⚙️ Deceptive Process Target
Hidden processes that alert on injection attempts.
What it is
A decoy process named like a credential-bearing program, such as a password manager or backup agent, holding only fake data. Attackers open and inject into processes like these to steal secrets from memory. Nothing legitimate touches the decoy process, so any handle opened to it or code injected into it is recorded by endpoint telemetry.
Implementation requirements
- Windows: run a decoy process named like a credential-bearing target (a password manager, a browser, a backup agent) under a decoy account. It does nothing and holds only fake data
- Monitoring: Sysmon event 10 (ProcessAccess) and event 8 (CreateRemoteThread) with the decoy as the target image. Nothing legitimate opens or injects into it, so any hit is the signal. An EDR's process-access telemetry gives the same signal
- Linux: an auditd rule on
ptraceandprocess_vm_readvcalls (a syscall rule filtered to the decoy's process), or an eBPF sensor rule (Falco, Tetragon) for access to the decoy process - Exclude your own security tools by image path and signer, so EDR scans of the decoy do not alert
- Safety: the decoy holds no real secrets; any credential in its memory is a honeytoken (D006, D043). OPSEC: binary name, path, signer and parent process like the real software
- Rollback: Stop and remove the decoy process and its scheduled start. Remove its detection rule exclusions.
- Upkeep: Update its binary name and version with the software it imitates. Monthly proof-of-life process-access test.
Technologies
ATT&CK coverage 12
| Technique | Tactic | Status | Confidence | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1007 System Service Discovery |
Discovery | theoretical | weak | T2 |
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Listing services touches no decoy; querying a decoy service's configuration is not audited by default. | ||||
| T1057 Process Discovery |
Discovery | theoretical | weak | T2 |
↳ Evidence (3 sources)
Listing processes touches no decoy. | ||||
| ↳ Decoy process appears in ps/tasklist — generic backing. | ||||
| T1518 Software Discovery |
Discovery | theoretical | weak | T2 |
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
Listing installed software touches no decoy. | ||||
| T1055 Process Injection |
Privilege Escalation | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware selecting a decoy process; the access to it is logged if it does. | ||||
| T1055.001 Dynamic-link Library Injection |
Privilege Escalation | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware choosing a decoy process. | ||||
| T1055.002 Portable Executable Injection |
Privilege Escalation | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware choosing a decoy process. | ||||
| T1055.012 Process Hollowing |
Privilege Escalation | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware choosing a decoy process. | ||||
| T1055 Process Injection |
Stealth | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware selecting a decoy process; the access to it is logged if it does. | ||||
| T1055.001 Dynamic-link Library Injection |
Stealth | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware choosing a decoy process. | ||||
| T1055.002 Portable Executable Injection |
Stealth | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware choosing a decoy process. | ||||
| T1055.012 Process Hollowing |
Stealth | theoretical | moderate | T3 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
No study shows malware choosing a decoy process. | ||||
| T1574 Hijack Execution Flow |
Stealth | theoretical | moderate | T2 |
| ↳ Detection point: the attack step itself touches the decoy | ||||
↳ Evidence (2 sources)
A deliberately 'vulnerable' decoy path; the attacker's write to it is logged. | ||||
Evidence
- Decoy Object (D3-DO) — MITRE D3FEND standard
- MITRE Engage — adversary engagement matrix and ATT&CK mapping — MITRE 2022 standard
- MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v20.0 — MITRE 2026 standard
- Sysmon (System Monitor) — event reference — Microsoft Sysinternals industry