Estimated reading time: 46 minutes

In an era of rampant cyberattacks and sophisticated threat actors, cybersecurity defenses have had to evolve rapidly. Organizations worldwide face an onslaught of threats ranging from opportunistic malware campaigns to targeted Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs). The global landscape is alarming – cyber incidents have doubled in recent years in some regions, with Southeast Asia experiencing twice as many cyberattacks in 2024 as in 2023. Threat actors are constantly improving their tactics, forcing defenders to move beyond traditional perimeter security. Early defenses relied on firewalls and simple intrusion detection, but attackers found ways around these. As breaches mounted, the defensive playbook expanded to include proactive measures like threat intelligence and Deceptive Defense. This approach uses cunning tricks – notably honeypots and honeynets – to turn the tables on attackers. By luring adversaries into fake systems designed as traps, organizations can observe malicious behavior safely and gain invaluable insights. The evolution from reactive security to proactive deception marks a pivotal shift in modern cyber defense.

Global trends show that no industry or geography is immune. Financial institutions, government agencies, healthcare providers, and manufacturers worldwide have all been prime targets. Attack techniques have grown more advanced – malware attacks (often delivered via phishing emails) account for the majority of successful breaches (over 60% in organizations), and attackers exploit both technical vulnerabilities and human factors. At the same time, defenders have improved baseline security through measures like Zero Trust architectures, multi-factor authentication, and endpoint detection and response (EDR). Yet these defenses, while essential, often react only after an intrusion is underway. This is where cyber deception comes in. By planting digital lures and false targets, defenders create an environment where any interaction with a decoy is inherently suspicious – tipping off security teams at the earliest stages of an attack. This proactive stance is analogous to a police sting operation, catching criminals in the act rather than merely responding to damage done.

Importantly, the philosophy of deceptive defense aligns with the broader shift toward active cyber defense. Instead of passively building higher walls, organizations are now engaging attackers on their own terms. Strategies such as intrusion kill chains and the MITRE ATT&CK framework encourage mapping out adversary tactics to anticipate their moves. Deception extends this concept by inserting fake assets into that kill chain – assets that look enticing to an attacker but are closely monitored traps. When an attacker trips a honeypot, defenders gather data on the intruder’s tools and behavior in real time, often before the attacker can reach actual crown jewels. This intelligence can then be used to fortify genuine systems and even share with the community to bolster collective defense. In essence, honeypots and honeynets add a new defensive layer focused on detection, diversion, and intelligence, marking a significant evolution in how we protect systems.

---

---

The Southeast Asian Cybersecurity Landscape: A Case for Deception

Zooming in on Southeast Asia, the cybersecurity challenge is especially pronounced – and so is the opportunity for deception-based defenses. The region’s rapid digitalization and booming internet usage have unfortunately come with a surge in cybercrime. Recent reports indicate Southeast Asia saw a dramatic increase in cyberattacks, with 67% of recorded incidents over 2023–2024 occurring just in 2024. Countries like Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore rank among the most targeted, facing threats ranging from financial fraud to state-sponsored espionage. The most targeted sectors include manufacturing, government institutions, and finance – industries critical to national economies and thus attractive to attackers.

Compounding the challenge, Southeast Asia often serves as both target and launchpad for attacks. For instance, Singapore, a regional tech hub, was ranked 8th globally as a source of cyberattacks in 2024, with over 21 million attacks traced to compromised servers in the country. Cybercriminals hijack servers in Singapore and other ASEAN nations to host malware or relay attacks, knowing that these locations can mask their true origin. This underlines a troubling trend: threat actors are leveraging the region’s infrastructure for wider campaigns, meaning Southeast Asian organizations must be vigilant not only about direct attacks but also about being unwitting participants in global cyber offensives.

These regional dynamics make deception strategies particularly appealing. Many Southeast Asian firms are still maturing in cybersecurity capabilities and may lack massive budgets for cutting-edge defense tools. Honeypots, which can often be built with open-source software and commodity hardware, provide a cost-effective way to detect threats that slip past standard defenses. They act as an early warning system – for example, a bank in Indonesia could deploy a fake online banking portal or database on its network segment. Any interaction with that decoy (say a login attempt or SQL injection) would immediately alert security teams to a breach attempt, with details of the attacker’s methods. This is incredibly useful in a region where skilled security personnel are in short supply and breaches often go undetected for long periods. By catching intrusions early via honeypots, organizations can drastically reduce attacker dwell time and potentially prevent major data loss.

Furthermore, the intelligence gathered is contextually rich. A honeypot in a Southeast Asian telecom company might reveal that certain APT groups are active in the region by capturing the unique malware they deploy or the specific command-and-control servers they connect to. Such information can be shared with national CERTs and industry groups, strengthening collective knowledge. Indeed, collaborative efforts are underway. The APNIC Community Honeynet Project, for example, has helped organizations across Asia Pacific deploy honeypots and share data, spreading across more than 12 economies to map attack patterns in the region. This communal honeynet has provided valuable live data on attacks specific to the Asia Pacific, fostering a proactive security culture.

