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

T1543.003: Windows Service

Adversaries may create or modify Windows services to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When Windows boots up, it starts programs or applications called services that perform background system functions.[1] Windows service configuration information, including the file path to the service's executable or recovery programs/commands, is stored in the Windows Registry.

Adversaries may install a new service or modify an existing service to execute at startup in order to persist on a system. Service configurations can be set or modified using system utilities (such as sc.exe), by directly modifying the Registry, or by interacting directly with the Windows API.

Adversaries may also use services to install and execute malicious drivers. For example, after dropping a driver file (ex: `.sys`) to disk, the payload can be loaded and registered via Native API functions such as `CreateServiceW()` (or manually via functions such as `ZwLoadDriver()` and `ZwSetValueKey()`), by creating the required service Registry values (i.e. Modify Registry), or by using command-line utilities such as `PnPUtil.exe`.[2][3][4] Adversaries may leverage these drivers as Rootkits to hide the presence of malicious activity on a system. Adversaries may also load a signed yet vulnerable driver onto a compromised machine (known as "Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver" (BYOVD)) as part of Exploitation for Privilege Escalation.[5][4]

Services may be created with administrator privileges but are executed under SYSTEM privileges, so an adversary may also use a service to escalate privileges. Adversaries may also directly start services through Service Execution.

To make detection analysis more challenging, malicious services may also incorporate Masquerade Task or Service (ex: using a service and/or payload name related to a legitimate OS or benign software component). Adversaries may also create ‘hidden’ services (i.e., Hide Artifacts), for example by using the `sc sdset` command to set service permissions via the Service Descriptor Definition Language (SDDL). This may hide a Windows service from the view of standard service enumeration methods such as `Get-Service`, `sc query`, and `services.exe`.[6][7]

EnterpriseT1543.003Sub-techniqueObject v1.6 Modified
Discuss defensive coverage Back to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence High

Windows services are a high-value persistence and privilege-escalation path because they start in the background, can run with SYSTEM privileges, and are part of normal Windows operations. For leaders, the decision point is whether the organization can reliably prove which services were newly created or changed, who changed them, what binary or driver they point to, and whether hidden or masqueraded services would be noticed during an incident.

Executive priority

Prioritize this technique where Windows servers, privileged workstations, and operationally critical systems support business continuity. ATT&CK links this behavior to persistence and privilege escalation, and the object notes service abuse can include malicious drivers, rootkit behavior, BYOVD-style privilege escalation, and hidden services. This makes service monitoring useful not only for SOC detection, but also for incident scoping, privileged access governance, audit evidence, and resilience planning in environments where unauthorized SYSTEM-level execution could disrupt operations.

Technical view

For SOC, detection engineering, and IR teams, validate coverage for creation and modification of Windows services, not just process execution. Review telemetry around service install events, service configuration changes, Registry-backed service paths and recovery commands, service-start settings, use of utilities such as sc.exe and PnPUtil.exe, direct Registry modification, and service-related API activity where available. Because ATT&CK notes masqueraded and hidden services, compare multiple enumeration sources rather than relying only on standard tools such as Get-Service, sc query, or services.exe. The related detection strategy DET0552 should be used as the ATT&CK-aligned detection reference, while recognizing the main technique object does not provide official detection text.

Likely telemetry

  • Windows service installation evidence, including Microsoft event 4697 where auditing is enabled
  • Windows Event Forwarding or equivalent centralized Windows event collection
  • Registry changes to Windows service configuration, executable paths, recovery commands, startup type, and service permissions
  • Process creation telemetry for service-control and driver-loading utilities such as sc.exe and PnPUtil.exe
  • Endpoint telemetry showing service creation or modification through Windows APIs such as CreateServiceW where available

Detection direction

  • Confirm logging is enabled and centrally collected before assuming visibility; the ATT&CK object has no official detection section, so local telemetry validation is required.
  • Alert on newly created services, service executable path changes, recovery-command changes, suspicious startup configuration changes, and services pointing to unusual or recently written binaries.
  • Tune by distinguishing approved software installation, patching, endpoint management, and driver deployment activity from unexpected service changes, especially on servers and privileged systems.
  • Hunt for masquerading by comparing service names, display names, paths, publishers, and locations against known-good baselines.
  • Hunt for hidden services by comparing Registry-backed service entries and security descriptors with results from normal service enumeration tools.

