Live Active security incident? Get immediate response
MITRE ATT&CK® Technique

T1036: Masquerading

Adversaries may attempt to manipulate features of their artifacts to make them appear legitimate or benign to users and/or security tools. Masquerading occurs when the name or location of an object, legitimate or malicious, is manipulated or abused for the sake of evading defenses and observation. This may include manipulating file metadata, tricking users into misidentifying the file type, and giving legitimate task or service names.

Renaming abusable system utilities to evade security monitoring is also a form of Masquerading.[1]

EnterpriseT1036TechniqueObject v2.0 Modified
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence High

Masquerading matters because it turns trust into a blind spot: files, services, utilities, accounts, process names, or browser attributes can be made to look normal enough that users, analysts, and security tools overlook them. For leaders, the risk is not just malware hiding under a fake name; it is delayed detection and slower incident response across Windows, macOS, Linux, ESXi, and container environments when teams rely too heavily on names, paths, icons, or superficial metadata.

Executive priority

Treat this as a control-validation issue for operational resilience and audit confidence. Ask whether security teams can prove that endpoint, server, container, and identity monitoring checks the relationship between what an object claims to be and what it actually is. Priority should go to environments where trusted utilities, scheduled tasks, services, account names, or common directories are heavily used for administration, because false trust in familiar names can weaken SOC triage and incident containment decisions.

Technical view

ATT&CK provides no official detection text for T1036, but the related detection strategy DET0127 points defenders toward behavioral detection based on metadata and execution discrepancies. SOC and detection engineering teams should validate detections across the supported platforms for mismatches such as suspicious file metadata, invalid or misleading code signatures, renamed legitimate utilities, task or service names that imitate expected ones, resource names or locations that approximate trusted assets, double extensions, altered file type indicators, broken process-tree context, masqueraded account names, overwritten Linux process arguments, and spoofed browser/system attributes where relevant.

Likely telemetry

  • Endpoint process creation events with image path, command line, parent process, process name, and hashes
  • File creation, rename, metadata, extension, header or file-type inspection, and directory path telemetry
  • Code-signing and signature-validation results where available
  • Scheduled task, service, and systemd unit creation or modification records
  • Account creation, rename, and privilege or lifecycle audit events for identity, Linux, container, and identity provider contexts

Detection direction

  • Validate that detections do not depend only on process or file names; compare names, paths, signatures, file headers, extensions, parent-child relationships, and execution behavior.
  • Tune for administrative false positives, especially renamed utilities, service naming conventions, systemd usage, and Unix process-tree changes that may also occur during legitimate operations.
  • Use the sub-technique context to build test cases across operating systems: invalid signatures, right-to-left override characters, double extensions, masqueraded file types, renamed utilities, task/service impersonation, account-name impersonation, and Linux argument overwrites.
  • Confirm platform coverage explicitly: Windows, macOS, Linux, ESXi, and Containers are listed for the parent technique, but individual sub-techniques vary by platform.
  • Correlate suspicious masquerading with account management, execution prevention, audit, antimalware, and endpoint behavior-prevention signals rather than treating a single misleading name as conclusive.

Mitigation priorities

  • Start with auditing: ensure logging captures file, process, service/task, account, and metadata details needed to distinguish legitimate objects from lookalikes.
  • Apply least privilege through user account management and restricted file and directory permissions to reduce opportunities to create or place misleading artifacts in trusted locations.
  • Use execution prevention and code-signing controls where appropriate so that trusted names alone are not enough for code to run.
  • Maintain antivirus/antimalware and endpoint behavior-prevention capabilities that evaluate behavior and integrity, not only filenames or paths.
  • Use user training for cases where masquerading targets human interpretation, such as misleading file names, extensions, icons, or apparent document types.
Analyst notes and limits

The strongest defensive value comes from proving that local telemetry can expose discrepancies between claimed identity and actual behavior. The many sub-techniques show that masquerading is not one analytic; it is a family of lookalike behaviors spanning files, utilities, services, accounts, process metadata, and browser attributes. Campaign relationships show ATT&CK-documented use in multiple campaigns, but this take does not infer current activity or customer exposure.