Regional challenges also highlight the need for careful policy. Some Southeast Asian countries are still developing cyber legal frameworks, and the concept of running honeypots (which involve interacting with criminals) may raise legal and ethical questions. However, with proper governance (which we discuss later), these concerns can be managed. Governments themselves are recognizing the value of deception; for instance, law enforcement in the region is exploring cyber “sting” operations and setting up fake illicit sites to catch cybercriminals in the act. All these factors underscore that for Southeast Asia, where cyber threats are growing and resources may be constrained, deceptive defense is not just theoretical but a practical and necessary strategy. It allows organizations to punch above their weight by turning the attackers’ own tactics against them. In the following sections, we’ll dive into exactly how honeypots and honeynets work, and how they can be leveraged both technically and strategically to enhance security in Southeast Asia and beyond.

Honeypots and Honeynets Explained: Luring the Attackers

At its core, a honeypot is a decoy system set up to attract attackers and study their actions. It’s a trap, but a sophisticated one – designed to look like a legitimate target. Honeypots can be anything from a simulated web server, a fake database with dummy data, an IoT device emulator, to an entire network segment full of faux systems. When an attacker stumbles upon a honeypot and attempts to compromise it, their activities are closely monitored and logged. Meanwhile, the honeypot is isolated from real assets, ensuring that even if it’s fully “hacked,” the adversary gains nothing of actual value. A collection of multiple honeypots networked together is called a honeynet, which presents an even more convincing environment (e.g., an emulated corporate network) to engage attackers longer and collect more information.

Honeypots come in various flavors and interaction levels:

• Low-interaction honeypots – These are simplistic emulations of services or systems. They only simulate certain protocols or responses. For example, a low-interaction honeypot might imitate an SSH login prompt or a web server banner. When attackers connect and send input, the honeypot responds minimally and records the attempt. Low-interaction honeypots are easier to deploy and maintain, and they can efficiently log large numbers of automated attacks (like botnet scans or malware trying default passwords). However, because they aren’t full systems, they may not capture complex attacker behavior beyond the initial interaction.
• High-interaction honeypots – These are fully functional systems (or close to it), such as actual operating systems running on virtual machines, with vulnerable services configured. They allow an attacker to really “break in” and interact as if it were a real server or network. High-interaction honeypots are more risky and resource-intensive (since you must ensure the attacker can’t pivot out of the controlled environment), but they yield the most detailed intelligence. For instance, a high-interaction honeypot might let an attacker upload and execute malware, so that defenders can observe the malware’s behavior, command-and-control communication, and even collect the malware sample for analysis. These honeypots essentially become a research playground for understanding advanced threat tactics.
• Medium-interaction honeypots – As the name suggests, these strike a balance. They simulate enough of a system to keep an attacker engaged beyond a single exchange, but not an entire OS. An example could be a fake FTP server that allows an attacker to issue various commands and even “upload” files (which are actually just going to a controlled container), but not a full underlying OS to compromise. Medium interaction setups can capture more nuance than low-level ones – such as the sequence of commands an attacker tries after gaining an initial shell – without the full complexity of maintaining a real system for them to exploit.

Another way to categorize honeypots is by their purpose. Research honeypots are often deployed by security teams (or academics) to study attack patterns in the wild. They might not be directly tied to protecting an organization’s production environment, but rather gathering data on emerging threats. On the other hand, production honeypots are placed within an organization’s network as part of its security defenses – their goal is to detect intrusions early or divert attackers away from real assets. For example, a production honeypot might be a fake database server named similarly to a company’s crown jewels, sitting quietly with no legitimate users. If an attacker discovers it and attempts to exfiltrate the fake data, the security team is alerted to a breach that otherwise might have gone unnoticed.

Crucially, honeypots and honeynets are designed to be intentionally insecure or appealing. They often run outdated software versions with known vulnerabilities, weak or default credentials, or configurations that an attacker would find attractive (open ports, etc.). This is a stark contrast to normal hardening practices, but it’s done in a controlled fashion. The goal is to make the honeypot a tastier target than the real systems. If implemented correctly, an attacker scanning the network can’t easily distinguish a honeypot from a legitimate server – and that’s the art of deceptive defense.

To illustrate, consider a honeynet simulating a small financial company’s network. It might have:

• A decoy web server hosting a fake corporate site with a login portal.
• A database server with convincing mock customer records (perhaps an enticing name like “HR_Data_Server”).
• An email server that appears to contain internal communications.
• Workstation honeypots with common file shares and even dummy documents.
• All these interconnected with realistic network traffic patterns and perhaps even fake user accounts or credentials sprinkled throughout (sometimes called honeytokens when they exist as data bait).

An attacker breaching such an environment would believe they are moving laterally through a real network, when in fact every step they take is being observed. Meanwhile, the real company network is separate and fortified; even if the attacker “wins” in the honeynet, they have gained nothing – except the security team has gained a treasure trove of intelligence on the attacker’s tools and techniques.

Honeypot Architecture and Deployment Strategies

Deploying honeypots and honeynets requires thoughtful architecture to ensure they effectively lure attackers without exposing the organization to additional risk. A typical honeypot deployment sits either in a demilitarized zone (DMZ) or within segmented internal networks, often closely monitored by an intermediary system known as a Honeywall (a term popularized by the Honeynet Project). The honeywall acts as a gateway that filters and controls traffic to and from the honeypots, ensuring that malicious traffic from the honeypot doesn’t backfire into the production network and that attackers can’t use the honeypot as a stepping stone to cause real harm. Essentially, it’s a one-way valve: attackers can come into the trap, but they can’t break out of it.

