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

T1574.001: DLL

Adversaries may abuse dynamic-link library files (DLLs) in order to achieve persistence, escalate privileges, and evade defenses. DLLs are libraries that contain code and data that can be simultaneously utilized by multiple programs. While DLLs are not malicious by nature, they can be abused through mechanisms such as side-loading, hijacking search order, and phantom DLL hijacking.[1]

Specific ways DLLs are abused by adversaries include:

### DLL Sideloading Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by side-loading DLLs. Side-loading involves hijacking which DLL a program loads by planting and then invoking a legitimate application that executes their payload(s).

Side-loading positions both the victim application and malicious payload(s) alongside each other. Adversaries likely use side-loading as a means of masking actions they perform under a legitimate, trusted, and potentially elevated system or software process. Benign executables used to side-load payloads may not be flagged during delivery and/or execution. Adversary payloads may also be encrypted/packed or otherwise obfuscated until loaded into the memory of the trusted process.

Adversaries may also side-load other packages, such as BPLs (Borland Package Library).[2]

Adversaries may chain DLL sideloading multiple times to fragment functionality hindering analysis. Adversaries using multiple DLL files can split the loader functions across different DLLs, with a main DLL loading the separated export functions. [3] Spreading loader functions across multiple DLLs makes analysis harder, since all files must be collected to fully understand the malware’s behavior. Another method implements a “loader-for-a-loader”, where a malicious DLL’s sole role is to load a second DLL (or a chain of DLLs) that contain the real payload. [4]

### DLL Search Order Hijacking Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the search order that Windows uses to load DLLs. This search order is a sequence of special and standard search locations that a program checks when loading a DLL. An adversary can plant a trojan DLL in a directory that will be prioritized by the DLL search order over the location of a legitimate library. This will cause Windows to load the malicious DLL when it is called for by the victim program.[1]

### DLL Redirection Adversaries may directly modify the search order via DLL redirection, which after being enabled (in the Registry or via the creation of a redirection file) may cause a program to load a DLL from a different location.[5][6]

### Phantom DLL Hijacking Adversaries may leverage phantom DLL hijacking by targeting references to non-existent DLL files. They may be able to load their own malicious DLL by planting it with the correct name in the location of the missing module.[7][8]

### DLL Substitution Adversaries may target existing, valid DLL files and substitute them with their own malicious DLLs, planting them with the same name and in the same location as the valid DLL file.[9]

Programs that fall victim to DLL hijacking may appear to behave normally because malicious DLLs may be configured to also load the legitimate DLLs they were meant to replace, evading defenses.

Remote DLL hijacking can occur when a program sets its current directory to a remote location, such as a Web share, before loading a DLL.[10][11]

If a valid DLL is configured to run at a higher privilege level, then the adversary-controlled DLL that is loaded will also be executed at the higher level. In this case, the technique could be used for privilege escalation.

EnterpriseT1574.001Sub-techniqueObject v3.0Modified
Discuss defensive coverageBack to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take · Automated analysis

Security context for executives and security teams

Automation confidenceMedium

T1574.001: DLL describes Adversaries may abuse dynamic-link library files (DLLs) in order to achieve persistence, escalate privileges, and evade defenses. DLLs are libraries that contain code and data that can be simultaneously utilized by multiple programs. While DLLs are not malicious by nature, they can be abused through mechanisms such as side-loading, hijacking search order, and phantom DLL hijacking.(Citation: unit 42) Specific ways DLLs are abused by adversaries include: ### DLL Sideloading Adversaries may execute their own maliciou...

Executive priority

T1574.001: DLL is an official MITRE ATT&CK technique. Glexia treats it as defensive behavior context for prioritizing monitoring, control validation, and response planning without using the object by itself as an attribution claim.

Technical view

Security teams should validate T1574.001: DLL by reviewing the official ATT&CK relationships, mapped tactics (stealth, execution), supported platforms (Windows), and available local telemetry before making detection or mitigation decisions.

Likely telemetry

  • Official ATT&CK relationships and object metadata
  • Endpoint process, command-line, and script execution logs
  • Network, endpoint, and security-tool telemetry

Detection direction

  • Validate whether T1574.001: DLL appears in your detection coverage and tabletop scenarios.
  • Use the object to align executive risk language with SOC, incident response, and detection engineering work.
  • Do not treat ATT&CK relationship context as attribution without corroborating evidence.