The official ATT&CK object does not provide detection guidance for the parent technique, so detection recommendations are derived from the supplied description, sub-technique relationships, DET0127, supported platforms, and listed mitigations. Local operating procedures, administrative naming standards, and available logging will determine what is detectable and what is noise.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Masquerading

Adversaries may attempt to manipulate features of their artifacts to make them appear legitimate or benign to users and/or security tools. Masquerading occurs when the name or location of an object, legitimate or malicious, is manipulated or abused for the sake of evading defenses and observation. This may include manipulating file metadata, tricking users into misidentifying the file type, and giving legitimate task or service names.

Renaming abusable system utilities to evade security monitoring is also a form of Masquerading.[1]

View the same entry on attack.mitre.org (MITRE-hosted reference; in-page links above use the Glexia ATT&CK library.)

Glexia analysis

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.

ATT&CK relationship table

Related techniques

This mirrors the MITRE pattern of making group, software, campaign, and technique relationships scannable. Relationship notes come from mirrored ATT&CK relationship text when available.

12 rows
Domain ID Name Relationship / procedure
Enterprise T1036.008 Masquerade File Type Sub-technique Masquerade File Type subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.003 Rename Legitimate Utilities Sub-technique Rename Legitimate Utilities subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.006 Space after Filename Sub-technique Space after Filename subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.004 Masquerade Task or Service Sub-technique Masquerade Task or Service subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.002 Right-to-Left Override Sub-technique Right-to-Left Override subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.005 Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location Sub-technique Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.011 Overwrite Process Arguments Sub-technique Overwrite Process Arguments subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.007 Double File Extension Sub-technique Double File Extension subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.010 Masquerade Account Name Sub-technique Masquerade Account Name subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Sub-technique Invalid Code Signature subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.012 Browser Fingerprint Sub-technique Browser Fingerprint subtechnique of this object.
Enterprise T1036.009 Break Process Trees Sub-technique Break Process Trees subtechnique of this object.
Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

Group Enterprise

G0045: menuPass

menuPass is a threat group that has been active since at least 2006. Individual members of menuPass are known to have acted in association with the Chinese Ministry of State Security's (MSS) Tianjin State Security Bureau and worked for the Huaying Haitai Science and Technology Development Company.[1][2]

menuPass has targeted healthcare, defense, aerospace, finance, maritime, biotechnology, energy, and government sectors globally, with an emphasis on Japanese organizations. In 2016 and 2017, the group is known to have targeted managed IT service providers (MSPs), manufacturing and mining companies, and a university.[3][4][5][6][7][1][2]

Group Enterprise

G0050: APT32

APT32 is a suspected Vietnam-based threat group that has been active since at least 2014. The group has targeted multiple private sector industries as well as foreign governments, dissidents, and journalists with a strong focus on Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Laos, and Cambodia. They have extensively used strategic web compromises to compromise victims.[1][2][3]

Group Enterprise

G0060: BRONZE BUTLER

BRONZE BUTLER is a cyber espionage group with likely Chinese origins that has been active since at least 2008. The group primarily targets Japanese organizations, particularly those in government, biotechnology, electronics manufacturing, and industrial chemistry.[1][2][3]

Group Enterprise

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]

Group Enterprise

G1003: Ember Bear

Ember Bear is a Russian state-sponsored cyber espionage group that has been active since at least 2020, linked to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) 161st Specialist Training Center (Unit 29155).[1] Ember Bear has primarily focused operations against Ukrainian government and telecommunication entities, but has also operated against critical infrastructure entities in Europe and the Americas.[2] Ember Bear conducted the WhisperGate destructive wiper attacks against Ukraine in early 2022.[3][4][1] There is some confusion as to whether Ember Bear overlaps with another Russian-linked entity referred to as Saint Bear. At present available evidence strongly suggests these are distinct activities with different behavioral profiles.[2][5]

