T1003.001: LSASS Memory
Adversaries may attempt to access credential material stored in the process memory of the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS). After a user logs on, the system generates and stores a variety of credential materials in LSASS process memory. These credential materials can be harvested by an administrative user or SYSTEM and used to conduct Lateral Movement using Use Alternate Authentication Material.
As well as in-memory techniques, the LSASS process memory can be dumped from the target host and analyzed on a local system.
For example, on the target host use procdump:
* procdump -ma lsass.exe lsass_dump
Locally, mimikatz can be run using:
* sekurlsa::Minidump lsassdump.dmp * sekurlsa::logonPasswords
Built-in Windows tools such as `comsvcs.dll` can also be used:
* rundll32.exe C:\Windows\System32\comsvcs.dll MiniDump PID lsass.dmp full[1][2]
Similar to Image File Execution Options Injection, the silent process exit mechanism can be abused to create a memory dump of `lsass.exe` through Windows Error Reporting (`WerFault.exe`).[3]
Windows Security Support Provider (SSP) DLLs are loaded into LSASS process at system start. Once loaded into the LSA, SSP DLLs have access to encrypted and plaintext passwords that are stored in Windows, such as any logged-on user's Domain password or smart card PINs. The SSP configuration is stored in two Registry keys: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\Security Packages and HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\OSConfig\Security Packages. An adversary may modify these Registry keys to add new SSPs, which will be loaded the next time the system boots, or when the AddSecurityPackage Windows API function is called.[4]
The following SSPs can be used to access credentials:
* Msv: Interactive logons, batch logons, and service logons are done through the MSV authentication package. * Wdigest: The Digest Authentication protocol is designed for use with Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and Simple Authentication Security Layer (SASL) exchanges.[5] * Kerberos: Preferred for mutual client-server domain authentication in Windows 2000 and later. * CredSSP: Provides SSO and Network Level Authentication for Remote Desktop Services.[5]
Analyst context for executives and security teams
LSASS Memory is a Windows credential-access technique where an attacker with administrative or SYSTEM-level access attempts to read or dump credential material from the LSASS process. The business issue is not just credential theft on one host: harvested passwords, hashes, or authentication material can enable lateral movement and broader compromise of domain resources. For leaders, this technique is a useful test of whether endpoint hardening, privileged access controls, and SOC visibility are strong enough to contain a compromised Windows system before it becomes an enterprise-wide incident.
Executive priority
Prioritize this as a Windows identity-resilience and incident-containment control area. Ask whether privileged users routinely sign in to workstations and servers where LSASS exposure would create high-value credential risk, whether LSASS protection and credential-access prevention are consistently configured, and whether the SOC can prove it sees suspicious LSASS access and dump sequences. This technique also matters for audit and compliance evidence because it links endpoint control posture, privileged account management, password policy, and credential protection to measurable detection and response readiness.
Technical view
ATT&CK identifies this as a Windows sub-technique of OS Credential Dumping under Credential Access. The supplied relationship context includes DET0363, Detection of Credential Dumping from LSASS Memory via Access and Dump Sequence, and mitigations covering privileged process integrity, privileged account management, password policies, operating system configuration, endpoint behavior prevention, credential access protection, and user training. SOC and IR teams should validate visibility into processes attempting unusual access to lsass.exe, creation of LSASS dump files, use of built-in Windows components associated with memory dumps, Windows Error Reporting abuse paths, and registry changes to LSA Security Packages keys that could load Security Support Provider DLLs into LSASS. Treat findings in context: legitimate security tools and administrators may interact with LSASS, so detections should combine process lineage, access rights, dump creation, command context, file location, account privilege, and host role.
Likely telemetry
- Windows endpoint process creation and command-line telemetry
- Process access events involving lsass.exe, especially high-privilege access patterns
- File creation telemetry for memory dump artifacts and unusual dump locations
- Registry monitoring for HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\Security Packages and HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\OSConfig\Security Packages
- Windows Error Reporting and WerFault.exe-related activity where available
Detection direction
- Validate detections against the ATT&CK-related DET0363 concept: suspicious access to LSASS followed by dump or credential extraction-related activity.
