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

T1204.002: Malicious File

An adversary may rely upon a user opening a malicious file in order to gain execution. Users may be subjected to social engineering to get them to open a file that will lead to code execution. This user action will typically be observed as follow-on behavior from Spearphishing Attachment. Adversaries may use several types of files that require a user to execute them, including .doc, .pdf, .xls, .rtf, .scr, .exe, .lnk, .pif, .cpl, .reg, and .iso.[1]

Adversaries may employ various forms of Masquerading and Obfuscated Files or Information to increase the likelihood that a user will open and successfully execute a malicious file. These methods may include using a familiar naming convention and/or password protecting the file and supplying instructions to a user on how to open it.[2]

While Malicious File frequently occurs shortly after Initial Access it may occur at other phases of an intrusion, such as when an adversary places a file in a shared directory or on a user's desktop hoping that a user will click on it. This activity may also be seen shortly after Internal Spearphishing.

EnterpriseT1204.002Sub-techniqueObject v1.6 Modified
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence High

Malicious File is the user-execution moment where a person opens a document, installer, shortcut, image/container, or executable that gives an adversary code execution on Linux, macOS, or Windows. Its business importance is that a control program can look strong on paper while still failing at the point where phishing, trusted file names, password-protected attachments, shared folders, or desktop-placed files persuade users to launch the payload.

Executive priority

Treat this as a resilience and audit-evidence issue, not only a phishing-awareness issue. Leaders should ask whether the organization can prove it collects endpoint and email/download evidence from file receipt through file open and child-process execution, and whether execution prevention and endpoint behavior controls are enforced consistently across major desktop/server platforms. Because ATT&CK links this behavior to many campaigns and groups, it is a common enough execution pattern to justify prioritized investment in user training, execution prevention, and endpoint behavior prevention.

Technical view

This is an execution sub-technique of User Execution for Linux, macOS, and Windows. ATT&CK does not provide native detection text for T1204.002, but the related detection strategy DET0294 points defenders toward a download/open-to-spawn-chain analytic. SOC and detection teams should validate visibility from initial file delivery or placement, to user open action, to process creation and suspicious child processes. Particular attention should be given to file types named by ATT&CK, including .doc, .pdf, .xls, .rtf, .scr, .exe, .lnk, .pif, .cpl, .reg, and .iso, and to files using masquerading, obfuscation, familiar naming, or password protection.

Likely telemetry

  • Email security and attachment metadata, especially spearphishing attachment context where available
  • Web/download telemetry showing file acquisition and source URL or referrer when collected
  • Endpoint file creation, modification, quarantine, and reputation events
  • Process creation telemetry showing the opened file’s handler and child-process chain
  • Command-line, parent/child process, and script execution events

Detection direction

  • Implement or validate analytics aligned to DET0294: user downloads or opens a file, then the associated application spawns unusual or risky child processes.
  • Tune by file type and parent application so common business workflows do not overwhelm detections, but preserve scrutiny for Office, PDF, archive/container, shortcut, registry, control panel, screensaver, and executable launch patterns.
  • Look for context from related ATT&CK behaviors: Spearphishing Attachment and Internal Spearphishing before execution, and Masquerading or Obfuscated Files or Information around the file itself.
  • Test visibility for password-protected files and files with familiar or misleading names, because these may bypass content inspection or reduce user suspicion.
  • Confirm coverage across Linux, macOS, and Windows where those platforms are in scope; do not assume Windows-focused controls cover the whole estate.

Mitigation priorities

  • Prioritize M1038 Execution Prevention so unauthorized or untrusted code and risky file types cannot execute freely.
  • Use M1040 Behavior Prevention on Endpoint to block or contain suspicious process behavior after a user opens a file.
  • Maintain M1017 User Training focused on recognizing, reporting, and not opening suspicious or password-protected files, especially those delivered through phishing or placed in shared locations.
  • Back mitigations with measurable evidence: blocked executions, user reports, attachment handling outcomes, and endpoint response actions.
  • Review business exceptions regularly so allowlists, script permissions, and file-handler policies do not silently become the main bypass path.
Analyst notes and limits

The relationship set shows this technique is used across numerous named campaigns and groups, including espionage, ransomware-related, and sector-targeting campaign descriptions. That breadth supports prioritizing defensive validation, but it should not be read as evidence of current activity against any specific organization. The strongest local assessment will come from testing whether a realistic malicious-file open produces correlated email/download, file, process, and endpoint-control telemetry.