Mitigation priorities

  • Map the object to existing controls and identify missing telemetry or response ownership.
  • Prioritize mitigations that reduce exposure on the listed platforms and tactics.
  • Review adjacent ATT&CK relationships before changing policy, detections, or reporting language.
Additional notes and limits

Baseline Glexia take generated from the official MITRE ATT&CK STIX object, source hash, tactics, platforms, and detection fields. It is safe to replace with a richer model-generated take for the same source hash later.

This baseline take is source-grounded and schema-validated, but it does not include environment-specific telemetry, incident evidence, or threat-intelligence corroboration.

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

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

DLL

Adversaries may abuse dynamic-link library files (DLLs) in order to achieve persistence, escalate privileges, and evade defenses. DLLs are libraries that contain code and data that can be simultaneously utilized by multiple programs. While DLLs are not malicious by nature, they can be abused through mechanisms such as side-loading, hijacking search order, and phantom DLL hijacking.[1]

Specific ways DLLs are abused by adversaries include:

### DLL Sideloading Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by side-loading DLLs. Side-loading involves hijacking which DLL a program loads by planting and then invoking a legitimate application that executes their payload(s).

Side-loading positions both the victim application and malicious payload(s) alongside each other. Adversaries likely use side-loading as a means of masking actions they perform under a legitimate, trusted, and potentially elevated system or software process. Benign executables used to side-load payloads may not be flagged during delivery and/or execution. Adversary payloads may also be encrypted/packed or otherwise obfuscated until loaded into the memory of the trusted process.

Adversaries may also side-load other packages, such as BPLs (Borland Package Library).[2]

Adversaries may chain DLL sideloading multiple times to fragment functionality hindering analysis. Adversaries using multiple DLL files can split the loader functions across different DLLs, with a main DLL loading the separated export functions. [3] Spreading loader functions across multiple DLLs makes analysis harder, since all files must be collected to fully understand the malware’s behavior. Another method implements a “loader-for-a-loader”, where a malicious DLL’s sole role is to load a second DLL (or a chain of DLLs) that contain the real payload. [4]

### DLL Search Order Hijacking Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the search order that Windows uses to load DLLs. This search order is a sequence of special and standard search locations that a program checks when loading a DLL. An adversary can plant a trojan DLL in a directory that will be prioritized by the DLL search order over the location of a legitimate library. This will cause Windows to load the malicious DLL when it is called for by the victim program.[1]

### DLL Redirection Adversaries may directly modify the search order via DLL redirection, which after being enabled (in the Registry or via the creation of a redirection file) may cause a program to load a DLL from a different location.[5][6]

### Phantom DLL Hijacking Adversaries may leverage phantom DLL hijacking by targeting references to non-existent DLL files. They may be able to load their own malicious DLL by planting it with the correct name in the location of the missing module.[7][8]

### DLL Substitution Adversaries may target existing, valid DLL files and substitute them with their own malicious DLLs, planting them with the same name and in the same location as the valid DLL file.[9]

Programs that fall victim to DLL hijacking may appear to behave normally because malicious DLLs may be configured to also load the legitimate DLLs they were meant to replace, evading defenses.

Remote DLL hijacking can occur when a program sets its current directory to a remote location, such as a Web share, before loading a DLL.[10][11]

If a valid DLL is configured to run at a higher privilege level, then the adversary-controlled DLL that is loaded will also be executed at the higher level. In this case, the technique could be used for privilege escalation.

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.

3 rows
DomainIDNameRelationship / procedure
EnterpriseT1574Hijack Execution FlowThis object subtechnique of Hijack Execution Flow.
EnterpriseT1038DLL Search Order HijackingDLL Search Order Hijacking revoked by this object.
EnterpriseT1574.002DLL Side-LoadingSub-techniqueDLL Side-Loading revoked by this object.
Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

GroupEnterprise

G0114: Chimera

Chimera is a suspected China-based threat group that has been active since at least 2018 targeting the semiconductor industry in Taiwan as well as data from the airline industry.[1][2]

GroupEnterprise

G1021: Cinnamon Tempest

Cinnamon Tempest is a China-based threat group that has been active since at least 2021 deploying multiple strains of ransomware based on the leaked Babuk source code. Cinnamon Tempest does not operate their ransomware on an affiliate model or purchase access but appears to act independently in all stages of the attack lifecycle. Based on victimology, the short lifespan of each ransomware variant, and use of malware attributed to government-sponsored threat groups, Cinnamon Tempest may be motivated by intellectual property theft or cyberespionage rather than financial gain.[1][2][3][4]

