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

T1036.005: Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location

Adversaries may match or approximate the name or location of legitimate files, Registry keys, or other resources when naming/placing them. This is done for the sake of evading defenses and observation.

This may be done by placing an executable in a commonly trusted directory (ex: under System32) or giving it the name of a legitimate, trusted program (ex: `svchost.exe`). Alternatively, a Windows Registry key may be given a close approximation to a key used by a legitimate program. In containerized environments, a threat actor may create a resource in a trusted namespace or one that matches the naming convention of a container pod or cluster.[1]

EnterpriseT1036.005Sub-techniqueObject v3.0 Modified
Discuss defensive coverage Back to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence High

This technique matters because attackers can hide in plain sight by giving malicious or unauthorized resources names or locations that look normal, such as trusted directories, familiar process names, near-match Registry keys, or container resources in trusted namespaces. The business issue is not just malware naming; it is whether teams can distinguish approved operational assets from lookalikes before an intrusion becomes harder to investigate or contain.

Executive priority

Prioritize this as a control-validation and audit-evidence issue for endpoint, server, virtualization, and container environments. Leaders should ask whether critical systems have enforceable baselines for trusted paths, signed code, approved deployment locations, and who can write into them. ATT&CK relationships show this behavior appears across many campaigns and groups, including espionage, ransomware/disruptive, supply-chain, and cyber-physical/energy-related contexts, so it is material to incident response readiness and operational resilience even when it is only a stealth technique.

Technical view

T1036.005 is a Masquerading sub-technique under the stealth tactic for Containers, ESXi, Linux, macOS, and Windows. SOC and IR teams should validate their ability to identify resources whose name or location approximates legitimate files, Registry keys, trusted directories, or container naming conventions. Because ATT&CK provides no official detection text, use the related DET0347 detection strategy as the mapped detection reference and test local telemetry against known-good baselines rather than relying only on string matches such as svchost.exe or System32-like locations.

Likely telemetry

  • File creation, rename, modification, and execution events, especially in trusted or commonly abused directories
  • Process execution metadata including image path, command line, parent process, signer, hash, and user context
  • Windows Registry key creation and modification events where applicable
  • Code-signing and executable trust metadata for binaries, scripts, and other code artifacts
  • Container control-plane or orchestration logs showing resource creation, namespace placement, pod or cluster naming, and actor identity

Detection direction

  • Validate DET0347-style coverage against both name-based and location-based masquerading; detection should compare names, paths, signers, hashes, ownership, and expected deployment source.
  • Tune for near-matches and trusted-location abuse, not just exact malicious filenames; attackers may approximate legitimate names or place artifacts where analysts expect trusted resources.
  • For Windows, include Registry lookalike keys and trusted-directory execution in hunting logic where telemetry exists.
  • For container environments, compare namespace, pod, cluster, and resource naming against approved deployment patterns and authorized actors.
  • Reduce false positives by maintaining baselines for legitimate administrative tools, software updates, build artifacts, and platform-managed resources.

Mitigation priorities

  • First establish baselines for legitimate resource names, trusted locations, ownership, and deployment sources across endpoint, server, ESXi, and container estates.
  • Apply M1022 Restrict File and Directory Permissions so only authorized users, groups, and processes can write to sensitive or trusted locations.
  • Use M1038 Execution Prevention to limit execution of unauthorized code, especially from locations where adversaries may try to blend in.
  • Use M1045 Code Signing controls to verify authenticity and integrity of executables, scripts, and other code artifacts before execution where supported.
  • Periodically review permissions and control exceptions; excessive write access to trusted paths undermines both prevention and detection.
Analyst notes and limits

The ATT&CK object has broad platform coverage and many relationships to campaigns and groups, which supports treating the behavior as widely relevant. The most useful defensive decision is whether the organization can prove what is expected in trusted names and locations, then detect deviations with enough context to avoid high-volume false positives.

MITRE provides no official detection text for this object, and the supplied relationship descriptions are partial. This take does not assert active exploitation, customer exposure, or guaranteed detection. Local asset baselines, logging configuration, and control enforcement determine whether this behavior can be reliably found or prevented.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location

Adversaries may match or approximate the name or location of legitimate files, Registry keys, or other resources when naming/placing them. This is done for the sake of evading defenses and observation.