Group Enterprise

G0034: Sandworm Team

Sandworm Team is a destructive threat group that has been attributed to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455.[1][2] This group has been active since at least 2009.[3][4][5][6]

In October 2020, the US indicted six GRU Unit 74455 officers associated with Sandworm Team for the following cyber operations: the 2015 and 2016 attacks against Ukrainian electrical companies and government organizations, the 2017 worldwide NotPetya attack, targeting of the 2017 French presidential campaign, the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack against the Winter Olympic Games, the 2018 operation against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and attacks against the country of Georgia in 2018 and 2019.[1][2] Some of these were conducted with the assistance of GRU Unit 26165, which is also referred to as APT28.[7]

Group Enterprise

G0133: Nomadic Octopus

Nomadic Octopus is a Russian-speaking cyber espionage threat group that has primarily targeted Central Asia, including local governments, diplomatic missions, and individuals, since at least 2014. Nomadic Octopus has been observed conducting campaigns involving Android and Windows malware, mainly using the Delphi programming language, and building custom variants.[1][2][3]

Group Enterprise

G1030: Agrius

Agrius is an Iranian threat actor active since 2020 notable for a series of ransomware and wiper operations in the Middle East, with an emphasis on Israeli targets.[1][2] Public reporting has linked Agrius to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).[3]

Group Enterprise

G1007: Aoqin Dragon

Aoqin Dragon is a suspected Chinese cyber espionage threat group that has been active since at least 2013. Aoqin Dragon has primarily targeted government, education, and telecommunication organizations in Australia, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vietnam. Security researchers noted a potential association between Aoqin Dragon and UNC94, based on malware, infrastructure, and targets.[1]

Group Enterprise

G0139: TeamTNT

TeamTNT is a threat group that has primarily targeted cloud and containerized environments. The group as been active since at least October 2019 and has mainly focused its efforts on leveraging cloud and container resources to deploy cryptocurrency miners in victim environments.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Malware Enterprise

S0453: Pony

Pony is a credential stealing malware, though has also been used among adversaries for its downloader capabilities. The source code for Pony Loader 1.0 and 2.0 were leaked online, leading to their use by various threat actors.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0658: XCSSET

XCSSET is a modular macOS malware family delivered through infected Xcode projects and executed when the project is compiled. Active since August 2020, it has been observed installing backdoors, spoofed browsers, collecting data, and encrypting user files. It is composed of SHC-compiled shell scripts and run-only AppleScripts, often hiding in apps that mimic system tools (such as Xcode, Mail, or Notes) or use familiar icons (like Launchpad) to avoid detection.[1][2][3]

macOS
Malware Enterprise

S1240: RedLine Stealer

RedLine Stealer is an information-stealer malware variant first identified in 2020.[1][2][3] RedLine Stealer is a Malware as a Service (MaaS) and was reportedly sold as either a one-time purchase or a monthly subscription service.[1][4] Information obtained from RedLine Stealer has been known to be sold on the deep and dark web to Initial Access Brokers (IABs), who use or resell the stolen credentials for further intrusions.[5][4]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S9010: GlassWorm

GlassWorm is a worm that propagated through supply chain attacks by compromising repository credentials from victim environments and having malicious payloads added to those compromised accounts for distribution to victims across the various development ecosystems.[1][2][3] GlassWorm has numerous variants, including Rust binaries, encrypted JavaScript and a variant leveraging invisible Unicode characters that made reverse engineering difficult.[4][1][5] GlassWorm has employed a unique command and control (C2) methodology using Solana blockchain.[6][1] GlassWorm was first reported in October 2025.[6][1][3]

macOSWindows
Malware Enterprise

S0661: FoggyWeb

FoggyWeb is a passive and highly-targeted backdoor capable of remotely exfiltrating sensitive information from a compromised Active Directory Federated Services (AD FS) server. It has been used by APT29 since at least early April 2021.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0696: Flagpro

Flagpro is a Windows-based, first-stage downloader that has been used by BlackTech since at least October 2020. It has primarily been used against defense, media, and communications companies in Japan.[1]