When setting up a honeypot, placement is key. For external threat intelligence, organizations often place honeypots on the internet-facing portion of their network (for example, a fake server in the cloud or a sacrificial VM in the DMZ) to attract opportunistic attacks like port scans, brute-force login attempts, and exploit probes. These can capture the constant background noise of the internet – botnets trying default credentials, malware looking for open SMB shares, etc. In fact, research has shown that brute-force attacks are rampant; one global honeypot study recorded over 5.5 million attempts using the default “root:root” username-password on SSH services, demonstrating how common credential stuffing and weak-password exploits remain.

For detecting more targeted or insider threats, internal honeypots are deployed within the corporate intranet. For example, an enterprise might deploy a fake file server inside a sensitive network segment (like one that holds financial data). This can catch an attacker who has breached the perimeter and is attempting lateral movement. If an employee’s account is compromised and the attacker starts scanning or accessing internal resources, stumbling upon the internal honeypot and interacting with it would trigger an alert. Since no legitimate user should ever touch the decoy system, even a single connection is high-fidelity evidence of malicious activity. This high signal-to-noise ratio is one of the huge advantages of honeypots over conventional intrusion detection systems – by design, they reduce false positives because normal users have no business with the fake asset.

When deploying honeypots, one must decide between using physical machines vs. virtualized instances. Virtual machines (or containers) are popular for honeypots because they are easy to create, snapshot, and restore. You can quickly spin up multiple honeypot VMs to form a honeynet. However, advanced attackers sometimes try to detect virtualization (checking for VM artifacts) as a way to determine if they are in a trap. Clever honeypot architects often mitigate this by using techniques to make VMs less distinguishable, or by occasionally using real hardware for the most high-interaction scenarios.

Another strategy is to use cloud-based honeypots. Many organizations are moving services to the cloud, and attackers are following suit in targeting cloud workloads. Cloud honeypots can mimic, for example, an AWS or Azure server instance. They have the benefit of scalability – you can deploy decoys across different regions quickly. According to market insights, adoption of cloud-based honeypots is rising because of the ease of deployment and cost-effectiveness, allowing even smaller teams to maintain a broad network of lures. The honeypot market’s growth (projected to exceed $1 billion by 2033 from $200 million in 2024) is partly fueled by this shift to cloud and the integration of AI/ML to manage honeypots more intelligently – for instance, automatically reconfiguring decoys or analyzing attacker patterns.

Isolation and safety are paramount in honeypot architecture. A poorly configured honeypot can become a liability. There have been cases where attackers, upon realizing a system was a honeypot, have attempted to use it to attack others (for example, sending spam or malware from the compromised honeypot). If the honeypot isn’t properly isolated, the organization could inadvertently become a source of attack, with potential legal and reputational consequences. Best practice is to ensure that outbound traffic from honeypots is tightly restricted. Some teams choose to throttle or simulate slow network responses to keep the attacker occupied without letting them flood the internet with malicious traffic. Logging is also segregated – all honeypot logs should go to a secure server (often out-of-band) so that even if the attacker gains “root” on the decoy, they cannot erase the evidence of their activities.

Deception can extend beyond just servers. Honeytokens (fake data or credentials) can be planted in real systems. For instance, a bogus administrator password can be inserted into an openly readable config file on an internal workstation – no legitimate user would use it, so if it ever gets used, you know an attacker is trying it. Likewise, fake documents can have tags or tracking beacons such that if exfiltrated and opened outside, they “phone home” to reveal the breach. These forms of lightweight deception augment traditional honeypots and often feed into the same monitoring systems.

Finally, maintenance and realism: a honeypot should be maintained like a real system (patched just enough to avoid being too obviously vulnerable, but vulnerable enough to be tempting). If a decoy web server has content, it should resemble the organization’s theme. If it’s a fake Industrial Control System (ICS) device in a utility company, it should speak the proper protocols. Regular updates to honeypots (e.g., adding new fake data, rotating credentials) keep them fresh and more convincing. The more believable the environment, the longer an attacker might spend in it and the more information they will reveal. Building this realism can be an art form – some advanced deception platforms even simulate user behavior on decoys (like fake network traffic or dummy transactions) to avoid the honeypots appearing as static, idle machines.

In summary, deploying honeypots and honeynets is a balancing act between enticement and containment. Done correctly, a deceptive architecture will seamlessly blend into your network, attractive to adversaries but contained from your real crown jewels. Next, we’ll explore what we can learn once attackers do take the bait – the data collection and intelligence aspect of honeynets.

Data Collection and Threat Intelligence: Mining the Honey Trap

One of the greatest values of a honeypot or honeynet deployment is the rich data it can collect on attacker methods. When an intruder engages with a decoy system, every step of their interaction can be recorded in detail: network traffic, commands executed, malware dropped, even keystrokes and mouse movements in some cases. This is a gold mine for cybersecurity teams, effectively turning the tables on attackers – while they think they’re progressing toward a breach, we’re silently observing and learning their playbook.

What types of data do honeypots gather? Consider a high-interaction SSH honeypot (one that imitates a Linux server allowing logins). If an attacker logs in, the honeypot can capture the username and password they tried (commonly revealing a list of guessed credentials). A study of millions of honeypot-captured attacks found “root” and “admin” to be the most common usernames, often paired with trivial passwords like “123456” or “password”. Knowing this helps administrators enforce strong password policies (e.g., lock out default accounts). Once inside, the honeypot might record all shell commands the attacker types. This can reveal whether the intruder is a novice (running uname -aand pwd to orient themselves) or an experienced threat actor immediately deploying scripts and creating new user accounts. It may capture them downloading malicious tools. Since it’s a controlled environment, we can safely let them download that payload and then analyze it offline – extracting indicators like malware signatures, domains or IPs it contacts, and understanding its functionality.

