Definition
Monitoring events from motion detectors (e.g., passive IR, microwave, dual-technology) to detect presence or movement within protected areas.
How it works
Motion sensors generate events when movement is detected within their coverage pattern. Alarm panels or PACS correlate motion with arming schedules, door openings, and other sensors; video systems can use motion to trigger recording or bookmarks. Cross-zoning and sensitivity/pulse-count settings are commonly adjusted to balance detection and false-alarm rates.
Considerations
- Place sensors at appropriate height and angle with clear line of sight, avoiding obstructions or reflective surfaces that can cause missed or false detections.
- Reduce false alarms by tuning sensitivity and pulse-count, using cross-zoning when needed, and accounting for HVAC airflow or rapid thermal changes.
- Monitor tamper and supervision signals; for wireless devices, verify periodic check-ins and battery levels; perform regular walk tests to validate coverage.
- Integrate motion events with cameras and with door position switches and other sensors in the protected area to provide context and faster verification; use motion to trigger recording or bookmarks.
Implementation perspective
Motion Sensor Monitoring should be treated as a technical defensive capability rather than a product checkbox. In practice, teams should define the protected scope, the conditions under which the technique acts, and the observable evidence that demonstrates the intended behavior. For this technique, likely engineering context includes the relevant system, activity, and evidence sources.
Use the technique to identify suspicious, unauthorized, or abnormal activity through observable evidence and repeatable analysis.
Questions to ask
- Which events, states, or artifacts must be observed for the analysis to work?
- What analytic logic, threshold, comparison, or signature turns observations into a finding?
- How are expected false positives, blind spots, and environmental variations documented?
- Who receives the result, and what action is expected when the technique produces a finding?
Evidence and validation
- Telemetry and data-source configuration records
- Analytic logic, thresholds, signatures, and version history
- Test cases demonstrating expected positive and negative results
- Alert, triage, escalation, and tuning records
Common failure patterns
- Required telemetry is missing, delayed, or transformed in a way that invalidates the analysis.
- The technique produces alerts without an accountable triage and response process.
- Detection coverage is claimed from product deployment without testing the relevant analytic behavior.
This implementation perspective is original Bare Metal Cyber educational content. It does not replace the official D3FEND definition or establish that a specific product implements the technique.
Technique hierarchy
Top-level family
Parent techniques
Direct child techniques
None listed at this level.
Artifacts and ontology entities
These relationships describe how D3FEND connects a defensive technique to artifacts or other ontology entities. They describe graph semantics, not a product certification.
Explicit technique relationships
Authoritative sources
- Open this technique on the official D3FEND website ↗
- Open the official ontology resources ↗
- NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 - Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations ↗NIST · GuidelineReference
- Motion detector ↗Wikipedia contributors · InternetArticleReference
- Passive infrared sensor ↗Wikipedia contributors · InternetArticleReference
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND™ and the D3FEND logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK® and ATT&CK® are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Use of D3FEND source material is subject to the official Terms of Use.