T1482: Domain Trust Discovery
Adversaries may attempt to gather information on domain trust relationships that may be used to identify lateral movement opportunities in Windows multi-domain/forest environments. Domain trusts provide a mechanism for a domain to allow access to resources based on the authentication procedures of another domain.[1] Domain trusts allow the users of the trusted domain to access resources in the trusting domain. The information discovered may help the adversary conduct SID-History Injection, Pass the Ticket, and Kerberoasting.[2][3] Domain trusts can be enumerated using the `DSEnumerateDomainTrusts()` Win32 API call, .NET methods, and LDAP.[3] The Windows utility Nltest is known to be used by adversaries to enumerate domain trusts.[4]
Analyst context for executives and security teams
Domain Trust Discovery matters because it can reveal how an attacker may move beyond one Windows Active Directory domain into other trusted domains or forests. For leaders, this is a visibility and blast-radius issue: if trust relationships are poorly understood or poorly monitored, a compromise in one part of the environment may create opportunities to reach higher-value systems elsewhere.
Executive priority
Prioritize this where Windows multi-domain or forest trust relationships support critical operations, acquisitions, subsidiaries, privileged administration, or shared services. The business question is not only whether trusts exist, but whether security teams can prove who is enumerating them, from where, and whether segmentation and auditing limit follow-on lateral movement opportunities. This technique also supports incident decision-making: discovery of domain trusts during an intrusion can indicate adversary preparation for cross-domain movement or credential-based attacks such as SID-History Injection, Pass the Ticket, or Kerberoasting, as referenced by ATT&CK.
Technical view
ATT&CK lists this as a Windows discovery technique. Enumeration may occur through the DSEnumerateDomainTrusts() Win32 API call, .NET methods, LDAP, and utilities such as Nltest; related software includes dsquery, PowerSploit, Empire, PoshC2, TrickBot, IcedID, BloodHound, and Nltest. Because the official ATT&CK detection field is not provided, SOC teams should validate coverage against the related detection strategy DET0007: detection of domain trust discovery via API, script, and CLI enumeration. Focus validation on endpoint command execution, PowerShell/script activity, LDAP or directory service access patterns, and activity sourced from unusual hosts or accounts.
Likely telemetry
- Windows endpoint process creation and command-line telemetry for utilities such as Nltest and dsquery
- PowerShell and script execution telemetry where .NET or offensive frameworks may enumerate trust relationships
- Directory service and LDAP access logs from domain controllers
- Authentication and account context for the user and host performing trust enumeration
- Network telemetry showing LDAP or domain controller communication from unusual systems
Detection direction
- Baseline legitimate administrative trust enumeration so alerts do not rely only on tool names that administrators may also use.
- Alert on trust enumeration from workstations, service accounts, newly observed hosts, or users without an expected administrative role.
- Correlate domain trust discovery with related ATT&CK context such as later attempts at SID-History Injection, Pass the Ticket, or Kerberoasting when local telemetry supports it.
- Include both command-line and non-command-line paths: API, .NET, LDAP, PowerShell, and known tools such as BloodHound or Nltest.
- Treat this as a discovery signal rather than proof of impact; escalate based on surrounding activity, account privilege, source host, and access to sensitive domains.
Mitigation priorities
- Use auditing (M1047) to ensure trust enumeration and related directory activity can be reviewed and retained for investigations and compliance evidence.
- Use network segmentation (M1030) to reduce unnecessary reachability between systems and limit lateral movement paths that trust discovery may expose.
- Maintain an inventory of Windows domain and forest trust relationships and map them to business ownership and critical systems.
- Review whether trust paths are still required, especially after organizational change, mergers, decommissioning, or shifts in shared services.
- Ensure incident response playbooks include checks for domain trust enumeration when investigating Windows domain compromise or ransomware-preparation activity.
Analyst notes and limits
The relationship set shows this technique used by multiple campaigns, groups, and software entries, including ransomware-related and espionage-related contexts, but those relationships should be used for prioritization and threat modeling rather than local attribution. The strongest local signal comes from whether the organization has Windows domain trusts and whether SOC telemetry can distinguish expected administration from unusual discovery.