For web honeypots, the data might include HTTP requests and injected payloads. For example, a web honeypot with a fake form might collect various SQL injection strings or cross-site scripting attempts. Security teams can analyze these to see what vulnerabilities attackers are probing for. Perhaps the honeypot logs show a surge in attempts to exploit a particular vulnerability – that intelligence can be fed back to patch or virtually patch that flaw in real servers if they haven’t been updated yet. In essence, honeypots can serve as early warning sensors for new exploits in the wild. If you suddenly catch an exploit attempt for a zero-day vulnerability on your decoy, you know to initiate emergency response on your real systems.

Malware honeypots (sometimes called sticky honeypots) emulate services like SMB, FTP, or Telnet that malware often targets to propagate. These honeypots can actually capture the malware binary that an attacker tries to drop. Analysts then run the malware in sandboxes to see what it does. In one example, a malware-focused honeypot might emulate an IoT device or industrial control system, tricking specialized malware (like IoT botnets or Stuxnet-like ICS malware) to infect it. By capturing the malware, defenders and researchers gain samples that contribute to antivirus signatures and threat intelligence feeds. They can observe the malware’s commands – e.g., if it’s an IoT bot, does it await instructions from a certain command-and-control server? If so, that server’s address can be blocked or monitored on real networks.

All this honeypot-derived data becomes actionable Threat Intelligence. It’s one thing to consume threat intel from external sources; it’s another to have threat intel tailored to your environment. Honeypots show what attacks are literally hitting your doorstep. For instance, if a honeynet distributed across global sites finds that the top attacking IPs are coming from certain countries or that certain malware is prevalent, a company can use that info to adjust geolocation firewall rules or strengthen specific defenses. One large-scale honeypot network recorded 42 million attack events in 2022 and found that the top targeted ports were 445/TCP (Windows SMB) and 22/TCP (SSH) – valuable confirmation that attackers broadly seek Windows file-sharing exploits and unsecured SSH. If your organization runs those services, you know they are high-risk and should be locked down accordingly.

Another key aspect is mapping attacker behavior to frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK. Every action an adversary takes in a honeypot can be mapped to an ATT&CK technique. Did they perform credential dumping? Did they use Mimikatz (which would be Technique T1003 in ATT&CK) or attempt lateral movement via remote desktop (T1021)? By observing this in a controlled setting, analysts can update their detection rules in SIEM or EDR systems for those behaviors in the real network. Furthermore, by identifying the techniques used, one might infer who the attacker could be, since specific APT groups have favorite tools and techniques. For example, if the honeypot sees an attacker run a series of Linux commands to enumerate processes and network connections, and then deploy a custom implant, analysts might recognize a pattern consistent with a known threat group. Thus, honeypots can feed the threat huntingprocess: armed with indicators and behaviors from the decoy, hunters can search for any sign of those in production systems (to ensure the threat hasn’t touched them too).

It’s worth noting the role of MITRE Shield (now known as MITRE Engage) – a framework focusing on active defense and deception. Honeypots are a big part of that knowledge base, which enumerates techniques for engaging and confusing adversaries (like misinformation, mixing real and fake assets, etc.). By aligning honeypot activities with MITRE Shield, defenders can systematically plan how to use deception at various stages of an intrusion. For example, if ATT&CK covers what the adversary does, Shield covers what we as defenders can do to the adversary, and honeypots/honeynets are prime tools in that arsenal.

In practice, organizations funnel honeypot data into their existing security operations workflow. Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems can intake honeypot logs just like any other log source. Given the high fidelity of honeypot alerts, many SOCs set those to trigger immediate incident response procedures. It’s common to treat a honeypot trip as an urgent priority: it likely means someone unauthorized is inside the network or actively targeting the organization. Automated playbooks might isolate the attacking source, increase monitoring on related systems, and so forth, once a deception sensor fires an alert.

Beyond the immediate response, the long-term intelligence gathered builds a profile of threats. Over months, a honeynet might reveal that your organization is frequently probed by certain IP ranges or that attackers are especially interested in a particular fake data (maybe your dummy “customer credit card database” gets a lot of attention, indicating criminals seeking financial info). This knowledge helps the CISO and security managers adjust risk assessments – perhaps investing more in database monitoring, or deciding to segment networks more aggressively, etc., because the threat data indicates those areas are being targeted.

In summary, the data collection from honeypots turns cyberattacks into a two-way street: not only do attackers get (fake) data, but we get data on them. It demystifies the threat actor’s approach. Every failed attack on a decoy is a learning opportunity to strengthen real defenses. The next section will delve into what this intelligence tells us about the attackers themselves – their behavior, their mindset – and how that insight can be leveraged.

Insights into Attacker Behavior and Tactics

Honeypots and honeynets provide a unique window into the mind of the attacker. By observing intruders in a consequence-free environment, defenders can analyze how different types of attackers operate. Are we dealing with an automated bot, an opportunistic script kiddie, or a skilled human adversary? The behavior captured in the honeypot often makes this clear.

