T1036.005: Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location

Stealth Intelligence Profile

AI Answer

Adversaries may match or approximate the name or location of legitimate files, Registry keys, or other resources when naming/placing them. This is done for the sake of evading defenses and observation. This may be done by placing an executable in a commonly trusted directory (ex: under System32) or giving it the name of a legitimate, (Source: MITRE ATT&CK T1036.005)

Confidence: 0.9 · Source: MITRE ATT&CK · Requires review: yes · Freshness: 2026-09-07

ATT&CK Mapping

FieldValue
Technique IDT1036.005
NameMatch Legitimate Resource Name or Location
Tacticstealth (stealth)
PlatformsContainers, ESXi, Linux, macOS, Windows
Sub-techniqueYes

Why it matters

In the OpenTrojan knowledge graph, Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location (T1036.005) is one of the highest-connectivity ATT&CK techniques: 221 MITRE STIX relationships reference this technique; 63 threat groups observed using it; 143 software families associated; 15 campaigns associated. These counts are derived from MITRE ATT&CK STIX relationships and are not an estimate of exploitation volume.

How attackers use it

Behavior described below is from the MITRE ATT&CK canonical definition (source: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1036.005). Adversaries may match or approximate the name or location of legitimate files, Registry keys, or other resources when naming/placing them. This is done for the sake of evading defenses and observation. This may be done by placing an executable in a commonly trusted directory (ex: under System32) or giving it the name of a legitimate, trusted program (ex: svchost.exe). Alternatively, a Windows Registry key may be given a close approximation to a key used by a legitimate program. In containerized environments, a threat actor may create a resource in a trusted namespace or one that matches the naming convention of a container pod or cluster.

Detection

Not available — MITRE ATT&CK does not currently publish a structured detection strategy for this technique in the ingested dataset.

Mitigation

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.

Mitigation guidance is from the MITRE ATT&CK course-of-action associated with this technique.

  • EKANS
  • BLINDINGCAN
  • Ninja
  • Bumblebee
  • BRICKSTORM
  • NOKKI
  • RotaJakiro
  • Chinoxy
  • Misdat
  • Ursnif
  • ThreatNeedle
  • ZLib

Software associations are from MITRE ATT&CK STIX relationships (observed usage, not attribution).

  • Indrik Spider
  • SideCopy
  • Mustard Tempest
  • Kimsuky
  • admin@338
  • Volt Typhoon
  • Patchwork
  • APT41
  • menuPass
  • APT32
  • MuddyWater
  • Naikon

Group associations are from MITRE ATT&CK STIX relationships.

  • RedPenguin
  • Operation Sharpshooter
  • Operation Honeybee
  • Triton Safety Instrumented System Attack
  • C0018
  • J-magic Campaign
  • Operation Digital Eye
  • HomeLand Justice
  • C0032
  • SolarWinds Compromise
  • Operation CuckooBees
  • 2025 Poland Wiper Attacks

Campaign associations are from MITRE ATT&CK STIX relationships.

References

Source Attribution

Source: MITRE ATT&CK (MITRE ATT&CK) · Confidence: 0.9 · Reviewed: OpenTrojan - Human Review

Start Investigation

Move from reading to investigating T1036.005 Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location. The workspace is a structured analysis surface — not a chat — organised as:

  1. Question — what do you need to know about T1036.005 Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location?
  2. Evidence — assertions mapped to verifiable references.
  3. Timeline — events in chronological order.
  4. Related Entities — CVE, threat actor, campaign, malware links.
  5. Sources — NVD, CISA KEV, MITRE ATT&CK, vendor advisories.
  6. Notes — your own observations and working hypotheses.

AI assistance is limited to summarising, explaining, and suggesting related evidence. AI never completes your investigation, modifies entity relationships, or generates facts — all published analysis stays human-reviewed.