Carlos Catania

Muris Sladić, Eman Alibalić, Veronica Valeros et al.

LLM-based SSH honeypots can generate believable interactions, but evaluations indicate they remain somewhat identifiable to determined attackers, indicating the need for a better scaffolding. We present a new LLM-based honeypot design that uses a multi-agent, multi-LLM architecture to address the limitations of the previous shelLM LLM honeypot. Our honeypot, called AdvancedShelLM, uses two LLM agents, a Manager and a Worker, that better understand the commands while reducing incorrect responses and increasing deception. It implements an advanced permanent filesystem, allowing many simultaneous attackers to see the same changing files for the first time. It was evaluated with: (i) unit tests for generative capabilities, (ii) an AI attacker (ARACNE) to assess realism and deception, (iii) human attackers to assess its deceptive capability, and (iv) an Internet deployment to evaluate deception in real-world attacks. In unit test results, AdvancedShelLM achieved a pass rate of up to 99.02%. The AI attacker ARACNE had issues making a decision if the system is honeypot or not, but showed slight bias towards saying honeypot, even for a real Ubuntu shell. With human attackers, AdvancedShelLM deceived more humans than Cowrie, but had similar results as shelLM. The Internet deployment showed concrete evidence that the output of AdvancedShelLM can influence the behaviour of real-life attackers.

Veronica Valeros, Carlos Catania, Viliam Lisý et al.

Cyber deception research often assumes that a decoy can be placed wherever there is attacker behavior. This work tests that assumption across MITRE ATT&CK v18.1. We introduce a four-criterion rubric for infrastructure deception and apply it to all 250 ATT&CK techniques. The rubric evaluates whether a defender-controlled decoy can be placed, whether an attacker is likely to interact with it, what intelligence that interaction can yield, and whether the interaction reliably indicates malice. The resulting deception surface is sparse: only 80 techniques (32%) admit a decoy the attacker could plausibly reach. For the remaining 170 techniques, there is no defender-controlled asset in the attacker's path that can be fabricated as a decoy. Decoy placement across those 80 techniques falls into two patterns we call Sweep and Seek. In Sweep, the attacker moves broadly through assets in range and encounters the decoy as part of that activity. In Seek, the attacker looks for a specific kind of asset and interacts with a fabricated version of it. These patterns give a simple placement rule: a decoy must either sit on a sweep path or imitate a sought asset. We also show that decoys usually have useful intelligence potential, but whether an attacker interacts with them at all, and whether that interaction reliably indicates malice, both vary. We release the rubric, decision rules, and per-technique assessment as an auditable baseline for future deception research and deployment planning, and show that infrastructure decoys cannot be assumed to apply to all attacker behavior.