Security1 distinct publisher2 min readPublished
A red teamer has published a proof of concept that fingerprints the victim's operating system and then asks them to upload Claude Code's plaintext token file, a theft that slips past EDR's execution monitoring and outlives a password reset because the stolen refresh token keeps working after the reset.
The Watch · Security desk

Compiled by The WatchSomething wrong?How this is made
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
product
A 2x LLM bill is not a bug report: token spend is an observability problem1 distinct publisher
build
Thirty minutes a day, and none of it from letting the agent write Swift1 distinct publisher
build
255 tools, 71,929 tokens: the standing charge hidden in your MCP config1 distinct publisher
leadership
Anthropic's own telemetry: 93% of permission prompts approved. Budget for blast radius, not reviewers1 distinct publisher
Classic ClickFix leaves three usable artifacts, by the author's own account: the Run dialog writing to the RunMRU registry key, a PowerShell process parented by explorer.exe, and the fetch-and-execute pattern of iwr, irm or iex [9]. An upload-only command keeps two of them and removes the third [16]. The paste still lands in the Run dialog and the script host still has the wrong parent, but nothing is downloaded and no new binary runs. The command reads a file the user is entitled to read and posts it to a host the user is allowed to reach. The author is direct about where that leaves the stack: EDR is not designed to detect or block file uploads, and blocking specific file content going to an undesired site is a DLP job [11].
What leaves the machine is worth more than the command that sent it. On Windows and Linux, ~/.claude/.credentials.json holds Claude Code's OAuth access and refresh tokens in plaintext [3]. The access token buys inference on the victim's account, LLM-jacking in the author's phrasing, and the refresh token is the persistence layer, surviving a password reset [4]. A password reset, the first containment step most responders reach for, leaves that refresh token intact.
macOS moves the target rather than removing it. Keychain covers Claude Code credentials when authentication came through CLI login or the desktop app [6], so the fingerprinting page [5] points somewhere else instead: ~/.claude/projects/ retains session transcripts including prompts, file contents and command output [7]. Separately, MCP server credentials sit in plaintext env blocks across .claude.json and project-level .mcp.json [8], which are other vendors' secrets on a developer's disk. Across the writeup that is three named plaintext locations reachable by a single file read [15].
Scope, plainly stated: this is a red team proof of concept, with code and a demo page published, and the writeup reports no in-the-wild use [1][12][17]. There is no remote exploit against Claude Code here. It requires a human to paste a line, which is the same precondition ClickFix already satisfies routinely enough for the author to call it a fruitful source of initial access [14]. Two existing mitigations partially apply by accident: some organisations disabled the Run dialog outright, and macOS Tahoe warns when a pasted command looks suspicious [10].
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
A red team researcher publishing at catchingphish.com released Click-Exfil, described as an iteration on ClickFix and FileFix, with the stated framing that the concepts are for red team purposes only.
The technique's premise: instead of convincing users to download and execute malicious scripts, ask the user to run a command, and specifically to exfiltrate files.
On Linux and Windows, ~/.claude/.credentials.json holds Claude Code's OAuth access and refresh tokens in plaintext.
The lure webpage performs browser fingerprinting to deliver the correct instructions for the victim's operating system.
On macOS, Claude Code credentials are Keychain-protected when authenticated via CLI login (Claude Code-credentials) or the desktop app (Claude Safe Storage).
On macOS the larger plaintext exposure is ~/.claude/projects/, which retains session transcripts including prompts, file contents and command output.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 30, 2026
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Checkable code, unchecked token behaviour
One voice carries all of it: the researcher who built the technique, publishing on his own site. That is not disqualifying, because the repository and demo page are public and the fingerprint-then-paste mechanics can be run by anyone who wants to see them fail or work. The file-path claims are the easiest to falsify and the most likely to hold. The exception is the piece the story's framing leans hardest on — nobody has shown a stolen refresh token still working after the victim resets a password, and the product's makers are absent from the account entirely.
Public proof of concept, no sightings
The only thing that has actually happened is a publication — code on GitHub, a demo page, a dated writeup. No victims, no campaigns, no telemetry, and to the author's credit no claim of any. ClickFix's own trajectory suggests the distance between a neat paste primitive and its appearance in real intrusions can close fast, but nothing in this reporting says it has closed here.
Takeover framing outruns the tested part
For a technique with a brand name, this is unusually self-critical: the author volunteers his own forensic artifacts, concedes that macOS Keychain closes the credential-file route, and keeps the red-team frame. The stretch is the step from 'a plaintext token file can be uploaded' to 'account takeover that outlives a password reset' — one untested sentence carrying the weight of the conclusion. Modestly overstated, not inflated: the mechanics look real, the consequence is asserted.
Personal byline, offensive publication
A red teamer shipping a working technique under his own name and handle gets precisely what the piece asks for: attention. The red-team-purposes-only banner and the awareness-must-follow rationale are the customary framing, and the hosted demo means the reputational return arrives whether defenders act or not. The detail worth flagging is not motive but process — no vendor voice, no disclosure timeline, no sign the affected product's owners heard about this before the demo went up.
Mechanics credible, consequences unconfirmed
Confidence rests where the code does. The technique exists, the paths exist, the detection asymmetry between uploads and executions is a fair reading of what the tools do. Beyond that the ground thins quickly: a single author, no corroboration, no measured outcome, and a persistence claim that would change the severity of the whole thing if it turned out to be wrong.