- Tune detections to distinguish approved administrative or security tooling from unexpected tools, unusual parent-child process chains, nonstandard dump paths, and activity by accounts that should not access LSASS.
- Monitor both direct memory access and indirect dump mechanisms, including abuse of built-in Windows functionality and Windows Error Reporting paths described by ATT&CK.
- Add registry-based detection for changes to LSA Security Packages keys because malicious or unauthorized SSP configuration can expose credentials after load or reboot.
- Use host role and privilege context to prioritize alerts: LSASS access on domain controllers, administrative workstations, servers with privileged sessions, or systems used by IT staff should carry higher response urgency.
Mitigation priorities
- Start with privileged account management: reduce where administrative and high-value domain credentials are exposed, enforce least privilege, and limit routine privileged logons to broad Windows fleets.
- Harden privileged process integrity for LSASS where supported, including protected process mechanisms referenced in the related mitigation context.
- Apply credential access protection and operating system configuration baselines to reduce stored credential exposure and restrict abuse of credential storage mechanisms.
- Use endpoint behavior prevention controls to block or interrupt suspicious LSASS access and dump behavior where feasible.
- Strengthen password policies to reduce reuse and limit the value of harvested credentials, while recognizing that password policy alone does not prevent LSASS access.
Analyst notes and limits
The relationship set shows broad adversary and campaign use, including espionage, disruptive, and cyber-physical contexts such as electric power and safety-instrumented system campaigns. That makes LSASS Memory a high-value defensive validation point, but the supplied data should not be read as evidence of current exploitation in any specific environment. The technique is especially relevant where Windows identity, privileged access, and operational continuity intersect.
MITRE does not provide an official detection text for this object in the supplied fields. The take is therefore based on the official description, external references, and relationships, especially DET0363 and the listed mitigations. Local host configuration, EDR capabilities, logging depth, administrative practices, and approved security tools are required to determine real detection coverage and false-positive handling.
LSASS Memory
Adversaries may attempt to access credential material stored in the process memory of the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS). After a user logs on, the system generates and stores a variety of credential materials in LSASS process memory. These credential materials can be harvested by an administrative user or SYSTEM and used to conduct Lateral Movement using Use Alternate Authentication Material.
As well as in-memory techniques, the LSASS process memory can be dumped from the target host and analyzed on a local system.
For example, on the target host use procdump:
* procdump -ma lsass.exe lsass_dump
Locally, mimikatz can be run using:
* sekurlsa::Minidump lsassdump.dmp * sekurlsa::logonPasswords
Built-in Windows tools such as `comsvcs.dll` can also be used:
* rundll32.exe C:\Windows\System32\comsvcs.dll MiniDump PID lsass.dmp full[1][2]
Similar to Image File Execution Options Injection, the silent process exit mechanism can be abused to create a memory dump of `lsass.exe` through Windows Error Reporting (`WerFault.exe`).[3]
Windows Security Support Provider (SSP) DLLs are loaded into LSASS process at system start. Once loaded into the LSA, SSP DLLs have access to encrypted and plaintext passwords that are stored in Windows, such as any logged-on user's Domain password or smart card PINs. The SSP configuration is stored in two Registry keys: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\Security Packages and HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\OSConfig\Security Packages. An adversary may modify these Registry keys to add new SSPs, which will be loaded the next time the system boots, or when the AddSecurityPackage Windows API function is called.[4]
The following SSPs can be used to access credentials:
* Msv: Interactive logons, batch logons, and service logons are done through the MSV authentication package. * Wdigest: The Digest Authentication protocol is designed for use with Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and Simple Authentication Security Layer (SASL) exchanges.[5] * Kerberos: Preferred for mutual client-server domain authentication in Windows 2000 and later. * CredSSP: Provides SSO and Network Level Authentication for Remote Desktop Services.[5]
How security teams should use this page
Treat this object as behavior context, not an attribution claim. Validate the related groups, software, data sources, and mitigations against official ATT&CK relationships and your own telemetry before making control-coverage decisions.