Mitigation priorities

  • Enforce least privilege and user account management so only authorized administrators and service-management identities can create or modify services.
  • Harden Windows operating system configuration and service permissions to reduce unnecessary service abuse opportunities.
  • Maintain auditing for service installation and service configuration changes, and forward relevant Windows events to centralized monitoring.
  • Use endpoint behavior-prevention controls where available to block or challenge suspicious service creation, service modification, driver loading, or anomalous SYSTEM-level execution.
  • Apply code-signing and trust controls for service binaries and drivers where supported, with attention to the ATT&CK-noted risk of signed yet vulnerable drivers.
Analyst notes and limits

This is a Windows sub-technique of Create or Modify System Process and supersedes older ATT&CK techniques for New Service and Modify Existing Service. The supplied relationships show many campaigns and groups have used Windows service creation or modification, including activity associated with espionage, cybercrime, and critical-infrastructure-related reporting. Use that breadth to justify control validation, but do not infer current targeting or compromise without local evidence.

The supplied ATT&CK object does not include official detection text, and related mitigation descriptions are general. This take therefore focuses on defensible validation areas from the official description, external references, and relationships. Exact event IDs beyond the supplied Microsoft 4697 reference, required audit policy settings, detection logic, and false-positive rates must be confirmed in the organization’s Windows build, logging configuration, EDR capabilities, and change-management process.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Windows Service

Adversaries may create or modify Windows services to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When Windows boots up, it starts programs or applications called services that perform background system functions.[1] Windows service configuration information, including the file path to the service's executable or recovery programs/commands, is stored in the Windows Registry.

Adversaries may install a new service or modify an existing service to execute at startup in order to persist on a system. Service configurations can be set or modified using system utilities (such as sc.exe), by directly modifying the Registry, or by interacting directly with the Windows API.

Adversaries may also use services to install and execute malicious drivers. For example, after dropping a driver file (ex: `.sys`) to disk, the payload can be loaded and registered via Native API functions such as `CreateServiceW()` (or manually via functions such as `ZwLoadDriver()` and `ZwSetValueKey()`), by creating the required service Registry values (i.e. Modify Registry), or by using command-line utilities such as `PnPUtil.exe`.[2][3][4] Adversaries may leverage these drivers as Rootkits to hide the presence of malicious activity on a system. Adversaries may also load a signed yet vulnerable driver onto a compromised machine (known as "Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver" (BYOVD)) as part of Exploitation for Privilege Escalation.[5][4]

Services may be created with administrator privileges but are executed under SYSTEM privileges, so an adversary may also use a service to escalate privileges. Adversaries may also directly start services through Service Execution.

To make detection analysis more challenging, malicious services may also incorporate Masquerade Task or Service (ex: using a service and/or payload name related to a legitimate OS or benign software component). Adversaries may also create ‘hidden’ services (i.e., Hide Artifacts), for example by using the `sc sdset` command to set service permissions via the Service Descriptor Definition Language (SDDL). This may hide a Windows service from the view of standard service enumeration methods such as `Get-Service`, `sc query`, and `services.exe`.[6][7]

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.

2 rows
Domain ID Name Relationship / procedure
Enterprise T1031 Modify Existing Service Modify Existing Service revoked by this object.
Enterprise T1050 New Service New Service revoked by this object.
Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

Group Enterprise

G1051: Medusa Group

Medusa Group has been active since at least 2021 and was initially operated as a closed ransomware group before evolving into a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) operation. Some reporting indicates that certain attacks may still be conducted directly by the ransomware’s core developers. Public sources have also referred to the group as “Spearwing” or “Medusa Actors.” [1] [2] Medusa Group employs living-off-the-land techniques, frequently leveraging publicly available tools and common remote management software to conduct operations. The group engages in double extortion tactics, exfiltrating data prior to encryption and threatening to publish stolen information if ransom demands are not met. [3] For initial access, Medusa Group has exploited publicly known vulnerabilities, conducted phishing campaigns, and used credentials or access purchased from Initial Access Brokers (IABs). The group is opportunistic and has targeted a wide range of sectors globally. [4]