This may be done by placing an executable in a commonly trusted directory (ex: under System32) or giving it the name of a legitimate, trusted program (ex: `svchost.exe`). Alternatively, a Windows Registry key may be given a close approximation to a key used by a legitimate program. In containerized environments, a threat actor may create a resource in a trusted namespace or one that matches the naming convention of a container pod or cluster.[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.

Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

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]

Group Enterprise

G0047: Gamaredon Group

Gamaredon Group is a suspected Russian cyber espionage group that has targeted military, law enforcement, judiciary, non-profit, and non-governmental organizations in Ukraine since at least 2013. The name Gamaredon Group derives from a misspelling of the word "Armageddon," found in early campaigns.[1][2][3][4][5]

In November 2021, the Ukrainian government publicly attributed Gamaredon Group to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 18, an assessment later supported by multiple independent cybersecurity researchers. [6][5]

Group Enterprise

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]

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

G1018: TA2541

TA2541 is a cybercriminal group that has been targeting the aviation, aerospace, transportation, manufacturing, and defense industries since at least 2017. TA2541 campaigns are typically high volume and involve the use of commodity remote access tools obfuscated by crypters and themes related to aviation, transportation, and travel.[1][2]

Group Enterprise

G0096: APT41

APT41 is a threat group that researchers have assessed as Chinese state-sponsored espionage group that also conducts financially-motivated operations. Active since at least 2012, APT41 has been observed targeting various industries, including but not limited to healthcare, telecom, technology, finance, education, retail and video game industries in 14 countries.[1] Notable behaviors include using a wide range of malware and tools to complete mission objectives. APT41 overlaps at least partially with public reporting on groups including BARIUM and Winnti Group.[2][3]

Group Enterprise

G1044: APT42

APT42 is an Iranian-sponsored threat group that conducts cyber espionage and surveillance.[1] The group primarily focuses on targets in the Middle East region, but has targeted a variety of industries and countries since at least 2015.[1] APT42 starts cyber operations through spearphishing emails and/or the PINEFLOWER Android malware, then monitors and collects information from the compromised systems and devices.[1] Finally, APT42 exfiltrates data using native features and open-source tools.[2]

APT42 activities have been linked to Magic Hound by other commercial vendors. While there are behavior and software overlaps between Magic Hound and APT42, they appear to be distinct entities and are tracked as separate entities by their originating vendor.

Group Enterprise

G1046: Storm-1811

Storm-1811 is a financially-motivated entity linked to Black Basta ransomware deployment. Storm-1811 is notable for unique phishing and social engineering mechanisms for initial access, such as overloading victim email inboxes with non-malicious spam to prompt a fake "help desk" interaction leading to the deployment of adversary tools and capabilities.[1][2][3][4]

Group Enterprise

G0046: FIN7

FIN7 is a financially-motivated threat group that has been active since 2013. FIN7 has targeted the retail, restaurant, hospitality, software, consulting, financial services, medical equipment, cloud services, media, food and beverage, transportation, pharmaceutical, and utilities industries in the United States. A portion of FIN7 was operated out of a front company called Combi Security and often used point-of-sale malware for targeting efforts. Since 2020, FIN7 shifted operations to big game hunting (BGH), including use of REvil ransomware and their own Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), Darkside. FIN7 may be linked to the Carbanak Group, but multiple threat groups have been observed using Carbanak, leading these groups to be tracked separately.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Group Enterprise

G0069: MuddyWater

MuddyWater is a cyber espionage group assessed to be a subordinate element within Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).[1] Since at least 2017, MuddyWater has targeted a range of government and private organizations across sectors, including telecommunications, local government, finance, defense, and oil and natural gas organizations, in the Middle East (specifically the UAE and Saudi Arabia), Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. MuddyWater has reused domains dating back to October 2025, and has a preference for NameCheap and Hosterdaddy Private Limited (AS136557). In late 2025 and early 2026, MuddyWater used commercial satellite internet (i.e., Starlink) for command and control (C2) communication. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Malware Enterprise

S0459: MechaFlounder

MechaFlounder is a python-based remote access tool (RAT) that has been used by APT39. The payload uses a combination of actor developed code and code snippets freely available online in development communities.[1]

Windows
Tool Enterprise

S1050: PcShare

PcShare is an open source remote access tool that has been modified and used by Chinese threat actors, most notably during the FunnyDream campaign since late 2018.[1][2]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0533: SLOTHFULMEDIA

SLOTHFULMEDIA is a remote access Trojan written in C++ that has been used by an unidentified "sophisticated cyber actor" since at least January 2017.[1][2] It has been used to target government organizations, defense contractors, universities, and energy companies in Russia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe.[3][4]

