🔑 Honey User Account
Decoy user identities in IAM/Entra ID/Cloud Identity.
What it is
A decoy human identity that exists in the directory and can actually be authenticated against, which is what separates it from a purely inert decoy. It works as a password-spray and credential-stuffing tripwire: an attacker spraying the tenant will reach it because it looks like a real user, and no real person will ever sign in as it. The F3 rating reflects that it answers an authentication attempt rather than just sitting there.
Implementation requirements
- AWS: IAM user with a console login profile, so sign-in attempts are recorded rather than rejected upstream
- Azure: Entra ID user with a full profile; deliberately leave it out of conditional-access exemptions so spray attempts actually reach it
- GCP: Cloud Identity user in the same organisational unit as real staff accounts
- The account must hold no permissions on production resources even if its password is guessed — the credential is bait, not access
- Monitoring: CloudTrail
ConsoleLogin, Entra ID sign-in logs for both success and failure, GCP login audit events. A failed spray attempt is as much signal as a successful one - OPSEC: populate display name, job title and group membership to match real accounts. An empty profile is a fingerprint
- Rollback: Disable, then delete the account. Remove it from groups and detection rules.
- Upkeep: Keep password age and last-logon in line with real accounts, and exclude it from automated clean-up that would delete it. Monthly proof-of-life: a failed sign-in from a test host.
Cost
Low. The directory object itself is free on AWS and GCP. On Entra ID a decoy user may consume a licence seat if you want it covered by the same sign-in and conditional-access policies as real users, which is usually worth doing — an account excluded from your policies behaves differently from a real one and is easier to fingerprint.
Indicative only. Cloud pricing and licensing change — check the provider's official pricing pages for current rates before you budget.
Technologies
ATT&CK coverage 27
| Technique | Tactic | Status | Confidence | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1114 Email Collection |
Collection | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
Reading a honey mailbox is recorded by MailItemsAccessed; no study shows honey mailboxes specifically. | ||||
| T1110 Brute Force |
Credential Access | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1110.003 Password Spraying |
Credential Access | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1621 Multi-Factor Authentication Request Generation |
Credential Access | theoretical | moderate | T4 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
The MFA push is generated by a sign-in attempt on the honey identity, which shares its event with T1078. | ||||
| T1556 Modify Authentication Process |
Defense Impairment | theoretical | moderate | T4 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Changing a decoy identity-provider configuration is a logged control-plane change. | ||||
| T1033 System Owner/User Discovery |
Discovery | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the decoy fires at a later step of the attack | ||||
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
whoami/quser output is not logged per object; the honey user fires when someone later tries to use it. | ||||
| T1069 Permission Groups Discovery |
Discovery | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1069.002 Domain Groups |
Discovery | confirmed | strong | T1 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1087 Account Discovery |
Discovery | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1087.002 Domain Account |
Discovery | confirmed | strong | T1 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1087.004 Cloud Account |
Discovery | theoretical | moderate | T1 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Listing users does not name the decoy; reading it does. | ||||
| T1531 Account Access Removal |
Impact | confirmed | strong | T4 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
| ||||
| T1078 Valid Accounts |
Initial Access | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (5 sources)
| ||||
| T1078.001 Default Accounts |
Initial Access | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No source covers decoy default accounts specifically. | ||||
| T1566 Phishing |
Initial Access | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
Backed by D003/D055; D051 is re-homed to the ATT&CK v20 AI techniques in step 5. | ||||
| T1566.001 Spearphishing Attachment |
Initial Access | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1566.002 Spearphishing Link |
Initial Access | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1566.004 Spearphishing Voice |
Initial Access | theoretical | weak | T1 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (1 source)
No source covers decoy phone numbers. | ||||
| T1534 Internal Spearphishing |
Lateral Movement | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Internal phishing that reaches a honey mailbox is recorded; no study shows it in practice. | ||||
| T1078 Valid Accounts |
Persistence | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (5 sources)
| ||||
| T1098 Account Manipulation |
Persistence | confirmed | strong | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
| ||||
| T1098.005 Device Registration |
Persistence | theoretical | weak | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (1 source)
No audit signal sourced for device registration on a decoy account. | ||||
| T1556 Modify Authentication Process |
Persistence | theoretical | moderate | T4 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Changing a decoy identity-provider configuration is a logged control-plane change. | ||||
| T1556.006 Multi-Factor Authentication |
Persistence | confirmed | strong | T4 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
| ||||
| T1671 Cloud Application Integration |
Persistence | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Direct only when the attacker consents to, or adds credentials to, an existing decoy application; registering a new app touches no decoy. | ||||
| T1078 Valid Accounts |
Privilege Escalation | confirmed | strong | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (5 sources)
| ||||
| T1098 Account Manipulation |
Privilege Escalation | confirmed | strong | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
| ||||
Evidence
- Decoy User Credential (D3-DUC) — MITRE D3FEND standard
- Honeywords: Making Password-Cracking Detectable — Juels, A.; Rivest, R., ACM CCS 2013 peer-reviewed
- Bernoulli Honeywords — Wang, K. C.; Reiter, M. K., NDSS 2024 peer-reviewed
- Deceptive defense: best practices for identity-based honeytokens in Microsoft Defender for Identity — Microsoft 2023 industry
- Microsoft Defender for Identity classic security alerts (honeytoken alerts 2014, 2427, 2428, 2429) — Microsoft industry
- MITRE Engage — adversary engagement matrix and ATT&CK mapping — MITRE 2022 standard
- MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v20.0 — MITRE 2026 standard
- Use MailItemsAccessed to investigate compromised accounts — Microsoft industry
- Message trace in the new EAC in Exchange Online — Microsoft industry
Research basis: MITRE D3FEND D3-DUC. Juels and Rivest, "Honeywords: Making Password-Cracking Detectable" (ACM CCS 2013) and Wang, "Bernoulli Honeywords" (NDSS 2024) provide the peer-reviewed basis for detectable decoy credentials. Microsoft's 2024 identity-honeytoken guidance and the Azure-Sentinel HoneyTokens solution cover the cloud-directory form.