LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
MITRE ATT&CK® Malware

S0512: FatDuke

FatDuke is a backdoor used by APT29 since at least 2016.[1]

EnterpriseS0512MalwareObject v1.1Modified
Discuss defensive coverageBack to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take · Automated analysis

Security context for executives and security teams

Automation confidenceMedium

FatDuke matters because ATT&CK describes it as a Windows backdoor used by APT29 since at least 2016 and associated through relationships with Operation Ghost. For leaders, the practical issue is not a single indicator but a behavior set: persistence through registry startup locations, discovery of systems and files, local data collection, obfuscated or packed code, and resilient web-based command-and-control. This combination can turn a compromised Windows endpoint into a durable access point for intelligence gathering unless endpoint, registry, file, PowerShell, and network telemetry are retained and correlated.

Executive priority

Prioritize FatDuke as a validation case for Windows endpoint resilience, incident response evidence quality, and C2 visibility rather than as a standalone malware signature problem. Ask whether the organization can prove coverage for registry-based persistence, suspicious rundll32 and PowerShell execution, file discovery and deletion, and abnormal outbound web traffic with fallback or encrypted channels. This is especially relevant for government, diplomatic, research, and policy-adjacent environments given the supplied APT29 and Operation Ghost context, but local exposure should be determined from the organization’s own threat model and telemetry.

Technical view

ATT&CK provides no official detection text for FatDuke, so SOC and detection teams should build validation around the mapped techniques. On Windows, focus on registry query and Run Key or Startup Folder changes, PowerShell execution, rundll32 proxy execution, process and system discovery, file and directory enumeration, access to local data, file deletion, and signs of obfuscated, packed, or decoded payloads. Network teams should validate visibility into HTTP/S web protocol use, user-agent or browser-fingerprint-like blending, fallback C2 paths, internal proxy behavior, and encrypted application-layer traffic that does not match expected enterprise patterns. IR teams should preserve host artifacts and network logs early because the mapped behaviors include file deletion, obfuscation, and time-based sandbox or analysis checks.

Likely telemetry

  • Windows process creation and command-line telemetry for PowerShell, rundll32.exe, discovery utilities, and unusual parent-child process chains
  • Windows Registry auditing or EDR telemetry for registry queries and Run Key or Startup Folder persistence changes
  • Endpoint file telemetry for file and directory enumeration, local data access, dropped files, packed or obfuscated binaries, decoding activity, and file deletion
  • PowerShell logging where available, including script block, module, and command invocation evidence
  • EDR behavioral telemetry for native API use, process discovery, anti-analysis timing checks, and in-memory execution indicators

Detection direction

  • Do not rely only on static malware signatures; the mapped techniques include packing, junk code insertion, obfuscation, and deobfuscation behavior.
  • Correlate registry persistence with nearby suspicious execution, especially PowerShell, rundll32, newly written files, or unusual user-context startup entries.
  • Tune discovery detections to distinguish administrative inventory activity from suspicious clusters of process discovery, system information discovery, network configuration discovery, registry query, and file enumeration on the same host.
  • Review web traffic detections for command-and-control patterns that blend into normal HTTP/S, including unusual user-agent values, uncommon destination patterns, encrypted payloads inside otherwise normal web sessions, and fallback destination changes.
  • Hunt for internal proxy behavior where one compromised system appears to relay communications for another, especially if outbound access is concentrated through unexpected endpoints.

Mitigation priorities

  • First, ensure Windows endpoint logging and EDR coverage can preserve process, registry, PowerShell, file, and network context long enough for investigation.
  • Harden and monitor persistence locations such as Registry Run Keys and Startup Folders, with change review for unusual user-context entries.
  • Apply least privilege and administrative control discipline so discovery, local data access, and persistence attempts have reduced reach.
  • Control and monitor script and proxy execution paths, including PowerShell and rundll32, without assuming these legitimate tools can simply be blocked everywhere.
  • Strengthen egress governance: require outbound web traffic to use approved paths, monitor anomalous destinations, and investigate fallback or internally proxied communications.
Additional notes and limits

The supplied ATT&CK object identifies FatDuke as a Windows backdoor used by APT29 since at least 2016, with relationships to Operation Ghost and multiple ATT&CK techniques spanning execution, persistence, privilege escalation, discovery, collection, stealth, and command-and-control. The most useful defensive value is to treat FatDuke as a behavioral coverage test for Windows endpoint and web C2 monitoring. The ESET Operation Ghost report and MITRE S0512 page are the supplied external references.

ATT&CK provides no official detection guidance for this object, and the object-level tactics are not specified. The take above is derived from the official description, platform field, external references, and supplied relationships only. It does not establish current activity, local exposure, successful compromise, or guaranteed detection coverage. Organizations must validate applicability against their own Windows estate, logging architecture, network controls, and threat model.

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

FatDuke

FatDuke is a backdoor used by APT29 since at least 2016.[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.

ATT&CK relationship table

Techniques used

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.