For example, many attacks on internet-facing honeypots are opportunistic and automated. A bot might simply barrage the system with password guesses or rapidly try known exploits without much finesse. These attacks often originate from malware-infected machines scanning the internet. Honeypot data confirms this pattern – one report noted tens of thousands of unique IP addresses hitting honeypots with brute-force attempts, where the attackers cycle through common credentials. Such behavior is indicative of broad, untargeted campaigns (for instance, Mirai-like botnets trying to ensnare IoT devices). Knowing this, an organization can differentiate noise from a more targeted attack. It might also highlight the importance of basic cyber hygiene (like disabling default creds and using account lockouts) since so many attacks still attempt trivial logins.

On the other hand, when a targeted attacker or APT engages with a high-interaction honeypot, their actions tend to be more deliberate. They might perform reconnaissance commands to understand the system (whoami, ifconfig, netstat on Linux, or systeminfo on Windows). They might carefully upload a toolkit rather than run noisy scanners. Honeypots have been used in research to profile such adversaries. In one study, honeypot evidence showed that many attacks were driven by curiosity or quick-win attempts – for instance, script kiddies using an exploit without fully understanding it, often failing if the exploit wasn’t immediately successful. Those attackers tend to give up or move on if nothing easy is gained. In contrast, a persistent attacker might escalate privileges on the honeypot, then try lateral movement (perhaps the honeynet has multiple hosts, and the attacker attempts to pivot to another host via the fake network – a telling behavior that indicates skill).

By examining the “kill chain” progression in a honeynet, defenders can identify which stage attackers are most active in. Are they mostly getting in via known vulnerabilities (Initial Access), or do they succeed in privilege escalation and then get stuck trying to move laterally? For instance, if logs show attackers often successfully drop a web shell on the honeypot web server (Initial Access) but then their attempts to traverse to the fake database server fail because they don’t find credentials, that tells you something: attackers are reaching a certain point and then flailing. Perhaps they expected a common misconfiguration that wasn’t present. This can hint at their playbook.

One real-world use case is using honeypots to detect insider threats or rogue employees. A cleverly placed honeypot file share labeled “Executive Salaries” or a fake HR database can be a canary for malicious insider browsing. When accessed, it could log the user’s identity and actions. If a regular employee suddenly tries to copy large amounts of data from a server they never normally touch – and that server is actually a honeypot – it’s a red flag of potential insider misconduct.

Another scenario: law enforcement and corporate investigators sometimes set up honeypot documents (files) that are tagged. For example, a fake spreadsheet of account passwords might be placed on an internal network share. If an intruder steals it, the document could be instrumented to beacon out when opened (via an external image reference or a macro that reaches the internet). This has been used to trace where stolen files end up geographically, or which machines they get opened on. In one case, a company investigating data leakage planted unique fake records (honeytokens) in databases. When those records appeared in dark web forums being sold, it confirmed an insider leak and identified exactly which database was compromised, without exposing real customer data.

Honeypots also shed light on attackers’ priorities and techniques over time. Security teams reviewing months of honeynet data might notice trends: say, a spike in attempts exploiting a particular vulnerability right after it’s announced – showing how quickly attackers incorporate new exploits (and emphasizing why rapid patching is crucial). Alternatively, the absence of certain attack types can be telling. If your IoT honeypot never gets touched by a certain malware that everyone is talking about, maybe it’s because your honeypot isn’t configured in a way that malware targets – prompting you to adjust it to catch that threat.

From an intelligence perspective, honeypot interactions can reveal bits of the attacker’s infrastructure and toolset. The IP addresses and domains they use, the malware hashes, the timing and frequency of their visits – all help paint a profile. If the same attacker returns to your honeypot after a week with slightly modified tools (perhaps your honeypot caught their last attempt and they adapted), you can observe this cat-and-mouse evolution in real time. That might indicate a persistent adversary specifically interested in your organization (or at least your industry), rather than random background noise.

Moreover, some advanced attackers attempt anti-honeypot techniques. They may run commands to detect sandbox artifacts or unusual system responses. For instance, they might list processes or check system uptime; some honeypots that reboot frequently or have default VM processes might tip them off. If an attacker suddenly halts activity after performing such checks, it could mean your honeypot was identified. This is a valuable lesson too – it shows you where your deception might be failing and needs improvement to be more stealthy. It’s a spy-vs-spy game: sophisticated attackers know about honeypots, and sophisticated defenders adapt accordingly.

The ultimate insight gleaned is attackers’ modus operandi. You see in practice what vulnerabilities they go after first, how much recon they do, whether they exfiltrate data in chunks or all at once, what times of day they operate (which sometimes correlates with specific time zones or working hours of hacker groups). All this context is extraordinarily useful for tailoring your real defenses. If your honeynet is consistently hit by attackers using tool XYZ to escalate privileges, you ensure all your real systems have detections for the behavior of tool XYZ. If attackers love using certain obfuscation techniques in PowerShell on the decoy, you double-check that your PowerShell logging is enabled across actual servers.

In essence, honeypots act as a training simulator for your incident response (IR) team as well. The SOC can practice analyzing intrusions in a safe sandbox. They can build playbooks around “when honeypot triggers, do X.” This means when a real incident happens, they’ve already rehearsed on similar data. The deception environment, therefore, not only catches threats but also improves the defender’s preparedness.