The official ATT&CK detection field for T1482 is not provided in the supplied object. This take is therefore based on the official description, external references, and the supplied relationships, especially DET0007, M1030, and M1047. Local environment architecture, trust design, logging configuration, and administrative practices are required to determine actual risk and coverage.
Domain Trust Discovery
Adversaries may attempt to gather information on domain trust relationships that may be used to identify lateral movement opportunities in Windows multi-domain/forest environments. Domain trusts provide a mechanism for a domain to allow access to resources based on the authentication procedures of another domain.[1] Domain trusts allow the users of the trusted domain to access resources in the trusting domain. The information discovered may help the adversary conduct SID-History Injection, Pass the Ticket, and Kerberoasting.[2][3] Domain trusts can be enumerated using the `DSEnumerateDomainTrusts()` Win32 API call, .NET methods, and LDAP.[3] The Windows utility Nltest is known to be used by adversaries to enumerate domain trusts.[4]
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
G1043: BlackByte
BlackByte is a ransomware threat actor operating since at least 2021. BlackByte is associated with several versions of ransomware also labeled BlackByte Ransomware. BlackByte ransomware operations initially used a common encryption key allowing for the development of a universal decryptor, but subsequent versions such as BlackByte 2.0 Ransomware use more robust encryption mechanisms. BlackByte is notable for operations targeting critical infrastructure entities among other targets across North America.[1][2][3][4][5]
G1024: Akira
Akira is a ransomware variant and ransomware deployment entity active since at least March 2023.[1] Akira uses compromised credentials to access single-factor external access mechanisms such as VPNs for initial access, then various publicly-available tools and techniques for lateral movement.[1][2] Akira operations are associated with "double extortion" ransomware activity, where data is exfiltrated from victim environments prior to encryption, with threats to publish files if a ransom is not paid. Technical analysis of Akira ransomware indicates variants capable of targeting Windows or VMWare ESXi hypervisors and multiple overlaps with Conti ransomware.[3][4][5]
G0114: Chimera
G1054: MirrorFace
MirrorFace is a People's Republic of China (PRC)-aligned cyberespionage actor believed to be a subgroup under the menuPass umbrella based on targeting, tools, and infrastructure overlaps. MirrorFace has been active since at least 2019, at first exclusively targeting Japanese organizations across the media, defense, diplomatic, financial, manufacturing, and academic sectors. Subsequent MirrorFace operations included targets in Central Europe and featured use of LODEINFO, HiddenFace, and UPPERCUT malware.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
G0030: Lotus Blossom
Lotus Blossom is a long-standing threat group largely targeting various entities in Asia since at least 2009. In addition to government and related targets, Lotus Blossom has also targeted entities such as digital certificate issuers.[1][2][3]
G1006: Earth Lusca
Earth Lusca is a suspected China-based cyber espionage group that has been active since at least April 2019. Earth Lusca has targeted organizations in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Germany, France, and the United States. Targets included government institutions, news media outlets, gambling companies, educational institutions, COVID-19 research organizations, telecommunications companies, religious movements banned in China, and cryptocurrency trading platforms; security researchers assess some Earth Lusca operations may be financially motivated.[1]
Earth Lusca has used malware commonly used by other Chinese threat groups, including APT41 and the Winnti Group cluster, however security researchers assess Earth Lusca's techniques and infrastructure are separate.[1]
G1053: Storm-0501
Storm-0501 is a financially motivated cyber criminal group that uses commodity and open-source tools to conduct ransomware operations. Storm-0501 has been active since 2021 and has previously been affiliated with Sabbath Ransomware and other Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) variants such as Hive, BlackCat, Hunters International, LockBit 3.0, and Embargo ransomware.[1][2][3][4]
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]
G0059: Magic Hound
Magic Hound is an Iranian-sponsored threat group that conducts long term, resource-intensive cyber espionage operations, likely on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They have targeted European, U.S., and Middle Eastern government and military personnel, academics, journalists, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), via complex social engineering campaigns since at least 2014.[1][2][3][4][5]