Group Enterprise

G0105: DarkVishnya

DarkVishnya is a financially motivated threat actor targeting financial institutions in Eastern Europe. In 2017-2018 the group attacked at least 8 banks in this region.[1]

Group Enterprise

G0143: Aquatic Panda

Aquatic Panda is a suspected China-based threat group with a dual mission of intelligence collection and industrial espionage. Active since at least May 2020, Aquatic Panda has primarily targeted entities in the telecommunications, technology, and government sectors.[1]

Group Enterprise

G0082: APT38

APT38 is a North Korean state-sponsored threat group that specializes in financial cyber operations; it has been attributed to the Reconnaissance General Bureau.[1] Active since at least 2014, APT38 has targeted banks, financial institutions, casinos, cryptocurrency exchanges, SWIFT system endpoints, and ATMs in at least 38 countries worldwide. Significant operations include the 2016 Bank of Bangladesh heist, during which APT38 stole $81 million, as well as attacks against Bancomext [2] and Banco de Chile [2]; some of their attacks have been destructive.[1][2][3][4]

North Korean group definitions are known to have significant overlap, and some security researchers report all North Korean state-sponsored cyber activity under the name Lazarus Group instead of tracking clusters or subgroups.

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

G0102: Wizard Spider

Wizard Spider is a Russia-based financially motivated threat group originally known for the creation and deployment of TrickBot since at least 2016. Wizard Spider possesses a diverse arsenal of tools and has conducted ransomware campaigns against a variety of organizations, ranging from major corporations to hospitals.[1][2][3]

Group Enterprise

G0108: Blue Mockingbird

Blue Mockingbird is a cluster of observed activity involving Monero cryptocurrency-mining payloads in dynamic-link library (DLL) form on Windows systems. The earliest observed Blue Mockingbird tools were created in December 2019.[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]

Group Enterprise

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]

Group Enterprise

G0073: APT19

APT19 is a Chinese-based threat group that has targeted a variety of industries, including defense, finance, energy, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, high tech, education, manufacturing, and legal services. In 2017, a phishing campaign was used to target seven law and investment firms. [1] Some analysts track APT19 and Deep Panda as the same group, but it is unclear from open source information if the groups are the same. [2] [3] [4]

Malware Enterprise

S0604: Industroyer

Industroyer is a sophisticated malware framework designed to cause an impact to the working processes of Industrial Control Systems (ICS), specifically components used in electrical substations.[1] Industroyer was used in the attacks on the Ukrainian power grid in December 2016.[2] This is the first publicly known malware specifically designed to target and impact operations in the electric grid.[3]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0625: Cuba

Cuba is a Windows-based ransomware family that has been used against financial institutions, technology, and logistics organizations in North and South America as well as Europe since at least December 2019.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0493: GoldenSpy

GoldenSpy is a backdoor malware which has been packaged with legitimate tax preparation software. GoldenSpy was discovered targeting organizations in China, being delivered with the "Intelligent Tax" software suite which is produced by the Golden Tax Department of Aisino Credit Information Co. and required to pay local taxes.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0180: Volgmer

Volgmer is a backdoor Trojan designed to provide covert access to a compromised system. It has been used since at least 2013 to target the government, financial, automotive, and media industries. Its primary delivery mechanism is suspected to be spearphishing. [1]

Windows
Campaign Enterprise

C0012: Operation CuckooBees

Operation CuckooBees was a cyber espionage campaign targeting technology and manufacturing companies in East Asia, Western Europe, and North America since at least 2019. Security researchers noted the goal of Operation CuckooBees, which was still ongoing as of May 2022, was likely the theft of proprietary information, research and development documents, source code, and blueprints for various technologies. Researchers assessed Operation CuckooBees was conducted by actors affiliated with Winnti Group, APT41, and BARIUM.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0061: Operation Digital Eye