GroupEnterprise

G0069: MuddyWater

MuddyWater is a cyber espionage group assessed to be a subordinate element within Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).[1] Since at least 2017, MuddyWater has targeted a range of government and private organizations across sectors, including telecommunications, local government, finance, defense, and oil and natural gas organizations, in the Middle East (specifically the UAE and Saudi Arabia), Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. MuddyWater has reused domains dating back to October 2025, and has a preference for NameCheap and Hosterdaddy Private Limited (AS136557). In late 2025 and early 2026, MuddyWater used commercial satellite internet (i.e., Starlink) for command and control (C2) communication. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

GroupEnterprise

G1047: Velvet Ant

Velvet Ant is a threat actor operating since at least 2021. Velvet Ant is associated with complex persistence mechanisms, the targeting of network devices and appliances during operations, and the use of zero day exploits.[1][2]

GroupEnterprise

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]

GroupEnterprise

G0131: Tonto Team

Tonto Team is a suspected Chinese state-sponsored cyber espionage threat group that has primarily targeted South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States since at least 2009; by 2020 they expanded operations to include other Asian as well as Eastern European countries. Tonto Team has targeted government, military, energy, mining, financial, education, healthcare, and technology organizations, including through the Heartbeat Campaign (2009-2012) and Operation Bitter Biscuit (2017).[1][2][3][4][5][6]

GroupEnterprise

G0040: Patchwork

Patchwork is a cyber espionage group that was first observed in December 2015. While the group has not been definitively attributed, circumstantial evidence suggests the group may be a pro-Indian or Indian entity. Patchwork has been seen targeting industries related to diplomatic and government agencies. Much of the code used by this group was copied and pasted from online forums. Patchwork was also seen operating spearphishing campaigns targeting U.S. think tank groups in March and April of 2018.[1] [2][3][4]

GroupEnterprise

G0107: Whitefly

Whitefly is a cyber espionage group that has been operating since at least 2017. The group has targeted organizations based mostly in Singapore across a wide variety of sectors, and is primarily interested in stealing large amounts of sensitive information. The group has been linked to an attack against Singapore’s largest public health organization, SingHealth.[1]

GroupEnterprise

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]

GroupEnterprise

G0093: GALLIUM

GALLIUM is a cyberespionage group that has been active since at least 2012, primarily targeting telecommunications companies, financial institutions, and government entities in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Malaysia, Mozambique, the Philippines, Russia, and Vietnam. This group is particularly known for launching Operation Soft Cell, a long-term campaign targeting telecommunications providers.[1] Security researchers have identified GALLIUM as a likely Chinese state-sponsored group, based in part on tools used and TTPs commonly associated with Chinese threat actors.[1][2][3]

GroupEnterprise

G0126: Higaisa

Higaisa is a threat group suspected to have South Korean origins. Higaisa has targeted government, public, and trade organizations in North Korea; however, they have also carried out attacks in China, Japan, Russia, Poland, and other nations. Higaisa was first disclosed in early 2019 but is assessed to have operated as early as 2009.[1][2][3]

GroupEnterprise

G0050: APT32

APT32 is a suspected Vietnam-based threat group that has been active since at least 2014. The group has targeted multiple private sector industries as well as foreign governments, dissidents, and journalists with a strong focus on Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Laos, and Cambodia. They have extensively used strategic web compromises to compromise victims.[1][2][3]

MalwareEnterprise

S1041: Chinoxy

Chinoxy is a backdoor that has been used since at least November 2018, during the FunnyDream campaign, to gain persistence and drop additional payloads. According to security researchers, Chinoxy has been used by Chinese-speaking threat actors.[1]

Windows
MalwareEnterprise

S0384: Dridex

Dridex is a prolific banking Trojan that first appeared in 2014. By December 2019, the US Treasury estimated Dridex had infected computers in hundreds of banks and financial institutions in over 40 countries, leading to more than $100 million in theft. Dridex was created from the source code of the Bugat banking Trojan (also known as Cridex).[1][2][3]