Official ATT&CK detection guidance for this object is not provided, so detection recommendations are derived from the supplied description, platforms, tactics, mitigations, and the related DET0294 detection strategy. The supplied fields do not establish organization-specific exposure, active exploitation, or guaranteed control coverage. Local platform mix, endpoint tooling, email controls, file-sharing practices, and logging retention are required to assess actual risk.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Malicious File

An adversary may rely upon a user opening a malicious file in order to gain execution. Users may be subjected to social engineering to get them to open a file that will lead to code execution. This user action will typically be observed as follow-on behavior from Spearphishing Attachment. Adversaries may use several types of files that require a user to execute them, including .doc, .pdf, .xls, .rtf, .scr, .exe, .lnk, .pif, .cpl, .reg, and .iso.[1]

Adversaries may employ various forms of Masquerading and Obfuscated Files or Information to increase the likelihood that a user will open and successfully execute a malicious file. These methods may include using a familiar naming convention and/or password protecting the file and supplying instructions to a user on how to open it.[2]

While Malicious File frequently occurs shortly after Initial Access it may occur at other phases of an intrusion, such as when an adversary places a file in a shared directory or on a user's desktop hoping that a user will click on it. This activity may also be seen shortly after Internal Spearphishing.

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

G1026: Malteiro

Malteiro is a financially motivated criminal group that is likely based in Brazil and has been active since at least November 2019. The group operates and distributes the Mispadu banking trojan via a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) business model. Malteiro mainly targets victims throughout Latin America (particularly Mexico) and Europe (particularly Spain and Portugal).[1]

Group Enterprise

G0005: APT12

APT12 is a threat group that has been attributed to China. The group has targeted a variety of victims including but not limited to media outlets, high-tech companies, and multiple governments.[1]

Group Enterprise

G0094: Kimsuky

Kimsuky is a Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)-based cyber espionage group that has been active since at least 2012. The group initially targeted South Korean government agencies, think tanks, and subject-matter experts in various fields. Its operations expanded to include the United Nations and organizations in the government, education, business services, and manufacturing sectors across the United States, Japan, Russia, and Europe. Kimsuky has focused collection on foreign policy and national security issues tied to the Korean Peninsula, nuclear policy, and sanctions. Kimsuky operations have overlapped with those of other North Korean state-sponsored cyber espionage actors as a result of ad hoc collaborations or other limited resource sharing.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Kimsuky was assessed to be responsible for the 2014 Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. compromise; other notable campaigns include Operation STOLEN PENCIL (2018), Operation Kabar Cobra (2019), and Operation Smoke Screen (2019).[7][8][9] In 2023, Kimsuky was observed using commercial large language models (LLMs) to assist with vulnerability research, scripting, social engineering and reconnaissance.[10]

DPRK threat actor cluster boundaries overlap in open source reporting, with some security researchers consolidating all attributed North Korean state-sponsored cyber activity under Lazarus Group, rather than tracking operationally distinct subgroups.

Group Enterprise

G0095: Machete

Machete is a suspected Spanish-speaking cyber espionage group that has been active since at least 2010. It has primarily focused its operations within Latin America, with a particular emphasis on Venezuela, but also in the US, Europe, Russia, and parts of Asia. Machete generally targets high-profile organizations such as government institutions, intelligence services, and military units, as well as telecommunications and power companies.[1][2][3][4]

Group Enterprise

G0066: Elderwood

Elderwood is a suspected Chinese cyber espionage group that was reportedly responsible for the 2009 Google intrusion known as Operation Aurora. [1] The group has targeted defense organizations, supply chain manufacturers, human rights and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and IT service providers. [2] [3]

Group Enterprise

G0035: Dragonfly

Dragonfly is a cyber espionage group that has been attributed to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16.[1][2] Active since at least 2010, Dragonfly has targeted defense and aviation companies, government entities, companies related to industrial control systems, and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide through supply chain, spearphishing, and drive-by compromise attacks.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Group Enterprise

G0090: WIRTE

WIRTE is a cyberespionage actor, believed to be a subgroup of the Hamas-affiliated Gaza Cybergang, that has been active since at least August 2018. WIRTE has targeted diplomatic, financial, military, legal, and technology organizations across the Middle East, North Africa, and in Europe to gather intelligence. WIRTE has remained persistently active despite the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and has expanded their operations to include wiper malware attacks against Israeli targets.[1][2][3][4]