In October 2020, Kaspersky Labs assessed SLOTHFULMEDIA is part of an activity cluster it refers to as "IAmTheKing".[4] ESET also noted code similarity between SLOTHFULMEDIA and droppers used by a group it refers to as "PowerPool".[5]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0081: Elise

Elise is a custom backdoor Trojan that appears to be used exclusively by Lotus Blossom. It is part of a larger group of tools referred to as LStudio, ST Group, and APT0LSTU.[1][2]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0482: Bundlore

Bundlore is adware written for macOS that has been in use since at least 2015. Though categorized as adware, Bundlore has many features associated with more traditional backdoors.[1]

macOS
Campaign Enterprise

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]

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

C0024: SolarWinds Compromise

The SolarWinds Compromise was a sophisticated supply chain cyber operation conducted by APT29 that was discovered in mid-December 2020. APT29 used customized malware to inject malicious code into the SolarWinds Orion software build process that was later distributed through a normal software update; they also used password spraying, token theft, API abuse, spear phishing, and other supply chain attacks to compromise user accounts and leverage their associated access. Victims of this campaign included government, consulting, technology, telecom, and other organizations in North America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This activity has been labled the StellarParticle campaign in industry reporting.[1] Industry reporting also initially referred to the actors involved in this campaign as UNC2452, NOBELIUM, Dark Halo, and SolarStorm.[2][3][4][5][1][6][7][8]

In April 2021, the US and UK governments attributed the SolarWinds Compromise to Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR); public statements included citations to APT29, Cozy Bear, and The Dukes.[9][10][11] The US government assessed that of the approximately 18,000 affected public and private sector customers of Solar Winds’ Orion product, a much smaller number were compromised by follow-on APT29 activity on their systems.[12]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

uses · Malware S0083: Misdat Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1022: Restrict File and Directory Permissions Enterprise uses · Malware S0629: RainyDay Enterprise uses · Group G0139: TeamTNT Enterprise uses · Malware S0459: MechaFlounder Enterprise uses · Tool S1050: PcShare Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1038: Execution Prevention Enterprise uses · Malware S1239: TONESHELL Enterprise uses · Malware S0533: SLOTHFULMEDIA Enterprise uses · Malware S0081: Elise Enterprise uses · Malware S0072: OwaAuth Enterprise uses · Campaign C0025: 2016 Ukraine Electric Power Attack Enterprise uses · Malware S0482: Bundlore Enterprise uses · Malware S0085: S-Type Enterprise uses · Malware S1014: DanBot Enterprise uses · Malware S0687: Cyclops Blink Enterprise uses · Group G0047: Gamaredon Group Enterprise uses · Malware S0668: TinyTurla Enterprise uses · Malware S1203: J-magic Enterprise uses · Malware S0484: Carberp Enterprise uses · Group G1017: Volt Typhoon Enterprise uses · Group G0060: BRONZE BUTLER Enterprise uses · Malware S1090: NightClub Enterprise uses · Group G1018: TA2541 Enterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

Mitigation Enterprise

M1022: Restrict File and Directory Permissions

Restricting file and directory permissions involves setting access controls at the file system level to limit which users, groups, or processes can read, write, or execute files. By configuring permissions appropriately, organizations can reduce the attack surface for adversaries seeking to access sensitive data, plant malicious code, or tamper with system files.

Enforce Least Privilege Permissions:

- Remove unnecessary write permissions on sensitive files and directories. - Use file ownership and groups to control access for specific roles.

Example (Windows): Right-click the shared folder → Properties → Security tab → Adjust permissions for NTFS ACLs.

Harden File Shares:

- Disable anonymous access to shared folders. - Enforce NTFS permissions for shared folders on Windows.

Example: Set permissions to restrict write access to critical files, such as system executables (e.g., `/bin` or `/sbin` on Linux). Use tools like `chown` and `chmod` to assign file ownership and limit access.

On Linux, apply: `chmod 750 /etc/sensitive.conf` `chown root:admin /etc/sensitive.conf`

File Integrity Monitoring (FIM):

- Use tools like Tripwire, Wazuh, or OSSEC to monitor changes to critical file permissions.

Audit File System Access:

- Enable auditing to track permission changes or unauthorized access attempts. - Use auditd (Linux) or Event Viewer (Windows) to log activities.

