T1070: Indicator Removal
Adversaries may selectively delete or modify artifacts generated to reduce indications of their presence and blend in with legitimate activity. Rather than broadly removing evidence, adversaries may target specific artifacts that appear anomalous or are likely to draw scrutiny, while leaving sufficient data intact to maintain the appearance of normal system behavior.
Artifacts such as command histories, log entries, or file metadata may be altered in ways that align with expected user or system activity. Location, format, and type of artifact (such as command or login history) are often platform-specific, allowing adversaries to tailor modifications that minimize suspicion.
These actions may not prevent detection entirely but can delay recognition of malicious activity or reduce the fidelity of alerts by making events appear benign or consistent with routine operations. Additionally, selectively removed or modified artifacts may still be recoverable through deeper forensic analysis, though their absence or alteration can complicate timeline reconstruction and attribution.
Analyst context for executives and security teams
Indicator Removal matters because it can make an incident look smaller, later, or less suspicious than it really is. The business risk is not just “lost logs”; it is delayed containment, weaker forensic timelines, harder legal/audit evidence collection, and reduced confidence in whether recovery is complete. Because ATT&CK lists broad platforms including Windows, Linux, macOS, ESXi, containers, network devices, and Office Suite, leaders should treat this as a cross-environment evidence protection problem, not only an endpoint logging issue.
Executive priority
Prioritize controls that preserve trustworthy evidence before and during an incident. Ask whether critical logs, command histories, mailbox artifacts, file metadata, network connection history, and persistence evidence are protected from local tampering and retained centrally. This technique is especially relevant to incident response readiness, compliance evidence, privileged access governance, cloud/SaaS auditability for Office Suite activity, and resilience of network and virtualization infrastructure. Budget decisions should favor centralized/off-host logging, least-privilege access to sensitive files and directories, and tested forensic collection procedures.
Technical view
SOC, detection engineering, and IR teams should validate coverage across the parent technique and its sub-techniques: clearing command history, file deletion, network share connection removal, timestomping, clearing network connection history/configurations, clearing mailbox data, clearing persistence, and relocating malware. Since the ATT&CK object provides no official detection text, use the related DET0184 behavioral detection strategy as direction: look for selective tampering patterns rather than only bulk log clearing. Focus on discrepancies between local artifacts and centralized records, unusual deletion or modification of security-relevant files, suspicious timestamp inconsistencies, removal of network/share history, mailbox data changes, and cleanup of persistence artifacts.
Likely telemetry
- Centralized security, system, application, authentication, and audit logs forwarded off-host
- Endpoint file creation, deletion, rename, metadata, and permission-change events
- Command shell and command-history artifacts where collection is authorized and available
- Windows network share and SMB connection history evidence
- Linux, macOS, ESXi, and network device configuration and connection-history logs
Detection direction
- Validate that local logs are compared with off-host copies so selective deletion or modification becomes observable.
- Tune for suspicious absence, alteration, or mismatch of artifacts, not only explicit log-clearing commands.
- Correlate indicator removal behavior with nearby activity such as tool transfer, remote services, mailbox access, persistence changes, or file deletion when those events are available.
- Review false positives from legitimate administration, cleanup jobs, privacy retention processes, mailbox lifecycle actions, patching, and system maintenance.
- Confirm that network devices, ESXi, containers, and Office Suite sources are not blind spots, since endpoint-only monitoring will miss supported platforms.
Mitigation priorities
- Implement restricted file and directory permissions so ordinary users, groups, or processes cannot modify sensitive logs, security artifacts, or system evidence unnecessarily.
- Forward critical logs and audit data to secure remote storage or centralized log management to reduce the value of local artifact tampering.
- Apply least privilege to administrative, service, mailbox, and infrastructure accounts that can delete or modify evidence.
- Protect sensitive information and integrity-relevant data with appropriate encryption where applicable, consistent with the ATT&CK mitigation relationship.
- Test incident response playbooks for evidence preservation, including collection from endpoints, mail systems, network devices, ESXi, containers, and centralized logs.
Analyst notes and limits
The relationship context shows this technique is used by multiple ATT&CK campaigns, groups, and software entries, and it has several sub-techniques that make the behavior operationally broad. For Glexia clients, the practical assessment should be evidence survivability: if a privileged actor can alter local artifacts, can the SOC still reconstruct activity from independent sources? The presence of SolarWinds Compromise, Cutting Edge, Lazarus Group, Mustang Panda, APT5, APT42, and several software relationships supports treating this as a common tradecraft category, but not as proof of current activity in any specific environment.
MITRE did not provide official detection text for this object. Platform applicability is broad, but exact log sources, retention, and forensic recoverability depend on the local operating systems, SaaS configuration, infrastructure devices, and collection architecture. This take does not assert active exploitation, customer exposure, or guaranteed detection coverage.