Windows
MalwareEnterprise

S0109: WEBC2

WEBC2 is a family of backdoor malware used by APT1 as early as July 2006. WEBC2 backdoors are designed to retrieve a webpage, with commands hidden in HTML comments or special tags, from a predetermined C2 server. [1][2]

Windows
MalwareEnterprise

S0528: Javali

Javali is a banking trojan that has targeted Portuguese and Spanish-speaking countries since 2017, primarily focusing on customers of financial institutions in Brazil and Mexico.[1]

Windows
MalwareEnterprise

S9020: LODEINFO

LODEINFO is a fileless backdoor malware first identified in 2020 that has been used by actors including MirrorFace, primarily against media, diplomatic, governmental, and public sector organizations in Japan.[1][2][3]

Windows
MalwareEnterprise

S0128: BADNEWS

BADNEWS is malware that has been used by the actors responsible for the Patchwork campaign. Its name was given due to its use of RSS feeds, forums, and blogs for command and control. [1] [2]

Windows
CampaignEnterprise

C0057: 3CX Supply Chain Attack

The 3CX Supply Chain Attack was the first publicly reported case of one supply chain compromise triggering another, leading to a cascading, two-stage intrusion. The initial supply chain attack began when a 3CX employee downloaded and executed a trojanized, end-of-life version of the X_Trader trading software from Trading Technologies. This provided UNC4736, a threat cluster associated with AppleJeus, access to the 3CX environment. From there UNC4736 compromised the Windows and macOS build environments used to distribute the 3CX desktop application to their customers.[1] While 3CX serves more than 600,000 customers and 12 million users, only a subset of systems were affected. Subsequent targeting focused on victims in the defense and cryptocurrency sectors, where attackers deployed secondary payloads such as Gopuram for credential theft and persistence.[2] The campaign began in late 2022 and was disrupted after security vendors publicly reported the compromise in March 2023.[3][4]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

subtechnique of · TechniqueT1574: Hijack Execution FlowEnterpriseuses · GroupG0114: ChimeraEnterpriseuses · GroupG1021: Cinnamon TempestEnterpriseuses · MalwareS1041: ChinoxyEnterpriseuses · GroupG0069: MuddyWaterEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0384: DridexEnterpriseuses · GroupG1047: Velvet AntEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0664: PandoraEnterpriseuses · GroupG0048: RTMEnterpriseuses · GroupG0131: Tonto TeamEnterpriseuses · GroupG0040: PatchworkEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0070: HTTPBrowserEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0109: WEBC2Enterpriseuses · MalwareS0009: HikitEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0176: WingbirdEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0528: JavaliEnterpriseuses · MalwareS9020: LODEINFOEnterprisedetects · Detection StrategyDET0201: Detection Strategy for Hijack Execution Flow for DLLsEnterprisemitigates · MitigationM1038: Execution PreventionEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0128: BADNEWSEnterpriseuses · MalwareS1227: StarProxyEnterpriseuses · MalwareS1232: SplatDropperEnterpriseuses · GroupG0107: WhiteflyEnterpriseuses · CampaignC0047: RedDelta Modified PlugX Infection Chain OperationsEnterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

MitigationEnterprise

M1038: Execution Prevention

Prevent the execution of unauthorized or malicious code on systems by implementing application control, script blocking, and other execution prevention mechanisms. This ensures that only trusted and authorized code is executed, reducing the risk of malware and unauthorized actions. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Application Control:

- Use Case: Use tools like AppLocker or Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC) to create whitelists of authorized applications and block unauthorized ones. On Linux, use tools like SELinux or AppArmor to define mandatory access control policies for application execution. - Implementation: Allow only digitally signed or pre-approved applications to execute on servers and endpoints. (e.g., `New-AppLockerPolicy -PolicyType Enforced -FilePath "C:\Policies\AppLocker.xml"`)

Script Blocking:

- Use Case: Use script control mechanisms to block unauthorized execution of scripts, such as PowerShell or JavaScript. Web Browsers: Use browser extensions or settings to block JavaScript execution from untrusted sources. - Implementation: Configure PowerShell to enforce Constrained Language Mode for non-administrator users. (e.g., `Set-ExecutionPolicy AllSigned`)

Executable Blocking:

- Use Case: Prevent execution of binaries from suspicious locations, such as `%TEMP%` or `%APPDATA%` directories. - Implementation: Block execution of `.exe`, `.bat`, or `.ps1` files from user-writable directories.