Operation Digital Eye was conducted in June and July of 2024 by suspected People's Republic of China (PRC)-nexus threat actors targeting business-to-business IT service providers in Southern Europe. Operation Digital Eye activity included the use of Visual Studio Code tunnels for command and control (C2) and custom lateral movement capabilities. Overlaps in tooling between Digital Eye and previous China-nexus campaigns, Operation Soft Cell and Operation Tainted Love, indicate the potential use of shared vendors or digital quartermasters.[1]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

uses · Malware S1090: NightClub Enterprise uses · Malware S0604: Industroyer Enterprise uses · Group G0081: Tropic Trooper Enterprise uses · Group G1051: Medusa Group Enterprise uses · Malware S1044: FunnyDream Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint Enterprise uses · Malware S0141: Winnti for Windows Enterprise uses · Malware S0625: Cuba Enterprise uses · Malware S0204: Briba Enterprise uses · Malware S1033: DCSrv Enterprise uses · Malware S0612: WastedLocker Enterprise uses · Malware S0493: GoldenSpy Enterprise uses · Campaign C0012: Operation CuckooBees Enterprise uses · Group G0105: DarkVishnya Enterprise uses · Malware S0180: Volgmer Enterprise uses · Malware S0149: MoonWind Enterprise uses · Malware S0050: CosmicDuke Enterprise uses · Malware S0012: PoisonIvy Enterprise uses · Malware S1037: STARWHALE Enterprise uses · Malware S0230: ZeroT Enterprise uses · Malware S0666: Gelsemium Enterprise uses · Group G0143: Aquatic Panda Enterprise uses · Group G0082: APT38 Enterprise uses · Malware S0650: QakBot Enterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

Mitigation Enterprise

M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint

Behavior Prevention on Endpoint refers to the use of technologies and strategies to detect and block potentially malicious activities by analyzing the behavior of processes, files, API calls, and other endpoint events. Rather than relying solely on known signatures, this approach leverages heuristics, machine learning, and real-time monitoring to identify anomalous patterns indicative of an attack. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Suspicious Process Behavior:

- Implementation: Use Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools to monitor and block processes exhibiting unusual behavior, such as privilege escalation attempts. - Use Case: An attacker uses a known vulnerability to spawn a privileged process from a user-level application. The endpoint tool detects the abnormal parent-child process relationship and blocks the action.

Unauthorized File Access:

- Implementation: Leverage Data Loss Prevention (DLP) or endpoint tools to block processes attempting to access sensitive files without proper authorization. - Use Case: A process tries to read or modify a sensitive file located in a restricted directory, such as /etc/shadow on Linux or the SAM registry hive on Windows. The endpoint tool identifies this anomalous behavior and prevents it.

Abnormal API Calls:

- Implementation: Implement runtime analysis tools to monitor API calls and block those associated with malicious activities. - Use Case: A process dynamically injects itself into another process to hijack its execution. The endpoint detects the abnormal use of APIs like `OpenProcess` and `WriteProcessMemory` and terminates the offending process.

Exploit Prevention:

- Implementation: Use behavioral exploit prevention tools to detect and block exploits attempting to gain unauthorized access. - Use Case: A buffer overflow exploit is launched against a vulnerable application. The endpoint detects the anomalous memory write operation and halts the process.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1028: Operating System Configuration

Operating System Configuration involves adjusting system settings and hardening the default configurations of an operating system (OS) to mitigate adversary exploitation and prevent abuse of system functionality. Proper OS configurations address security vulnerabilities, limit attack surfaces, and ensure robust defense against a wide range of techniques. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Disable Unused Features:

- Turn off SMBv1, LLMNR, and NetBIOS where not needed. - Disable remote registry and unnecessary services.

Enforce OS-level Protections:

- Enable Data Execution Prevention (DEP), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), and Control Flow Guard (CFG) on Windows. - Use AppArmor or SELinux on Linux for mandatory access controls.

Secure Access Settings:

- Enable User Account Control (UAC) for Windows. - Restrict root/sudo access on Linux/macOS and enforce strong permissions using sudoers files.

File System Hardening:

- Implement least-privilege access for critical files and system directories. - Audit permissions regularly using tools like icacls (Windows) or getfacl/chmod (Linux/macOS).

Secure Remote Access:

- Restrict RDP, SSH, and VNC to authorized IPs using firewall rules. - Enable NLA for RDP and enforce strong password/lockout policies.

Harden Boot Configurations:

- Enable Secure Boot and enforce UEFI/BIOS password protection. - Use BitLocker or LUKS to encrypt boot drives.

Regular Audits:

- Periodically audit OS configurations using tools like CIS Benchmarks or SCAP tools.