Indicator Removal
Adversaries may selectively delete or modify artifacts generated to reduce indications of their presence and blend in with legitimate activity. Rather than broadly removing evidence, adversaries may target specific artifacts that appear anomalous or are likely to draw scrutiny, while leaving sufficient data intact to maintain the appearance of normal system behavior.
Artifacts such as command histories, log entries, or file metadata may be altered in ways that align with expected user or system activity. Location, format, and type of artifact (such as command or login history) are often platform-specific, allowing adversaries to tailor modifications that minimize suspicion.
These actions may not prevent detection entirely but can delay recognition of malicious activity or reduce the fidelity of alerts by making events appear benign or consistent with routine operations. Additionally, selectively removed or modified artifacts may still be recoverable through deeper forensic analysis, though their absence or alteration can complicate timeline reconstruction and attribution.
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.
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.
| Domain | ID | Name | Relationship / procedure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | T1070.004 | File Deletion Sub-technique | File Deletion subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.006 | Timestomp Sub-technique | Timestomp subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.008 | Clear Mailbox Data Sub-technique | Clear Mailbox Data subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.009 | Clear Persistence Sub-technique | Clear Persistence subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.003 | Clear Command History Sub-technique | Clear Command History subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.010 | Relocate Malware Sub-technique | Relocate Malware subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.007 | Clear Network Connection History and Configurations Sub-technique | Clear Network Connection History and Configurations subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1070.005 | Network Share Connection Removal Sub-technique | Network Share Connection Removal subtechnique of this object. |
Groups, software, and campaigns
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.
G0129: Mustang Panda
Mustang Panda is a China-based cyber espionage threat actor that has been conducting operations since at least 2012. Mustang Panda has been known to use tailored phishing lures and decoy documents to deliver malicious payloads. Mustang Panda has targeted government, diplomatic, and non-governmental organizations, including think tanks, religious institutions, and research entities, across the United States, Europe, and Asia, with notable activity in Russia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Vietnam. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
G1023: APT5
APT5 is a China-based espionage actor that has been active since at least 2007 primarily targeting the telecommunications, aerospace, and defense industries throughout the U.S., Europe, and Asia. APT5 has displayed advanced tradecraft and significant interest in compromising networking devices and their underlying software including through the use of zero-day exploits.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
G0032: Lazarus Group
Lazarus Group is a North Korean state-sponsored cyber threat group attributed to the Reconnaissance General Bureau (RGB). [1] [2] Lazarus Group has been active since at least 2009 and is reportedly responsible for the November 2014 destructive wiper attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, identified by Novetta as part of Operation Blockbuster. Malware used by Lazarus Group correlates to other reported campaigns, including Operation Flame, Operation 1Mission, Operation Troy, DarkSeoul, and Ten Days of Rain.[3]
North Korea’s cyber operations have shown a consistent pattern of adaptation, forming and reorganizing units as national priorities shift. These units frequently share personnel, infrastructure, malware, and tradecraft, making it difficult to attribute specific operations with high confidence. Public reporting often uses “Lazarus Group” as an umbrella term for multiple North Korean cyber operators conducting espionage, destructive attacks, and financially motivated campaigns.[4][5][6]
S1132: IPsec Helper
IPsec Helper is a post-exploitation remote access tool linked to Agrius operations. This malware shares significant programming and functional overlaps with Apostle ransomware, also linked to Agrius. IPsec Helper provides basic remote access tool functionality such as uploading files from victim systems, running commands, and deploying additional payloads.[1]
S0695: Donut
S0461: SDBbot
S1161: BPFDoor
BPFDoor is a Linux based passive long-term backdoor used by China-based threat actors. First seen in 2021, BPFDoor is named after its usage of Berkley Packet Filter (BPF) to execute single task instructions. BPFDoor supports multiple protocols for communicating with a C2 including TCP, UDP, and ICMP and can start local or reverse shells that bypass firewalls using iptables.[1][2]
S0596: ShadowPad
S0089: BlackEnergy
BlackEnergy is a malware toolkit that has been used by both criminal and APT actors. It dates back to at least 2007 and was originally designed to create botnets for use in conducting Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, but its use has evolved to support various plug-ins. It is well known for being used during the confrontation between Georgia and Russia in 2008, as well as in targeting Ukrainian institutions. Variants include BlackEnergy 2 and BlackEnergy 3. [1]
S0568: EVILNUM
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]
S1135: MultiLayer Wiper
MultiLayer Wiper is wiper malware written in .NET associated with Agrius operations. Observed samples of MultiLayer Wiper have an anomalous, future compilation date suggesting possible metadata manipulation.[1]
S0229: Orz
S1159: DUSTTRAP
S0697: HermeticWiper
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]
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]
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 | 3.0 | Current bundle | fcf7a78dcd05… |
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]
mitre-attack T1070Open 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.