Definition
Analyzing spawn arguments or attributes of a process to detect processes that are unauthorized.
How it works
Process attributes are established when an operating system spawns a new process. These attributes are analyzed to look for the presence or absence of specific values or patterns.
Some attributes of interest are:
- user
- process name
- image path
- security content
Considerations
- Attackers can spoof the parent process identifier (PPID), which could bypass this defense to allow execution of a malicious process from an arbitrary parent process.
- Attackers could have legitimately compromised any of the process properties, such as the user, to make the execution appear legitimate.
- Location: If the full image path is not checked, there could be a conflict with an executable that appears earlier due to resolution involving the system environment path/classpath variable.
- Parsing issues: If the raw command from a shell is analyzed, rather than the actual function call, it is important to identify the actual command being run from its arguments. In Windows, services with unquoted file paths containing spaces will try to use the first token as the executable and the rest as arguments -- and shift tokens to the executable until a valid one is found.
- Some [operating systems](/dao/artifact/d3f:OperatingSystem) can spawn processes without forking.
Implementation perspective
Process Spawn Analysis 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 Create Process, Process.
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
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
Show inferred artifact relationship paths (3)
Offensive-technique relationships
These relationships are generated from D3FEND graph paths and are explicitly experimental. They should be treated as hypotheses for defensive analysis—not as proof that the technique prevents, detects, or removes an offensive behavior.
ATT&CK Enterprise (36)
ATT&CK for ICS (12)
Authoritative sources
- Open this technique on the official D3FEND website ↗
- Open the official ontology resources ↗
- CAR-2019-08-002: Active Directory Dumping via NTDSUtil ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-04-001: Shadow Copy Deletion ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-05-003: Rare LolBAS Command Lines ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-08-001: NTFS Alternate Data Stream Execution - System Utilities ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-09-003: Indicator Blocking - Driver Unloaded ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-09-004: Credentials in Files & Registry ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-001: Boot or Logon Initialization Scripts ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-003: DLL Injection with Mavinject ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-005: Clear Powershell Console Command History ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-006: Local Permission Group Discovery ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-007: Network Share Connection Removal ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-008: MSBuild and msxsl ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2020-11-009: Compiled HTML Access ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-002: Unusually Long Command Line Strings ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-003: Clearing Windows Logs with Wevtutil ↗MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-004: Unusual Child Process for Spoolsv.Exe or Connhost.Exe ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-006: Unusual Child Process spawned using DDE exploit ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-007: Detecting Tampering of Windows Defender Command Prompt ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-008: Disable UAC ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-01-009: Detecting Shadow Copy Deletion via Vssadmin.exe ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-02-001: Webshell-Indicative Process Tree ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-04-001: Common Windows Process Masquerading ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-001: Attempt To Add Certificate To Untrusted Store ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-002: Batch File Write to System32 ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-003: BCDEdit Failure Recovery Modification ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-004: BITS Job Persistence ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-005: BITSAdmin Download File ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-006: CertUtil Download With URLCache and Split Arguments ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-007: CertUtil Download With VerifyCtl and Split Arguments ↗ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-008: Certutil exe certificate extraction ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-009: CertUtil With Decode Argument ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2021-05-010: Create local admin accounts using net exe ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2013-07-005: Command Line Usage of Archiving Software ↗ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2016-03-002: Create Remote Process via WMIC ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2019-04-004: Credential Dumping via Mimikatz ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2016-03-001: Host Discovery Commands ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2019-07-002: Lsass Process Dump via Procdump ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2014-04-003: Powershell Execution ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2014-03-006: RunDLL32.exe monitoring ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2019-04-003: Squiblydoo ↗MITRE · MITRE · ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2013-07-001: Suspicious Arguments ↗ExternalKnowledgeBase
- CAR-2013-05-002: Suspicious Run Locations ↗ExternalKnowledgeBase
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.