So far, we’ve focused on technical outcomes and insights. Next, we will transition to why this all matters at the leadership level – how can CISOs and executives leverage these insights? How do honeypots fit into broader governance, risk, and strategy considerations? We will explore the management perspective, bridging the gap between these technical details and the strategic decisions that drive cybersecurity investments.

From Technical Insight to Executive Strategy

The knowledge gained from honeypots and honeynets has implications far beyond the SOC. For CISOs and executive leadership, deceptive defense techniques provide a strategic advantage. They not only bolster the technical security posture but also inform policy, budgeting, and risk management decisions at the highest levels. Let’s shift focus to how implementing honeypots fits within governance frameworks and how leadership can harness deception for enterprise resilience.

Firstly, deploying deception technology should be embedded in the organization’s cybersecurity strategy and policies. This means executives need to endorse and guide its use through clear governance. A security policy might explicitly state, for example, that the company uses decoy systems as part of its defense-in-depth, and define how data from these systems is handled. There are important governance questions: Who in the organization is authorized to set up and monitor honeypots? How are the legal and ethical considerations addressed? Wise executives involve the legal department early. While honeypots are legal in most jurisdictions, they record criminal behavior which might intersect with privacy laws or anti-hacking statutes if not carefully managed. For instance, in the U.S., there’s discussion around whether capturing an attacker’s keystrokes is akin to wiretapping (the Federal Wiretap Act forbids intercepting communications without consent). A CISO should work with legal counsel to ensure honeypot operations don’t inadvertently violate laws – usually this is handled by putting banners or legal notices on systems (even decoys) that unauthorized access is monitored, thereby removing an attacker’s expectation of privacy.

Another policy consideration is data retention and chain of custody for honeypot logs. If the company hopes to use honeypot evidence to prosecute an intruder, the data must be collected and preserved in a forensically sound manner. ISO/IEC 27002 (the best-practice guidelines supporting ISO 27001) actually suggests using honeypots or deception mechanisms to collect evidence of incidents, with proper chain-of-custody, as part of incident management (Annex A.13.2.3). Executives can mandate that incident response plans include steps for evidence preservation from honeynets. This way, if a major breach attempt occurs, the organization can hand well-documented evidence to law enforcement. Training exercises should include practice on honeypot data so that the team is fluent in extracting and handling it according to policy.

From a framework alignment perspective, consider how deception maps to standards that boards care about. For example, NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) core functions are Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover. Honeypots clearly play into Detect (they are sensors for malicious activity) and Respond (the intelligence gathered improves response). NIST Special Publication 800-53 (Security Controls) explicitly lists controls for deception: SC-26 Decoys is the control that covers deploying decoy systems to attract adversaries. NIST 800-160 (Systems Security Engineering guide) highlights deception as a key proactive strategy, noting techniques like misdirection using honeypots/honeynets to observe attackers. A CISO can point to these NIST recommendations to justify deception projects as part of adhering to best practices.

Similarly, ISO/IEC 27001 (the international security management standard) doesn’t explicitly say “use honeypots,” but it does mandate monitoring and improving the ISMS (Information Security Management System). One analysis found that honeypots add value to several ISO controls – such as monitoring for successful and attempted breaches (which honeypots excel at by providing detailed attack information). Honeypots can enhance controls for malware protection(ISO control A.12.2 in older version, now perhaps A.5.7 in the 2022 update) by analyzing malware in a sandboxed setting. They also bolster vulnerability management processes (Annex A.12.6.1 in ISO 27002:2013) by catching exploits in the wild and giving a heads-up to patch or mitigate. Executives who are familiar with ISO compliance can appreciate that deception isn’t outside the scope of their management system – it’s a tool that can improve how certain control objectives are met (like detecting information leakage with honeytokens ).

Now, consider COBIT, a framework that many boards use for IT governance and risk management. COBIT emphasizes aligning IT initiatives with business objectives and risk appetite. Implementing honeypots aligns with COBIT’s focus areas such as risk awareness and security monitoring. In COBIT 5 (and COBIT 2019, which builds on similar principles), processes like APO12 (Manage Risk) and DSS05 (Manage Security Services) are directly supported by threat intelligence from deception. For instance, COBIT’s objective of assessing and managing IT risk (formerly PO9 in COBIT 4.1) is served by honeypots providing a clearer picture of threat likelihood and impact. Honeypots promote a risk-aware culture by vividly demonstrating threats in action. They also contribute to Incident Management (DSS02 in COBIT 5, or DSS02.02 ensuring detection and reporting of incidents). A honeypot that triggers on attacker activity ensures incidents are identified promptly – a clear governance benefit.

For executive leadership, one compelling strategic value of deceptive defense is its contribution to organizational resilience. Cyber resilience is the ability not just to prevent attacks, but to continue operating and recover quickly when breaches occur. Honeypots can play a role in resilience by absorbing some of the attack impact. If an attacker spends time in a honeynet, that’s time not spent in the production network – effectively buying the defenders time to react. It’s analogous to having burglar decoys in a bank: the thief breaks into a vault full of fake money and triggers alarms, while the real vault remains untouched. This can limit damage (the attacker might even reveal their methods before reaching real assets). A CEO or board will appreciate that investment in deception could mean the difference between a minor security incident and a catastrophic breach.