Groups, software, and campaigns
G0119: Indrik Spider
Indrik Spider is a Russia-based cybercriminal group that has been active since at least 2014. Indrik Spider initially started with the Dridex banking Trojan, and then by 2017 they began running ransomware operations using BitPaymer, WastedLocker, and Hades ransomware. Following U.S. sanctions and an indictment in 2019, Indrik Spider changed their tactics and diversified their toolset.[1][2][3]
G0049: OilRig
OilRig is a suspected Iranian threat group that has targeted Middle Eastern and international victims since at least 2014. The group has targeted a variety of sectors, including financial, government, energy, chemical, and telecommunications. It appears the group carries out supply chain attacks, leveraging the trust relationship between organizations to attack their primary targets. The group works on behalf of the Iranian government based on infrastructure details that contain references to Iran, use of Iranian infrastructure, and targeting that aligns with nation-state interests.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
G0003: Cleaver
G0077: Leafminer
G0027: Threat Group-3390
Threat Group-3390 is a Chinese threat group that has extensively used strategic Web compromises to target victims.[1] The group has been active since at least 2010 and has targeted organizations in the aerospace, government, defense, technology, energy, manufacturing and gambling/betting sectors.[2][3][4]
G0006: APT1
G0065: Leviathan
Leviathan is a Chinese state-sponsored cyber espionage group that has been attributed to the Ministry of State Security's (MSS) Hainan State Security Department and an affiliated front company.[1] Active since at least 2009, Leviathan has targeted the following sectors: academia, aerospace/aviation, biomedical, defense industrial base, government, healthcare, manufacturing, maritime, and transportation across the US, Canada, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.[1][2][3][4]
G0061: FIN8
FIN8 is a financially motivated threat group that has been active since at least January 2016, and known for targeting organizations in the hospitality, retail, entertainment, insurance, technology, chemical, and financial sectors. In June 2021, security researchers detected FIN8 switching from targeting point-of-sale (POS) devices to distributing a number of ransomware variants.[1][2][3][4]
G0125: HAFNIUM
HAFNIUM is a likely state-sponsored cyber espionage group operating out of China that has been active since at least January 2021. HAFNIUM primarily targets entities in the US across a number of industry sectors, including infectious disease researchers, law firms, higher education institutions, defense contractors, policy think tanks, and NGOs. HAFNIUM has targeted remote management tools and cloud software for intial access and has demonstrated an ability to quickly operationalize exploits for identified vulnerabilities in edge devices.[1][2][3]
G0108: Blue Mockingbird
Blue Mockingbird is a cluster of observed activity involving Monero cryptocurrency-mining payloads in dynamic-link library (DLL) form on Windows systems. The earliest observed Blue Mockingbird tools were created in December 2019.[1]
G1017: Volt Typhoon
Volt Typhoon is a People's Republic of China (PRC) state-sponsored actor that has been active since at least 2021, primarily targeting critical infrastructure organizations in the US and its territories including Guam. Volt Typhoon's targeting and pattern of behavior have been assessed as pre-positioning to enable lateral movement to operational technology (OT) assets for potential destructive or disruptive attacks. Volt Typhoon has emphasized stealth in operations using web shells, living-off-the-land (LOTL) binaries, hands on keyboard activities, and stolen credentials.[1][2][3][4]. The group has leveraged compromised SOHO routers to proxy command and control traffic and obscure its infrastructure, activity associated with the KV botnet.[5].