21 rows
DomainIDNameRelationship / procedure
EnterpriseT1012Query Registry

FatDuke can get user agent strings for the default browser from HKCU\Software\Classes\http\shell\open\command.[1]

EnterpriseT1036.012Browser FingerprintSub-technique

FatDuke has attempted to mimic a compromised user's traffic by using the same user agent as the installed browser.[1]

EnterpriseT1071.001Web ProtocolsSub-technique

FatDuke can be controlled via a custom C2 protocol over HTTP.[1]

EnterpriseT1497.003Time Based ChecksSub-technique

FatDuke can turn itself on or off at random intervals.[1]

EnterpriseT1016System Network Configuration Discovery

FatDuke can identify the MAC address on the target computer.[1]

EnterpriseT1008Fallback Channels

FatDuke has used several C2 servers per targeted organization.[1]

EnterpriseT1082System Information Discovery

FatDuke can collect the user name, Windows version, computer name, and available space on discs from a compromised host.[1]

EnterpriseT1547.001Registry Run Keys / Startup FolderSub-technique

FatDuke has used HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\CurrentVersion\Run to establish persistence.[1]

EnterpriseT1106Native API

FatDuke can call ShellExecuteW to open the default browser on the URL localhost.[1]

EnterpriseT1027.002Software PackingSub-technique

FatDuke has been regularly repacked by its operators to create large binaries and evade detection.[1]

EnterpriseT1090.001Internal ProxySub-technique

FatDuke can used pipes to connect machines with restricted internet access to remote machines via other infected hosts.[1]

EnterpriseT1057Process Discovery

FatDuke can list running processes on the localhost.[1]

EnterpriseT1027Obfuscated Files or Information

FatDuke can use base64 encoding, string stacking, and opaque predicates for obfuscation.[1]

EnterpriseT1070.004File DeletionSub-technique

FatDuke can secure delete its DLL.[1]

EnterpriseT1005Data from Local System

FatDuke can copy files and directories from a compromised host.[1]

EnterpriseT1218.011Rundll32Sub-technique

FatDuke can execute via rundll32.[1]

EnterpriseT1059.001PowerShellSub-technique

FatDuke has the ability to execute PowerShell scripts.[1]

EnterpriseT1573.001Symmetric CryptographySub-technique

FatDuke can AES encrypt C2 communications.[1]

EnterpriseT1083File and Directory Discovery

FatDuke can enumerate directories on target machines.[1]

EnterpriseT1027.016Junk Code InsertionSub-technique

FatDuke has been packed with junk code and strings.[1]

EnterpriseT1140Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

FatDuke can decrypt AES encrypted C2 communications.[1]

Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

GroupEnterprise

G0016: APT29

APT29 is threat group that has been attributed to Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).[1][2] They have operated since at least 2008, often targeting government networks in Europe and NATO member countries, research institutes, and think tanks. APT29 reportedly compromised the Democratic National Committee starting in the summer of 2015.[3][4][5][6]

In April 2021, the US and UK governments attributed the SolarWinds Compromise to the SVR; public statements included citations to APT29, Cozy Bear, and The Dukes.[7][8] Industry reporting also referred to the actors involved in this campaign as UNC2452, NOBELIUM, StellarParticle, Dark Halo, and SolarStorm.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

CampaignEnterprise

C0023: Operation Ghost

Operation Ghost was an APT29 campaign starting in 2013 that included operations against ministries of foreign affairs in Europe and the Washington, D.C. embassy of a European Union country. During Operation Ghost, APT29 used new families of malware and leveraged web services, steganography, and unique C2 infrastructure for each victim.[1]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

uses · TechniqueT1012: Query RegistryEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1036.012: Browser FingerprintEnterpriseuses · GroupG0016: APT29Enterpriseuses · TechniqueT1071.001: Web ProtocolsEnterpriseuses · CampaignC0023: Operation GhostEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1497.003: Time Based ChecksEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1016: System Network Configuration DiscoveryEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1008: Fallback ChannelsEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1082: System Information DiscoveryEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1547.001: Registry Run Keys / Startup FolderEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1106: Native APIEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1027.002: Software PackingEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1090.001: Internal ProxyEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1057: Process DiscoveryEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1027: Obfuscated Files or InformationEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1070.004: File DeletionEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1005: Data from Local SystemEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1218.011: Rundll32Enterpriseuses · TechniqueT1059.001: PowerShellEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1573.001: Symmetric CryptographyEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1083: File and Directory DiscoveryEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1027.016: Junk Code InsertionEnterpriseuses · TechniqueT1140: Deobfuscate/Decode Files or InformationEnterprise
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
1.1
Created
Modified
Raw hash
0beb94badc13a762...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases(1)
ReleaseBundle importedObject versionModifiedStatusRaw hash
19.11.1Current bundle0beb94badc13…
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 JSONOpen 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]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    Secureworks IRON HEMLOCK Profile

    Secureworks CTU. (n.d.). IRON HEMLOCK. Retrieved February 22, 2022.

  3. [3]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  5. [5]
    mitre-attackS0512
    Open source URL
  6. [6]
    mitre-attackS0512
    Open source URL
  7. [7]
    mitre-attackS0512
    Open source URL
  8. [8]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  9. [9]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  10. [10]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  11. [11]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  12. [12]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  13. [13]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  14. [14]
    Secureworks IRON HEMLOCK Profile

    Secureworks CTU. (n.d.). IRON HEMLOCK. Retrieved February 22, 2022.

  15. [15]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  16. [16]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  17. [17]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  18. [18]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  19. [19]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  20. [20]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  21. [21]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  22. [22]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  23. [23]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  24. [24]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  25. [25]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  26. [26]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  27. [27]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  28. [28]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  29. [29]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  30. [30]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  31. [31]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  32. [32]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  33. [33]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  34. [34]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  35. [35]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  36. [36]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  37. [37]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  38. [38]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  39. [39]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  40. [40]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  41. [41]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  42. [42]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  43. [43]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  44. [44]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  45. [45]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  46. [46]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  47. [47]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  48. [48]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  49. [49]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  50. [50]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    Open source URL
  51. [51]
    ESET Dukes October 2019

    Faou, M., Tartare, M., Dupuy, T. (2019, October). OPERATION GHOST. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

    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 siteOfficial STIX data repositoryMITRE ATT&CK terms of use