that sensitive information was accessed.” SharkNinja said an independent product-support site was hit and the threat contained. Cummins said it was investigating “a potential cyber-attack” on a site run by a third-party vendor. Reuters said it could not determine how much data, if any, was taken.
NorForge counted more than 1,100 attack projects in the largest activity cluster across 14 panels, while Reuters reported attempts against more than 1,200 sites overall. NorForge measured successful projects in that cluster as taking a little under 23 hours on average from start to goal. It estimated AI costs at about $5,000 for the campaign, or roughly $50 per successful intrusion, while warning that the estimate carries considerable uncertainty.
One operator, a swarm of agents
The campaign in numbers
What the researcher and Reuters report about the busiest group NorForge found. Counts come from the attackers’ own exposed panels; cost and success figures are estimates.
The price tag estimates
NorForge / Fagerland, “uncertainty considerable”
- ~$5 per task on average, including tasks that fail early
- $100+ for long projects with more than 1,000 intents and facts
- ~$5,000 in AI costs for the campaign, about $50 per successful hack
- ~10% success rate, NorForge’s “reasonable assumption”
How the swarm runs
Simplified, no attack details
- Shop websites are ranked by traffic and checked automatically in a browser
- Each target becomes a Cairn project: a starting point and a goal
- Agents post facts and next steps on a shared board and build on each other
- Goal: a hidden way back in to shop and payment systems, for later
- 22 SepGambit reportGambitCairn found among three AI harnesses on a criminal’s staging server (separate campaign)
- 25 SepCampaign startsReutersA Chinese-speaking operator turns agents on shops in the US, Canada, Australia and Japan
- ≈ 2 OctOpen panels foundReutersFagerland starts finding Cairn panels in malicious use, about two dozen
- mid-Oct1,200+ sites triedReutersBreaks into websites of 100+ companies, incl. Deere, SharkNinja, Cummins
- 19 OctReport and investigationNorForge · ReutersNorForge publishes “Inside Cairn”; Reuters publishes its investigation
Sources: NorForge, Inside Cairn (19 Oct 2026); Reuters (19 Oct 2026); Gambit Security (22 Sep 2026). Numbers as published, same rounding as the article.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Automation Changes the Cost of Patience
The reported campaign points to a change in the scale and persistence of cyber operations: one operator could delegate repeated probing across a large number of sites to software agents. That does not mean the agents acted without human direction, nor that AI alone caused the breaches. It does suggest that attackers may be able to keep testing targets for hours while spending less time manually guiding each step.
The named incidents also highlight risks beyond a company’s main public website. Support pages and third-party services can be connected to a company’s operations and reputation, even when they are not its core systems. Organizations may need to account for these less prominent web assets, while security teams face a higher volume of automated activity to investigate. The reports do not establish that every targeted site was vulnerable or that every breach exposed sensitive information.
The episode also raises a defensive question about agent platforms and their control panels. Cairn is a general-purpose tool, according to NorForge and its author, not a hacking product. The risk described here comes from how an operator used it and from exposed panels that allowed activity to be observed or controlled. The reporting does not show that Cairn itself caused the underlying security weaknesses.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Amazon Kindle Scribe Colorsoft 64GB (1st Generation)
Bose TV Speaker Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Researchers Traced the Campaign
The investigation followed a separate report published in September by Gambit Security. That firm said it found three AI “harnesses,” including Cairn, on a criminal staging server. Harnesses let AI models carry out tasks through software tools. NorForge then searched for Cairn dashboards exposed to the internet, finding panels that lacked access controls and appeared to be used for malicious activity.
NorForge published its findings on October 19, the same day Reuters published its investigation. NorForge described three activity clusters and said the largest wrote tasks in Chinese. Its report did not name victims; Reuters said it identified companies by independently reviewing Cairn activity and contacting them. The two accounts therefore provide different kinds of evidence: NorForge analyzed the exposed agent panels, while Reuters connected activity records to affected organizations.
Gambit’s September report described a separate agent-driven campaign, not the one Reuters and NorForge tracked. Gambit said at least 27 companies were compromised and at least 600,000 card records were taken from two of them. Those figures should not be attributed to the later Cairn campaign.
““Necessary remediation actions” were taken, and the company had “no indication that sensitive information was accessed.””
— Deere, in a statement to Reuters
Data Access and Attribution Remain Unresolved
The identity of the operator is unknown. NorForge described the actor as Chinese-speaking, but the reporting does not identify a person or establish where the operator was located. The source material reports no arrest or charge.
It is also unclear what information, if any, was taken from the affected websites. Reuters said it could not establish the amount of data accessed or removed. Deere reported no indication that sensitive information was accessed; SharkNinja said the threat was contained, and Cummins said it was investigating a potential attack. Those statements do not resolve the status of every company Reuters identified.
The campaign’s cost and operating figures are estimates, not audited totals. NorForge said the cost estimate had considerable uncertainty, and the reported average duration applies to successful projects in the largest cluster it analyzed. The reports do not establish how many human interventions were required, whether access persisted after discovery, or whether the intrusions were later monetized.
Company Reviews and Further Findings
The companies’ investigations and remediation work will determine whether the reported access exposed customer, payment or other sensitive information. Cummins said it was investigating its vendor-operated website; Reuters’ account did not provide a final finding on the scope of that incident. Further company disclosures could clarify which systems were affected and whether data was accessed.
NorForge’s published analysis provides a snapshot of activity on exposed Cairn panels, but the available reporting does not give a complete accounting of all targets or outcomes. Researchers and affected organizations may identify additional activity as they review logs and secure exposed services. For now, the central confirmed development is the reported scale of the campaign; its full consequences remain under investigation.
Key Questions
What happened in the reported campaign?
A Chinese-speaking operator used Cairn-coordinated AI agents to probe online shops. Reuters reported that the activity resulted in breaches at websites associated with more than 100 companies.
Were Deere, SharkNinja and Cummins affected?
Reuters named all three among the companies whose websites were affected. Deere said it took remediation actions and had no indication sensitive information was accessed; SharkNinja said a standalone support site was hit and the threat contained; Cummins said it was investigating a potential attack on a vendor-operated website.
Was customer data stolen?
That has not been established. Reuters could not determine how much data, if any, was taken. The statements from individual companies describe their current findings, not a definitive account of every affected site.
Was Cairn built as a hacking tool?
NorForge described Cairn as a general-purpose, state-based problem-solving platform. Its author told Reuters that it was not designed for hacking attacks. The reports say an operator used the platform for malicious activity; they do not establish that Cairn itself caused the sites’ security weaknesses.
How much did the campaign cost?
NorForge estimated roughly $5,000 in AI costs for the campaign, or about $50 per successful intrusion. The firm warned that the estimate carried considerable uncertainty, so it should not be treated as a verified cost total.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