Reporting indicates a separate initial access cluster, SYLVANITE, has been observed exploiting internet-facing edge devices and transferring access to Volt Typhoon, also tracked as VOLTZITE, for follow-on operations. [6]
G0107: Whitefly
Whitefly is a cyber espionage group that has been operating since at least 2017. The group has targeted organizations based mostly in Singapore across a wide variety of sectors, and is primarily interested in stealing large amounts of sensitive information. The group has been linked to an attack against Singapore’s largest public health organization, SingHealth.[1]
S0692: SILENTTRINITY
SILENTTRINITY is an open source remote administration and post-exploitation framework primarily written in Python that includes stagers written in Powershell, C, and Boo. SILENTTRINITY was used in a 2019 campaign against Croatian government agencies by unidentified cyber actors.[1][2]
S0349: LaZagne
S0121: Lslsass
S0681: Lizar
S0606: Bad Rabbit
Bad Rabbit is a self-propagating ransomware that affected the Ukrainian transportation sector in 2017. Bad Rabbit has also targeted organizations and consumers in Russia. [1][2][3]
S0046: CozyCar
S0357: Impacket
S0368: NotPetya
NotPetya is malware that was used by Sandworm Team in a worldwide attack starting on June 27, 2017. While NotPetya appears as a form of ransomware, its main purpose was to destroy data and disk structures on compromised systems; the attackers never intended to make the encrypted data recoverable. As such, NotPetya may be more appropriately thought of as a form of wiper malware. NotPetya contains worm-like features to spread itself across a computer network using the SMBv1 exploits EternalBlue and EternalRomance.[1][2][3][4]
S0192: Pupy
Pupy is an open source, cross-platform (Windows, Linux, OSX, Android) remote administration and post-exploitation tool. [1] It is written in Python and can be generated as a payload in several different ways (Windows exe, Python file, PowerShell oneliner/file, Linux elf, APK, Rubber Ducky, etc.). [1] Pupy is publicly available on GitHub. [1]
S0154: Cobalt Strike
Cobalt Strike is a commercial, full-featured, remote access tool that bills itself as “adversary simulation software designed to execute targeted attacks and emulate the post-exploitation actions of advanced threat actors”. Cobalt Strike’s interactive post-exploit capabilities cover the full range of ATT&CK tactics, all executed within a single, integrated system.[1]
In addition to its own capabilities, Cobalt Strike leverages the capabilities of other well-known tools such as Metasploit and Mimikatz.[1]
S0378: PoshC2
PoshC2 is an open source remote administration and post-exploitation framework that is publicly available on GitHub. The server-side components of the tool are primarily written in Python, while the implants are written in PowerShell. Although PoshC2 is primarily focused on Windows implantation, it does contain a basic Python dropper for Linux/macOS.[1]
S0005: Windows Credential Editor
Windows Credential Editor is a password dumping tool. [1]
C0014: Operation Wocao
Operation Wocao was a cyber espionage campaign that targeted organizations around the world, including in Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The suspected China-based actors compromised government organizations and managed service providers, as well as aviation, construction, energy, finance, health care, insurance, offshore engineering, software development, and transportation companies.[1]
Security researchers assessed the Operation Wocao actors used similar TTPs and tools as APT20, suggesting a possible overlap. Operation Wocao was named after an observed command line entry by one of the threat actors, possibly out of frustration from losing webshell access.[1]
C0029: Cutting Edge
Cutting Edge was a campaign conducted by suspected China-nexus espionage actors, variously identified as UNC5221/UTA0178 and UNC5325, that began as early as December 2023 with the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure (previously Pulse Secure) VPN appliances. Cutting Edge targeted the U.S. defense industrial base and multiple sectors globally including telecommunications, financial, aerospace, and technology. Cutting Edge featured the use of defense evasion and living-off-the-land (LoTL) techniques along with the deployment of web shells and other custom malware.[1][2][3][4][5]
C0058: SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation
The SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation campaign was conducted in July 2025 and encompassed the first waves of exploitation against incompletely patched spoofing (CVE-2025-49706) and remote code execution (CVE-2025-49704) vulnerabilities affecting on-premises Microsoft SharePoint servers. Later patched and updated as CVE-2025-53770 and CVE-2025-53771, the ToolShell vulnerabilities were widely exploited including by China-based ransomware actor Storm-2603 and espionage actors Threat Group-3390 and ZIRCONIUM. SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation targeted multiple regions and industries including finance, education, energy, and healthcare across Asia, Europe, and the United States.[1][2][3][4][5]
C0061: Operation Digital Eye
Operation Digital Eye was conducted in June and July of 2024 by suspected People's Republic of China (PRC)-nexus threat actors targeting business-to-business IT service providers in Southern Europe. Operation Digital Eye activity included the use of Visual Studio Code tunnels for command and control (C2) and custom lateral movement capabilities. Overlaps in tooling between Digital Eye and previous China-nexus campaigns, Operation Soft Cell and Operation Tainted Love, indicate the potential use of shared vendors or digital quartermasters.[1]
