ReadingResearchRadarInvestment frameworkAI Company Primary Sources
Sign in / Sign up
← Back to reading
NewsMaterial3 min readDisconfirmAI Editorial

Zscaler ThreatLabz Reconstructs Attacker's Multi-Model Orchestration Mechanism: GLM Reviews DeepSeek, Scripts Maintain State Across Sessions

By reconstructing the attacker's saved configurations, synchronization scripts, and prompt history, Zscaler ThreatLabz reveals a specific multi-model collaborative workflow: DeepSeek handles initial investigation, GLM reviews its findings, and Grok conducts remote research; custom scripts and context-injection hooks ensure that investigative progress remains accessible across multiple accounts and servers.

2026-10-21

In October 2026, Seongsu Park, a researcher at Zscaler ThreatLabz, published a technical analysis of an AI-assisted attack campaign. CrowdStrike had previously reported separately on the related ARTEX infrastructure and attacks targeting South Korean financial institutions. The core contribution of this report lies in reconstructing the attacker's complete working environment—configuration files, synchronization scripts, prompt histories, and project file structures—to piece together a specific mechanism for multi-model collaborative orchestration.

The key design of this mechanism is role division and a mutual review loop. Prompt history shows that the attacker instructed the DeepSeek model to conduct initial investigations. Once DeepSeek reported that it had exhausted all attack surfaces, the attacker would then launch the GLM model to review the work performed by DeepSeek and its sub-agents. One translated prompt reads: "When DeepSeek says it has exhausted all attack surfaces and I say to start a GLM review, GLM should review DeepSeek's previous work and its subagents' work." Subsequent prompts expanded GLM's role from simple review to include additional investigation tasks. On the jump server, the attacker also assigned research tasks to Grok and instructed another AI session to review Grok's output.

Role division alone was insufficient to keep the workflow running after sessions disconnected. The attacker deployed three types of custom synchronization scripts: tools/sync-all.sh uses SSH and rsync to copy AI instructions, reusable task guides, saved notes, and tools to multiple accounts on the jump server; synchronizes AI-saved note files to the jump server; and synchronizes shared Claude Code instructions to the gemini and glm accounts on the work server. These scripts also included backup and validation checks to avoid overwriting modified target files.

Sign in / Sign up
ReadingResearchRadarInvestment frameworkAI Company Primary Sources
sync-memory.sh
tools/sync-cc-users.sh

More critically, there was a context injection mechanism. The attacker configured an automated hook script named tools/project_context_hook.py that executed upon receiving each new prompt. It read current project files and attached a brief summary regarding testing status, recent notes, and paths to relevant memory files. This meant AI sessions could access the full context of prior work without relying on conversation history. The project file structure itself served this purpose: scope.md recorded selected targets, surface.md recorded discovered entry points and their testing status, notes.md recorded completed work and next steps, the findings/ directory stored vulnerability reports, and the evidence/ directory held supporting files.

Regarding guardrail bypasses, the attacker's instructions required AI to assume all provided targets were pre-authorized. Some application settings also allowed autonomous execution of operations without requiring step-by-step approval from the operator. This corresponds to AML.T0054 (AI Guardrail Bypass / System Prompt Engineering) in the MITRE ATLAS framework.

It must be noted that the report explicitly states that the underlying models actually responding to each session could not be independently verified. Model identifiers requested in the configuration files included deepseek-v4.1-flash, glm-5.3, and grok-4.7, but a request identifier does not confirm the model that responded. The report acknowledges that some sessions may have actually used Anthropic's Claude models. Therefore, attribution of capabilities to specific models should maintain this uncertainty.

The value of this report lies not in revealing the result of a single attack, but in providing a testable blueprint for multi-model agent orchestration: how role assignment, mutual review loops, state persistence, and guardrail bypasses combine to form a cross-session autonomous execution workflow. For any readers building or evaluating agentic AI systems, this infrastructure-level design pattern offers more practical reference value than any claim regarding the capabilities of a single model.

Sources

  • zscaler.com↗
Continue researching →