Threat Emulation
Threat Emulation
One-liner: Intelligence-driven impersonation of real-world adversary TTPs in a controlled environment to test, assess, and improve security defenses.
🎯 What Is It?
Threat emulation is the practice of behaving as a specific adversary would—using their documented tactics, techniques, and procedures—to identify security gaps before real attackers exploit them. Unlike generic penetration testing, emulation is driven by threat intelligence from actual breaches and APT campaigns.
Goal: Validate defenses against realistic, known threats—not arbitrary attacks.
🤔 Why It Matters
- Moves beyond "we patched everything" assumptions
- Tests people, processes, AND technology together
- Provides adversary's perspective without malicious intent
- Enables proactive defense improvement before real attacks
📊 Emulation vs Simulation vs Red Teaming
| Aspect | Threat Emulation | Threat Simulation | Red Teaming |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basis | Specific APT intelligence | Generic attack patterns | Adversary mindset |
| TTPs | Exact adversary behavior | Combined TTPs from multiple groups | Whatever works |
| Transparency | Often collaborative | Automated/scripted | Stealth-focused |
| Goal | Validate detection of specific threat | General security testing | Find any path to objective |
| Output | Detection coverage per TTP | Pass/fail metrics | Access achieved |
🔬 How It Works
Threat Emulation Process
1. Define Objectives
↓
2. Research Adversary TTPs (CTI + MITRE ATT&CK)
↓
3. Plan Engagement (scope, RoE, resources)
↓
4. Execute Emulation
↓
5. Observe & Document Results
↓
6. Report Findings & Remediate
Key Characteristics (Aligned with Pyramid of Pain)
- Real-world threats: Based on actual APT campaigns, not theoretical attacks
- Behavior-focused: Tunes defenses on behaviors, not just IOC signatures
- Transparent: Red and Blue teams share intel during execution
- Collaborative: Both teams work toward improving security
- Repeatable: Tests can be automated for continuous validation
🛠️ Emulation Frameworks & Resources
| Framework | Description |
|---|---|
| MITRE ATT&CK | Adversary TTP knowledge base—foundation for all emulation |
| Atomic Red Team | Library of atomic tests mapped to ATT&CK |
| TIBER-EU Framework | European framework for threat intelligence-based red teaming |
| CTID Adversary Emulation Library | Full emulation plans for specific APTs (FIN7, APT29, etc.) |
| Caldera (MITRE) | Automated adversary emulation platform |
📋 Threat Emulation Plan Components
| Component | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Objectives | Why are we emulating? What gaps are we testing? |
| Scope | Which systems, users, departments are in-scope |
| Schedule | Dates/times to avoid business conflicts |
| Rules of Engagement | What TTPs are allowed, risk mitigations |
| Permission to Execute | Written authorization from leadership |
| Communication Plan | How teams coordinate during exercise |
🎯 Emulation Use Cases
| Use Case | Goal |
|---|---|
| Assessments | Test personnel, processes, and technology |
| Capability Development | Build tools and detections based on TTPs |
| Professional Development | Train teams on real adversary behaviors |
| Purple Teaming | Collaborative detection validation |
🔍 TTP Selection Factors
When choosing which adversary and TTPs to emulate:
| Factor | Consideration |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does this APT target our industry/geography? |
| Available CTI | Is there enough intel to replicate their TTPs? |
| TTP Complexity | Can we implement with existing tools or need custom? |
| Resources | Do we have budget, time, and personnel? |
🎤 Interview Angles
Common Questions
- "What's the difference between threat emulation and penetration testing?"
- "How do you select which adversary to emulate?"
- "Walk me through the threat emulation process."
STAR Story
Situation: Organization concerned about ransomware after competitor breach, but no visibility into actual defenses.
Task: Lead threat emulation exercise to validate detection of financially motivated APT tactics.
Action: Selected FIN7 based on industry relevance, mapped TTPs using MITRE ATT&CK Navigator, executed emulation of spear phishing → execution → persistence chain. Collaborated with SOC to identify detection gaps.
Result: Identified 8 blind spots in kill chain. Built 12 new detection rules. Follow-up emulation showed 85% detection rate vs. 20% baseline.
✅ Best Practices
- Start with threat intelligence—know WHO targets your industry
- Use MITRE ATT&CK Navigator to visualize TTP coverage
- Document everything—each TTP executed, results, recommendations
- Make it iterative—continuously improve based on findings
- Involve all teams—detection engineering, SOC, IR, leadership
❌ Common Misconceptions
- "Emulation = Red Teaming" — Emulation focuses on specific adversary behavior, not just achieving objectives
- "We need custom tools" — Atomic Red Team and CTID plans provide ready-to-use tests
- "One and done" — Adversaries evolve; emulation should be continuous
- "Only for mature orgs" — Even basic emulation reveals critical gaps
🔗 Related Concepts
- TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, Procedures)
- Purple Teaming
- Red Teaming
- MITRE ATT&CK
- Atomic Red Team
- TIBER-EU Framework
- Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI)
- Detection Engineering
- Pyramid of Pain
📚 References
- MITRE ATT&CK: https://attack.mitre.org/
- CTID Adversary Emulation Library: https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/adversary_emulation_library
- Atomic Red Team: https://github.com/redcanaryco/atomic-red-team
- TIBER-EU: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/cyber-resilience/tiber-eu/