Budgeting for deception technologies requires building a business case that resonates with leadership. Unlike traditional security tools that directly block attacks, the ROI of honeypots is a bit more abstract – it’s about information and early detection. However, that information can prevent costly incidents. Executives look at metrics like “mean time to detect” (MTTD) and “mean time to respond” (MTTR) for breaches. Honeypots can drastically reduce MTTD by catching internal threats that other controls miss, thereby potentially saving the company from legal fees, customer breach notifications, and reputation damage that come with undetected breaches. To quantify, one might use industry studies that estimate the cost of a data breach per record. If a honeypot deployment even prevents one major data leak or shortens an incident by a few days, the avoided costs can be in the millions for a large enterprise.

There’s also the factor of human resource efficiency. Security operation centers are often flooded with alerts, many of which are false positives. Honeypot alerts, by contrast, are few and high-confidence. This means analysts spend less time chasing ghosts and more time on bona fide threats. Over a year, this efficiency gain (fewer hours wasted, better focus) can translate to real savings, or at least better use of highly skilled (and expensive) analyst time. When pitching to the board, a CISO might say: “Deploying these deception sensors will improve our threat detection accuracy and allow our team to concentrate on true incidents – reducing the likelihood of an attacker dwelling in our systems undetected.” That argument ties technical benefit to business risk reduction.

When budgeting, leadership should consider not just the tools but the operational costs. Honeypots need maintenance and monitoring. This could mean dedicating part of an FTE’s time or training existing staff on deception tech. Some companies opt for commercial deception solutions which come with support and dashboards. While we avoid product endorsements here, it’s worth noting that many vendors offer deception technology that integrates with your SIEM and orchestration tools, sometimes with AI to automate decoy deployments. Executives will weigh whether to go open-source (lower direct cost, higher internal effort) or commercial (higher cost, potentially easier deployment). The good news is that entry barriers are relatively low – even a small security team can start with open-source honeypots and demonstrate value, then upscale to more comprehensive platforms as needed. Given the market growth and competitive landscape, pricing for deception tech has become more accessible, and vendor-neutral managed services even exist to outsource honeypot monitoring if in-house expertise is lacking.

Finally, board-level cybersecurity discussions increasingly revolve around not just preventing breaches, but ensuring the organization is learning and adapting to the threat environment. Deceptive defense provides exactly that narrative. A CISO can report to the board: “This quarter, our honeypot systems detected X number of intrusion attempts. We learned that attackers are very interested in [insert fake asset], indicating we should strengthen security around similar real assets. We also caught Y new malware samples targeting our industry – information we’ve shared with law enforcement or industry CERTs to help others.” Such reporting demonstrates a mature, proactive posture. It shows the company is not simply waiting to be attacked but actively engaging adversaries. That can boost confidence among stakeholders (investors, customers, regulators) that the company is serious about cybersecurity innovation.

One more angle to reassure executives is that deceptive defense is vendor-neutral and technology-agnostic by nature. It doesn’t require overhauling existing infrastructure. It complements what’s already there. You can align it with enterprise risk frameworks like COSO ERM or the organization’s own risk register by listing “undetected intrusion” as a risk and showing deception as a mitigation that reduces the likelihood or impact of that risk. In COBIT’s terms, it helps achieve the goal of “risk optimization” and “resource optimization” (because you’re extracting more value from intruders’ actions). As highlighted by research, major benefits of honeypots include creating a risk-aware culture and providing learning experiences that improve secure coding and incident response. These are exactly the kind of qualitative improvements that leadership wants to hear – that the security team is not just deploying tools, but cultivating a smarter, more prepared organization.

Governance, Risk, and Policy: Ensuring a Safe Deceptive Environment

Implementing honeypots needs to be accompanied by strong governance controls to avoid pitfalls. As mentioned earlier, legal approval and oversight is step one. A concise internal policy should outline acceptable use of honeypots. This includes guidance like: do not entrap or actively encourage attackers illegally, simply make passively available decoys (generally, creating opportunities for attackers is fine, but actively colluding could cross legal lines). Many countries have laws against unauthorized access and even hacking back; honeypots walk that line carefully by sticking to observation and logging, not counter-attacking. Leadership should ensure the team knows the boundaries – e.g., if an attacker is in a honeypot, the admins should not start trying to hack the attacker’s system in return, which could be illegal. Instead, the focus stays on observation and defense.

Ethical considerations also come into play. There’s a philosophical debate: are we ethically okay with inviting attack on a system? Most say yes, because the attacker is willingly engaging in illegal activity anyway, and no innocent party is harmed by a fake system being breached. In fact, one could argue it’s a public service if some criminals spend their time on decoys rather than real targets. Still, transparency internally is key – employees and management should be aware (on a need-to-know basis) that certain traps exist. This prevents confusion if someone stumbles on a honeypot inadvertently or if IT staff are monitoring an intruder and management wonders what’s going on with that system.

From a risk management perspective, deploying deception should be included in risk assessments. What new risks does it introduce? Possibly the risk of an attacker using the honeypot to pivot (mitigated by strong isolation), or the risk of false sense of security (“we have honeypots so we’ll catch everything” – which is not true if attackers bypass them). These should be documented and controls put in place (like regular reviews of honeypot coverage and limitations). Many experts recommend treating honeypots as augmentation, not replacement, for other controls. A danger would be to neglect say, patching, thinking honeypots alone will handle threats. Governance committees (or the security steering committee) should periodically review the deception program: Are we learning useful things? Are the honeypots being updated? Is there any exposure (e.g., did we accidentally host real sensitive data on a decoy? Hopefully not)?