Windows
Campaign Enterprise

C0046: ArcaneDoor

ArcaneDoor is a campaign targeting networking devices from Cisco and other vendors between July 2023 and April 2024, primarily focused on government and critical infrastructure networks. ArcaneDoor is associated with the deployment of the custom backdoors Line Runner and Line Dancer. ArcaneDoor is attributed to a group referred to as UAT4356 or STORM-1849, and is assessed to be a state-sponsored campaign.[1][2]

Campaign Enterprise

C0059: Salesforce Data Exfiltration

The Salesforce Data Exfiltration campaign began in October 2024 with financially-motivated threat actor UNC6040 using Spearphishing Voice (vishing) to compromise corporate Salesforce instances for large-scale data theft and extortion. Following the initial data theft, victim organizations received extortion demands from a separate threat actor, UNC6240, who claimed to be the “ShinyHunters” group. The observed infrastructure and TTPs used during the Salesforce Data Exfiltration campaign overlap with those used by threat groups with suspected ties to the broader collective known as "The Com.” These overlaps could plausibly be the result of associated actors operating within the same communities and are not necessarily an indication of a direct operational relationship.[1][2]

Campaign Enterprise

C0035: KV Botnet Activity

KV Botnet Activity consisted of exploitation of primarily “end-of-life” small office-home office (SOHO) equipment from manufacturers such as Cisco, NETGEAR, and DrayTek. KV Botnet Activity was used by Volt Typhoon to obfuscate connectivity to victims in multiple critical infrastructure segments, including energy and telecommunication companies and entities based on the US territory of Guam. While the KV Botnet is the most prominent element of this campaign, it overlaps with another botnet cluster referred to as the JDY cluster.[1] This botnet was disrupted by US law enforcement entities in early 2024 after periods of activity from October 2022 through January 2024.[2]

Campaign Enterprise

C0016: Operation Dust Storm

Operation Dust Storm was a long-standing persistent cyber espionage campaign that targeted multiple industries in Japan, South Korea, the United States, Europe, and several Southeast Asian countries. By 2015, the Operation Dust Storm threat actors shifted from government and defense-related intelligence targets to Japanese companies or Japanese subdivisions of larger foreign organizations supporting Japan's critical infrastructure, including electricity generation, oil and natural gas, finance, transportation, and construction.[1]

Operation Dust Storm threat actors also began to use Android backdoors in their operations by 2015, with all identified victims at the time residing in Japan or South Korea.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0018: C0018

C0018 was a month-long ransomware intrusion that successfully deployed AvosLocker onto a compromised network. The unidentified actors gained initial access to the victim network through an exposed server and used a variety of open-source tools prior to executing AvosLocker.[1][2]

Campaign Enterprise

C0015: C0015

C0015 was a ransomware intrusion during which the unidentified attackers used Bazar, Cobalt Strike, and Conti, along with other tools, over a 5 day period. Security researchers assessed the actors likely used the widely-circulated Conti ransomware playbook based on the observed pattern of activity and operator errors.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0006: Operation Honeybee

Operation Honeybee was a campaign that targeted humanitarian aid and inter-Korean affairs organizations from at least late 2017 through early 2018. Operation Honeybee initially targeted South Korea, but expanded to include Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, Indonesia, Argentina, and Canada. Security researchers assessed the threat actors were likely Korean speakers based on metadata used in both lure documents and executables, and named the campaign "Honeybee" after the author name discovered in malicious Word documents.[1]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

Mitigations

Mitigation direction

Change history

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 .

ATT&CK release
19.1
Object version
2.0
Created
Modified
Raw hash
1b2cc66eb4ea4e68...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 2.0 Current bundle 1b2cc66eb4ea…
Raw source

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.

Source references

External references and citations

MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.

  1. [1]
    LOLBAS Main Site

    LOLBAS. (n.d.). Living Off The Land Binaries and Scripts (and also Libraries). Retrieved February 10, 2020.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    mitre-attack T1036
    Open source URL
Source and licensing

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.