*Tools for Implementation*

Windows:

- Microsoft Group Policy Objects (GPO): Centrally enforce OS security settings. - Windows Defender Exploit Guard: Built-in OS protection against exploits. - CIS-CAT Pro: Audit Windows security configurations based on CIS Benchmarks.

Linux/macOS:

- AppArmor/SELinux: Enforce mandatory access controls. - Lynis: Perform comprehensive security audits. - SCAP Security Guide: Automate configuration hardening using Security Content Automation Protocol.

Cross-Platform:

- Ansible or Chef/Puppet: Automate configuration hardening at scale. - OpenSCAP: Perform compliance and configuration checks.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1047: Audit

Auditing is the process of recording activity and systematically reviewing and analyzing the activity and system configurations. The primary purpose of auditing is to detect anomalies and identify potential threats or weaknesses in the environment. Proper auditing configurations can also help to meet compliance requirements. The process of auditing encompasses regular analysis of user behaviors and system logs in support of proactive security measures.

Auditing is applicable to all systems used within an organization, from the front door of a building to accessing a file on a fileserver. It is considered more critical for regulated industries such as, healthcare, finance and government where compliance requirements demand stringent tracking of user and system activates.This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

System Audit:

- Use Case: Regularly assess system configurations to ensure compliance with organizational security policies. - Implementation: Use tools to scan for deviations from established benchmarks.

Permission Audits:

- Use Case: Review file and folder permissions to minimize the risk of unauthorized access or privilege escalation. - Implementation: Run access reviews to identify users or groups with excessive permissions.

Software Audits:

- Use Case: Identify outdated, unsupported, or insecure software that could serve as an attack vector. - Implementation: Use inventory and vulnerability scanning tools to detect outdated versions and recommend secure alternatives.

Configuration Audits:

- Use Case: Evaluate system and network configurations to ensure secure settings (e.g., disabled SMBv1, enabled MFA). - Implementation: Implement automated configuration scanning tools like SCAP (Security Content Automation Protocol) to identify non-compliant systems.

Network Audits:

- Use Case: Examine network traffic, firewall rules, and endpoint communications to identify unauthorized or insecure connections. - Implementation: Utilize tools such as Wireshark, or Zeek to monitor and log suspicious network behavior.

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
1.6
Created
Modified
Raw hash
94898298fca9892b...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 1.6 Current bundle 94898298fca9…
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]
    TechNet Services

    Microsoft. (n.d.). Services. Retrieved June 7, 2016.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    Symantec W.32 Stuxnet Dossier

    Nicolas Falliere, Liam O. Murchu, Eric Chien. (2011, February). W32.Stuxnet Dossier. Retrieved December 7, 2020.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    Crowdstrike DriveSlayer February 2022

    Thomas, W. et al. (2022, February 25). CrowdStrike Falcon Protects from New Wiper Malware Used in Ukraine Cyberattacks. Retrieved March 25, 2022.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    Unit42 AcidBox June 2020

    Reichel, D. and Idrizovic, E. (2020, June 17). AcidBox: Rare Malware Repurposing Turla Group Exploit Targeted Russian Organizations. Retrieved March 16, 2021.

    Open source URL
  5. [5]
    ESET InvisiMole June 2020

    Hromcova, Z. and Cherpanov, A. (2020, June). INVISIMOLE: THE HIDDEN PART OF THE STORY. Retrieved July 16, 2020.

    Open source URL
  6. [6]
    SANS 1

    Joshua Wright. (2020, October 13). Retrieved March 22, 2024.

    Open source URL
  7. [7]
    SANS 2

    Joshua Wright. (2020, October 14). Retrieved March 22, 2024.

    Open source URL
  8. [8]
    Microsoft 4697 APR 2017

    Miroshnikov, A. & Hall, J. (2017, April 18). 4697(S): A service was installed in the system. Retrieved August 7, 2018.

    Open source URL
  9. [9]
    Microsoft Windows Event Forwarding FEB 2018

    Hardy, T. & Hall, J. (2018, February 15). Use Windows Event Forwarding to help with intrusion detection. Retrieved August 7, 2018.

    Open source URL
  10. [10]
    TechNet Autoruns

    Russinovich, M. (2016, January 4). Autoruns for Windows v13.51. Retrieved June 6, 2016.

    Open source URL
  11. [11]
    mitre-attack T1543.003
    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