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]
S0363: Empire
Empire is an open-source, cross-platform remote administration and post-exploitation framework that is publicly available on GitHub. While the tool itself is primarily written in Python, the post-exploitation agents are written in pure PowerShell for Windows and Python for Linux/macOS. Empire was one of five tools singled out by a joint report on public hacking tools being widely used by adversaries.[1][2][3]
S0534: Bazar
Bazar is a downloader and backdoor that has been used since at least April 2020, with infections primarily against professional services, healthcare, manufacturing, IT, logistics and travel companies across the US and Europe. Bazar reportedly has ties to TrickBot campaigns and can be used to deploy additional malware, including ransomware, and to steal sensitive data.[1]
S0483: IcedID
S1145: Pikabot
Pikabot is a backdoor used for initial access and follow-on tool deployment active since early 2023. Pikabot is notable for extensive use of multiple encoding, encryption, and defense evasion mechanisms to evade defenses and avoid analysis. Pikabot has some overlaps with QakBot, but insufficient evidence exists to definitively link these two malware families. Pikabot is frequently used to deploy follow on tools such as Cobalt Strike or ransomware variants.[1][2][3]
S0552: AdFind
S1071: Rubeus
S1124: SocGholish
SocGholish is a JavaScript-based loader malware that has been used since at least 2017. It has been observed in use against multiple sectors globally for initial access, primarily through drive-by-downloads masquerading as software updates. SocGholish is operated by Mustard Tempest and its access has been sold to groups including Indrik Spider for downloading secondary RAT and ransomware payloads.[1][2][3][4]
S9035: LAMEHUG
LAMEHUG is Python-based information stealer first identified in July 2025 by Ukraine's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-UA) in phishing emails targeting Ukrainian government officials. LAMEHUG is the first known malware to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) directly into its attack workflow by querying large language models (LLMs) hosted on Hugging Face to dynamically generate reconnaissance, data theft, and system manipulation commands in real time. LAMEHUG has been attributed to APT28. [1][2][3]
S1146: MgBot
S0359: Nltest
S0650: QakBot
S1063: Brute Ratel C4
Brute Ratel C4 is a commercial red-teaming and adversarial attack simulation tool that first appeared in December 2020. Brute Ratel C4 was specifically designed to avoid detection by endpoint detection and response (EDR) and antivirus (AV) capabilities, and deploys agents called badgers to enable arbitrary command execution for lateral movement, privilege escalation, and persistence. In September 2022, a cracked version of Brute Ratel C4 was leaked in the cybercriminal underground, leading to its use by threat actors.[1][2][3][4][5]
C0049: Leviathan Australian Intrusions
Leviathan Australian Intrusions consisted of at least two long-term intrusions against victims in Australia by Leviathan, relying on similar tradecraft such as external service exploitation followed by extensive credential capture and re-use to enable privilege escalation and lateral movement. Leviathan Australian Intrusions were focused on exfiltrating sensitive data including valid credentials for the victim organizations.[1]
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]
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]
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 | 1.2 | Current bundle | 1655bb599489… |
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]
Microsoft Trusts
Microsoft. (2009, October 7). Trust Technologies. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
Open source URL -
[2]
AdSecurity Forging Trust Tickets
Metcalf, S. (2015, July 15). It’s All About Trust – Forging Kerberos Trust Tickets to Spoof Access across Active Directory Trusts. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
Open source URL -
[3]
Harmj0y Domain Trusts
Schroeder, W. (2017, October 30). A Guide to Attacking Domain Trusts. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
Open source URL -
[4]
Microsoft Operation Wilysupply
Florio, E.. (2017, May 4). Windows Defender ATP thwarts Operation WilySupply software supply chain cyberattack. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
Open source URL -
[5]
Microsoft GetAllTrustRelationships
Microsoft. (n.d.). Domain.GetAllTrustRelationships Method. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
Open source URL -
[6]
mitre-attack T1482Open 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.