Dynamic Analysis Prevention: - Use Case: Use behavior-based execution prevention tools to identify and block malicious activity in real time. - Implemenation: Employ EDR solutions that analyze runtime behavior and block suspicious code execution.

MitigationEnterprise

M1044: Restrict Library Loading

Restricting library loading involves implementing security controls to ensure that only trusted and verified libraries (DLLs, shared objects, etc.) are loaded into processes. Adversaries often abuse Dynamic-Link Library (DLL) Injection, DLL Search Order Hijacking, or LD_PRELOAD mechanisms to execute malicious code by forcing the operating system to load untrusted libraries. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Enforce Safe Library Loading Practices:

- Enable `SafeDLLSearchMode` on Windows. - Restrict `LD_PRELOAD` and `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` usage on Linux systems.

Code Signing Enforcement:

- Require digital signatures for all libraries loaded into processes. - Use tools like Signtool, and WDAC to enforce signed DLL execution.

Environment Hardening:

- Secure library paths and directories to prevent adversaries from placing rogue libraries. - Monitor user-writable directories and system configurations for unauthorized changes.

Audit and Monitor Library Loading:

- Enable `Sysmon` on Windows to monitor for suspicious library loads. - Use `auditd` on Linux to monitor shared library paths and configuration file changes.

Use Application Control Solutions:

- Implement AppLocker, WDAC, or SELinux to allow only trusted libraries.

*Tools for Implementation*

Windows-Specific Tools:

- AppLocker: Application whitelisting for DLLs. - Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC): Restrict unauthorized library execution. - Signtool: Verify and enforce code signing. - Sysmon: Monitor DLL load events (Event ID 7).

Linux-Specific Tools:

- auditd: Monitor changes to library paths and critical files. - SELinux/AppArmor: Define policies to restrict library loading. - ldconfig and chattr: Secure LD configuration files and prevent unauthorized modifications.

Cross-Platform Solutions:

- Wazuh or OSSEC: File integrity monitoring for library changes. - Tripwire: Detect and alert on unauthorized library modifications.

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
20.0
Object version
3.0
Created
Modified
Raw hash
6951ba7f61c08382...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases(3)
ReleaseBundle importedObject versionModifiedStatusRaw hash
20.03.0Current bundle6951ba7f61c0…
19.23.0Older bundlef6a9722a8fe4…
19.13.0Older bundlef6a9722a8fe4…
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]
    unit 42

    Tom Fakterman, Chen Erlich, & Assaf Dahan. (2024, February 22). Intruders in the Library: Exploring DLL Hijacking. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    kroll bpl

    Dave Truman. (2024, June 24). Novel Technique Combination Used In IDATLOADER Distribution. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    Virus Bulletin

    Suguru Ishimaru, Hajime Yanagishita, Yusuke Niwa. (2023, October 5). Unveiling activities of Tropic Trooper 2023: deep analysis of Xiangoop Loader and EntryShell payload. Retrieved October 3, 2025.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    Sophos

    Gabor Szappanos. (2023, May 3). A doubled “Dragon Breath” adds new air to DLL sideloading attacks. Retrieved October 3, 2025.

    Open source URL
  5. [5]
    Microsoft redirection

    Microsoft. (2023, October 12). Dynamic-link library redirection. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  6. [6]
    Microsoft - manifests/assembly

    Microsoft. (2021, January 7). Manifests. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  7. [7]
    Hexacorn DLL Hijacking

    Hexacorn. (2013, December 8). Beyond good ol’ Run key, Part 5. Retrieved August 14, 2024.

    Open source URL
  8. [8]
    Hijack DLLs CrowdStrike

    falcon.overwatch.team. (2022, December 30). 4 Ways Adversaries Hijack DLLs — and How CrowdStrike Falcon OverWatch Fights Back. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  9. [9]
    Wietze Beukema DLL Hijacking

    Wietze Beukema. (2020, June 22). Hijacking DLLs in Windows. Retrieved April 8, 2025.

    Open source URL
  10. [10]
    dll pre load owasp

    OWASP. (n.d.). Binary Planting. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  11. [11]
    microsoft remote preloading

    Microsoft. (2014, May 13). Microsoft Security Advisory 2269637: Insecure Library Loading Could Allow Remote Code Execution. Retrieved January 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  12. [12]
    mitre-attackT1574.001
    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