Group Enterprise

G0048: RTM

RTM is a cybercriminal group that has been active since at least 2015 and is primarily interested in users of remote banking systems in Russia and neighboring countries. The group uses a Trojan by the same name (RTM). [1]

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

G0099: APT-C-36

APT-C-36 is a suspected South American threat group that has engaged in espionage and financially motivated operations since at least 2018. APT-C-36 has targeted government institutions and entities in the financial, energy, and professional manufacturing sectors across Colombia and other Latin American countries.[1][2][3][4]

Malware Enterprise

S0356: KONNI

KONNI is a remote access tool that security researchers assess has been used by North Korean cyber actors since at least 2014. KONNI has significant code overlap with the NOKKI malware family, and has been linked to several suspected North Korean campaigns targeting political organizations in Russia, East Asia, Europe and the Middle East; there is some evidence potentially linking KONNI to APT37.[1][2][3][4][5]

Windows
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

S0631: Chaes

Chaes is a multistage information stealer written in several programming languages that collects login credentials, credit card numbers, and other financial information. Chaes was first observed in 2020, and appears to primarily target victims in Brazil as well as other e-commerce customers in Latin America.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S1064: SVCReady

SVCReady is a loader that has been used since at least April 2022 in malicious spam campaigns. Security researchers have noted overlaps between TA551 activity and SVCReady distribution, including similarities in file names, lure images, and identical grammatical errors.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0670: WarzoneRAT

WarzoneRAT is a malware-as-a-service remote access tool (RAT) written in C++ that has been publicly available for purchase since at least late 2018.[1][2]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S9031: AshTag

AshTag is a modular .NET backdoor with multiple features that has been used by WIRTE since at least 2025. AshTag is designed for persistence and remote command execution and can masquerade as a legitimate VisualServer utility.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0428: PoetRAT

PoetRAT is a remote access trojan (RAT) that was first identified in April 2020. PoetRAT has been used in multiple campaigns against the private and public sectors in Azerbaijan, including ICS and SCADA systems in the energy sector. The STIBNITE activity group has been observed using the malware. PoetRAT derived its name from references in the code to poet William Shakespeare. [1][2][3]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0367: Emotet

Emotet is a modular malware variant which is primarily used as a downloader for other malware variants such as TrickBot and IcedID. Emotet first emerged in June 2014, initially targeting the financial sector, and has expanded to multiple verticals over time.[1]

Windows
Campaign Enterprise

C0037: Water Curupira Pikabot Distribution

Pikabot was distributed in Water Curupira Pikabot Distribution throughout 2023 by an entity linked to BlackBasta ransomware deployment via email attachments. This activity followed the take-down of QakBot, with several technical overlaps and similarities with QakBot, indicating a possible connection. The identified activity led to the deployment of tools such as Cobalt Strike, while coinciding with campaigns delivering DarkGate and IcedID en route to ransomware deployment.[1]

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

C0001: Frankenstein

Frankenstein was described by security researchers as a highly-targeted campaign conducted by moderately sophisticated and highly resourceful threat actors in early 2019. The unidentified actors primarily relied on open source tools, including Empire. The campaign name refers to the actors' ability to piece together several unrelated open-source tool components.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0005: Operation Spalax

Operation Spalax was a campaign that primarily targeted Colombian government organizations and private companies, particularly those associated with the energy and metallurgical industries. The Operation Spalax threat actors distributed commodity malware and tools using generic phishing topics related to COVID-19, banking, and law enforcement action. Security researchers noted indicators of compromise and some infrastructure overlaps with other campaigns dating back to April 2018, including at least one separately attributed to APT-C-36, however identified enough differences to report this as separate, unattributed activity.[1]

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]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

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
1.6
Created
Modified
Raw hash
19a599b9338bbeea...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 1.6 Current bundle 19a599b9338b…
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]
    Mandiant Trojanized Windows 10

    Mandiant Intelligence. (2022, December 15). Trojanized Windows 10 Operating System Installers Targeted Ukrainian Government. Retrieved September 26, 2025.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    Password Protected Word Docs

    Lawrence Abrams. (2017, July 12). PSA: Don't Open SPAM Containing Password Protected Word Docs. Retrieved January 5, 2022.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    mitre-attack T1204.002
    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.