Restrict Startup Directories:

- Configure permissions to prevent unauthorized writes to directories like `C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu`.

Example: Restrict write access to critical directories like `/etc/`, `/usr/local/`, and Windows directories such as `C:\Windows\System32`.

- On Windows, use icacls to modify permissions: `icacls "C:\Windows\System32" /inheritance:r /grant:r SYSTEM:(OI)(CI)F` - On Linux, monitor permissions using tools like `lsattr` or `auditd`.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1038: Execution Prevention

Prevent the execution of unauthorized or malicious code on systems by implementing application control, script blocking, and other execution prevention mechanisms. This ensures that only trusted and authorized code is executed, reducing the risk of malware and unauthorized actions. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Application Control:

- Use Case: Use tools like AppLocker or Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC) to create whitelists of authorized applications and block unauthorized ones. On Linux, use tools like SELinux or AppArmor to define mandatory access control policies for application execution. - Implementation: Allow only digitally signed or pre-approved applications to execute on servers and endpoints. (e.g., `New-AppLockerPolicy -PolicyType Enforced -FilePath "C:\Policies\AppLocker.xml"`)

Script Blocking:

- Use Case: Use script control mechanisms to block unauthorized execution of scripts, such as PowerShell or JavaScript. Web Browsers: Use browser extensions or settings to block JavaScript execution from untrusted sources. - Implementation: Configure PowerShell to enforce Constrained Language Mode for non-administrator users. (e.g., `Set-ExecutionPolicy AllSigned`)

Executable Blocking:

- Use Case: Prevent execution of binaries from suspicious locations, such as `%TEMP%` or `%APPDATA%` directories. - Implementation: Block execution of `.exe`, `.bat`, or `.ps1` files from user-writable directories.

Dynamic Analysis Prevention: - Use Case: Use behavior-based execution prevention tools to identify and block malicious activity in real time. - Implemenation: Employ EDR solutions that analyze runtime behavior and block suspicious code execution.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1045: Code Signing

Code Signing is a security process that ensures the authenticity and integrity of software by digitally signing executables, scripts, and other code artifacts. It prevents untrusted or malicious code from executing by verifying the digital signatures against trusted sources. Code signing protects against tampering, impersonation, and distribution of unauthorized or malicious software, forming a critical defense against supply chain and software exploitation attacks. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Enforce Signed Code Execution:

- Implementation: Configure operating systems (e.g., Windows with AppLocker or Linux with Secure Boot) to allow only signed code to execute. - Use Case: Prevent the execution of malicious PowerShell scripts by requiring all scripts to be signed with a trusted certificate.

Vendor-Signed Driver Enforcement:

- Implementation: Enable kernel-mode code signing to ensure that only drivers signed by trusted vendors can be loaded. - Use Case: A malicious driver attempting to modify system memory fails to load because it lacks a valid signature.

Certificate Revocation Management:

- Implementation: Use Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) or Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) to block certificates associated with compromised or deprecated code. - Use Case: A compromised certificate used to sign a malicious update is revoked, preventing further execution of the software.

Third-Party Software Verification:

- Implementation: Require software from external vendors to be signed with valid certificates before deployment. - Use Case: An organization only deploys signed and verified third-party software to prevent supply chain attacks.

Script Integrity in CI/CD Pipelines:

- Implementation: Integrate code signing into CI/CD pipelines to sign and verify code artifacts before production release. - Use Case: A software company ensures that all production builds are signed, preventing tampered builds from reaching customers.

**Key Components of Code Signing**

- Digital Signature Verification: Verifies the authenticity of code by ensuring it was signed by a trusted entity. - Certificate Management: Uses Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to manage signing certificates and revocation lists. - Enforced Policy for Unsigned Code: Prevents the execution of unsigned or untrusted binaries and scripts. - Hash Integrity Check: Confirms that code has not been altered since signing by comparing cryptographic hashes.

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
3.0
Created
Modified
Raw hash
976f44e8063c2aa9...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 3.0 Current bundle 976f44e8063c…
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.

Open mirrored raw JSON Open MITRE-hosted copy
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]
    Aquasec Kubernetes Backdoor 2023

    Michael Katchinskiy and Assaf Morag. (2023, April 21). First-Ever Attack Leveraging Kubernetes RBAC to Backdoor Clusters. Retrieved March 24, 2025.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    mitre-attack T1036.005
    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.

Official MITRE ATT&CK site Official STIX data repository MITRE ATT&CK terms of use