T0873 Project File Infection — Attack Simulation

Complete technique description

Adversaries may attempt to infect project files with malicious code. These project files may consist of objects, program organization units, variables such as tags, documentation, and other configurations needed for PLC programs to function.[Beckhoff] Using built in functions of the engineering software, adversaries may be able to download an infected program to a PLC in the operating environment enabling further Execution and Persistence techniques.[PLCdev]

Adversaries may export their own code into project files with conditions to execute at specific intervals.[Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, Eric Chien February 2011] Malicious programs allow adversaries control of all aspects of the process enabled by the PLC. Once the project file is downloaded to a PLC the workstation device may be disconnected with the infected project file still executing.[PLCdev]

Official technique definition · Open in the interactive matrix

Parent and sub-techniques

• T0873.001 Siemens Project File Format

Related pages are navigation context. Their tools, rules and lab results are not automatically inherited.

Detection telemetry and configuration

These contracts are selected through exact technique-to-data-component relationships or explicitly labelled planning overrides. Configure a collector at the relevant observation point; a telemetry name alone is not coverage.

{
  "schema": "1200km.telemetry.example.v1",
  "synthetic": true,
  "timestamp": "2026-09-27T12:00:00Z",
  "telemetry_id": "DC0055",
  "collector": "illustrative-lab-collector",
  "observation": {
    "path": "C:\\Lab\\demo.txt",
    "access": "read",
    "actor": "LAB\\analyst",
    "result": "success"
  }
}

{
  "schema": "1200km.telemetry.example.v1",
  "synthetic": true,
  "timestamp": "2026-09-27T12:00:00Z",
  "telemetry_id": "DC0059",
  "collector": "illustrative-lab-collector",
  "observation": {
    "path": "/opt/lab/demo.txt",
    "size_bytes": 64,
    "sha256": "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
    "owner_uid": 1000
  }
}

Detection rules and analytic guidance

Open the dedicated detection workspace · Existing query engineering

Before treating a rule as coverage

1. Read the actual condition and logsource; identify attacker-side, victim-side or third-party visibility.
2. Map native sensor fields, parse times and identities, then compile for the selected backend.
3. Replay a behavior-positive case, a normal control, an authorized look-alike and a missing-telemetry case.
4. Record matches and misses with rule version and source events. No match is inconclusive when required telemetry is absent.

Anomaly-based detection

No exact technique-specific Atlas model is present for T0873 in the selected source snapshot. The following is a design worksheet, not a newly validated model.

Anomaly engineering worksheet

Start from the exact analytic above. The collection-specific lenses below are analyst recommendations; they do not assert that an arbitrary statistical deviation detects this technique.

• Windows and directory audit: Per principal, host and object: unusual access/request rates, new principal-object relationships, and changes outside approved administration windows. Control for service accounts and scheduled directory maintenance.
• Host state and inventory: Compare authorized state snapshots: first-seen drivers/services/modules, unexpected configuration drift and integrity changes. Record collection cadence; absence in a sample is not evidence of deletion.

1. Define an entity/peer group and feature; exclude the evaluation period from baseline training.
2. Use representative normal and maintenance activity. Do not invent a production threshold from a synthetic example.
3. Evaluate held-out behavior-positive and benign cases; measure false positives, misses and telemetry loss separately.
4. Keep abnormality separate from maliciousness. Correlate with the behavior-specific source evidence.

Anomaly Detection Atlas · Baseline, validation and blind spots

Attack tools and documented software

No reviewed lab-tool association is selected for this exact technique. This is a curation gap, not a statement that no tool can implement the behavior.

Simulation design and documented procedures

Atomic evidence: no compatible candidate in this snapshot. Live lab status: not run for these imported procedures.

Use a process simulator or isolated test rig with no connection to production controllers or physical actuators. Preserve safety interlocks; destructive effects require synthetic evidence, not real equipment damage.

No compatible Atomic procedure is present in this pinned evidence set. Technical feasibility has not been ruled out. A custom procedure must define the behavior, target, collection point, success observable and rollback before execution.

Technique-specific experiment contract

1. Choose one procedure implementing T0873 Project File Infection; identify the observable behavior in the source definition, not just its tactic.
2. Record exact target, tool/version, inputs, privileges, network limits and approval. Never run an imported default target automatically.
3. Enable the collection sources above and verify a benign baseline reaches the detector.
4. Run only the approved isolated scenario; capture native events and an independent behavior observable.
5. Evaluate the exact rule/model, restore the lab, and preserve configuration, event hashes, alerts, controls and misses.

Synthetic logs and offline contract check

Download synthetic collection fixture (JSON) · Download the complete engineering workbook

This fixture exercises the listed collection fields. It does not reproduce Project File Infection, label its example events as malicious, or measure detection effectiveness. Use the exact analytic and selected procedure to build an independently labelled behavior-positive dataset.

Not run in this browser. No network scan or attack command is executed by this control.

Validation status and remaining work

Source identity

Joined by exact technique/object IDs against hash-pinned sources.

Collection fixture

Available for offline schema exercises; not attack emulation.

Native telemetry / backend / real attack

Not validated for these imported procedures. Source fidelity and page tests cannot establish sensor or detector effectiveness.

All-page audit and evidence inventory · This page’s machine-readable workbook

Sources and evidence boundaries

Pinned MITRE STIX source · SHA-256 c9ca0ce523a1b5e512060a390415e8aefe8f6d32c5f82d7de81264960c1e1183. Definition and procedure context are reproduced from this snapshot, not independently re-investigated incidents.

• mitre-attack
• Beckhoff
• Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, Eric Chien February 2011
• PLCdev