C0030: Triton Safety Instrumented System Attack
Triton Safety Instrumented System Attack was a campaign employed by TEMP.Veles which leveraged the Triton malware framework against a petrochemical organization.[1] The malware and techniques used within this campaign targeted specific Triconex Safety Controllers within the environment.[2] The incident was eventually discovered due to a safety trip that occurred as a result of an issue in the malware.[3]
C0038: HomeLand Justice
HomeLand Justice was a disruptive cyber campaign conducted by Iranian state-affiliated actors against Albanian government networks in July and September 2022. The activity combined ransomware, wiper malware, and data leak operations. Initial access for HomeLand Justice was established as early as May 2021, and threat actors moved laterally, exfiltrated sensitive information, and maintained persistence for approximately 14 months prior to the destructive phase of the operation. Responsibility was claimed by the "HomeLand Justice" front, which framed the campaign as retaliation against the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group with a presence in Albania. Multiple Iran-nexus groups are assessed to have participated in the campaign, including HEXANE who probed victim infrastructure.[1][2][3] A second wave of attacks was launched in September 2022 using similar tactics following public attribution of the previous activity to Iran and the severing of diplomatic ties between Iran and Albania.[3]
C0063: 2025 Poland Wiper Attacks
2025 Poland Wiper Attacks is a Russian state-sponsored campaign that conducted destructive cyberattacks against Polish energy infrastructure in December 2025. Targets included more than 30 wind and photovoltaic farms, a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, and a manufacturing sector company. The attacks on the distributed energy resources (DER) disrupted communications between affected facilities and the distribution system operator, but did not impact electricity generation or heat supply. Across the campaign, threat actors deployed two previously undocumented wiper tools, DynoWiper, a Windows-based wiper and LazyWiper, a PowerShell wiper, distributed via malicious Group Policy Objects. At the CHP plant, threat actors had maintained access since at least March 2025, using that foothold to obtain credentials and move laterally before attempting wiper deployment. Some reporting has assessed the activity to be consistent with Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) threat activity group Dragonfly, also tracked as STATIC TUNDRA, while other reporting attributes the destructive wiper activities to the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) threat activity group ELECTRUM, also tracked as Sandworm Team.[1][2][3][4]
C0025: 2016 Ukraine Electric Power Attack
2016 Ukraine Electric Power Attack was a Sandworm Team campaign during which they used Industroyer malware to target and disrupt distribution substations within the Ukrainian power grid. This campaign was the second major public attack conducted against Ukraine by Sandworm Team.[1][2]
All related ATT&CK context
Mitigation direction
Object version and sync metadata
The fields below describe the current mirrored snapshot. When Glexia retains multiple ATT&CK source imports, you can open the table to compare the same object across releases (hashes and MITRE timestamps). For MITRE’s own release notes and roadmap, see ATT&CK resources — Updates .
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.1 | 1.5 | Current bundle | ea55f5d3fb2b… |
Mirrored ATT&CK source object
The raw object is retained through the mirrored ATT&CK source bundle and object hash. The raw endpoint returns the exact object from the mirrored bundle when available.
External references and citations
MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.
-
[1]
Volexity Exchange Marauder March 2021
Gruzweig, J. et al. (2021, March 2). Operation Exchange Marauder: Active Exploitation of Multiple Zero-Day Microsoft Exchange Vulnerabilities. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
Open source URL -
[2]
Symantec Attacks Against Government Sector
Symantec. (2021, June 10). Attacks Against the Government Sector. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
Open source URL -
[3]
Deep Instinct LSASS
Gilboa, A. (2021, February 16). LSASS Memory Dumps are Stealthier than Ever Before - Part 2. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Open source URL -
[4]
Graeber 2014
Graeber, M. (2014, October). Analysis of Malicious Security Support Provider DLLs. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
Open source URL -
[5]
TechNet Blogs Credential Protection
Wilson, B. (2016, April 18). The Importance of KB2871997 and KB2928120 for Credential Protection. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
Open source URL -
[6]
Medium Detecting Attempts to Steal Passwords from Memory
French, D. (2018, October 2). Detecting Attempts to Steal Passwords from Memory. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
Open source URL -
[7]
Powersploit
PowerSploit. (n.d.). Retrieved December 4, 2014.
Open source URL -
[8]
mitre-attack T1003.001Open source URL
Source: MITRE ATT&CK®. © 2026 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Glexia is not affiliated with or endorsed by MITRE.