Another governance aspect is tying deception into the incident response plan (IRP). Boards and auditors often look for a tested IR plan. Incorporating honeypot scenarios in IR drills is wise. For example, simulate that a honeypot has been tripped by a ransomware attacker – walk through the playbook: containment steps, notifications (maybe the honeypot is isolated but you still need to check if any real systems were touched), eradication (perhaps deploying new decoys if the attacker destroyed one), recovery (nothing to recover on decoy, but maybe patch whatever vulnerability they tried to exploit on real systems). By doing tabletop exercises that include deception elements, executives can ensure the team is ready and that the deception technology truly integrates with processes, rather than sitting siloed.

When aligning with frameworks like COBIT, documentation is key. COBIT would call for defining processes around deception deployment (Plan/Build stage) and operation (Run/Monitor stage). One might have a process like “Deploy and Maintain Deception Environment” linked under DSS (Deliver, Service, Support) domain. Metrics could be set, such as number of honeypot detections, average time to analyst review of a honeypot alert, etc. These metrics can feed into the continuous improvement cycle. The fact that honeypots inherently encourage continuous learning (since attackers evolve) fits well with governance models that emphasize iterate and improve.

Budgetarily, leadership should also consider funding for training the security team on deception techniques. This might involve sending analysts to specialized courses or bringing in consultants to bootstrap the honeynet design. A relatively small investment in training can ensure the honeypot deployment actually yields value (poorly configured honeypots that nobody looks at are just wasted effort). Some organizations start with a pilot project – say, one or two honeypots in a specific segment – and produce a report for executives after 6 months on what was observed. If that report shows high-value findings (like “we caught X malware samples including some zero-day attempts, and identified Y malicious IPs targeting us”), it builds the case for expanding the program.

Stakeholder communication is another piece. If customers or regulators inquire about the company’s security measures, mentioning the use of deception (in broad terms) can demonstrate an advanced posture. It’s often received positively: it shows the organization is not just ticking compliance checkboxes but going above and beyond. However, some regulators or partners might need assurance that deception mechanisms won’t entrap legitimate users or expose any data. The answer is usually that honeypots are isolated and only interact with malicious actors. There have been proposals in legal circles about entrapment in cyberspace, but generally entrapment applies to law enforcement coercing someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t – here, we’re dealing with unsolicited attacks by criminals, so entrapment isn’t a concern when organizations use honeypots for defense. Ensuring top leadership is aware of this reasoning helps them confidently support deception deployment.

The Strategic Payoff: Resilience and Informed Decision-Making

In the final analysis, honeypots and honeynets offer a strategic payoff that resonates with C-level executives: enhanced cyber resilience and better-informed security decisions. By implementing deceptive defense measures, an organization doesn’t just add another security tool – it gains a form of adaptive defense that gets smarter with every attacker interaction. This adaptiveness is crucial in an age where threats mutate constantly.

One major benefit at the executive level is turning unknown risks into known risks. Boards often worry about the concept of “unknown unknowns” in cyber risk – threats lurking that they have no visibility into. Honeypots shine a light into some of those dark corners. They might reveal, for instance, that the organization is being quietly reconnoitered by a nation-state actor (maybe the honeypot catches a sophisticated exploit attempt that is associated with an APT group). That kind of information can trigger strategic shifts, such as investing in further hardening critical assets, or in some cases, it might influence business strategy (e.g., if a certain product line is drawing espionage attempts, maybe increase IP protection efforts there).

The intelligence from honeynets can also guide budget priorities. If the deception environment frequently flags attempts against a particular system (say the fake ERP server is constantly targeted), the CISO might argue for more budget to secure the real ERP or segment it more. Conversely, if some threats are not observed at all, resources might be reallocated from that area to more pressing ones. It’s a data-driven way to refine where money and effort should go in the security roadmap.

Honeypots also provide a way to measure the effectiveness of other controls. For example, if an attacker in the honeypot tries to use a known malware and it wasn’t caught by the honeypot’s baseline antivirus (assuming you put one there to mimic endpoint protection), that might indicate your real endpoints could also be vulnerable. Thus, you get a safe testing ground for your detection tools. Some companies integrate this concept by intentionally releasing benign test “attacks” on honeypots (like internal red team exercises) to see if their SOC detects it – a form of continuous control validation.

For the board and CEO, one of the most comforting outputs of a deception program is narratives of improvement. Over time, reports might show, “In Q1, our honeypots detected 15 serious intrusion attempts. By Q3, after we implemented new firewall rules and patched systems based on those attempts, similar attack traffic dropped by 40%.” This demonstrates proactive improvement – turning adversary lessons into concrete defensive upgrades. It’s akin to a military intelligence unit gathering intel on enemy tactics and the army adjusting its defenses accordingly; boards love to see that kind of responsiveness.

Another high-level benefit is collaboration and reputation. Organizations that employ advanced techniques like honeynets often collaborate with industry consortia or information sharing groups (ISACs). By contributing anonymized insights (“we saw a new phishing technique in our honeypot, heads-up everyone”), the organization builds credibility as a leader in cybersecurity. This can have side benefits like influence in setting industry security standards or being seen as a trusted partner by government cyber agencies.

From a resilience standpoint, deception technology is aligned with the concept of assuming breach and building the ability to recover. If an attack happens, having had attackers in your honeypots means your team has practice dealing with adversaries. It’s somewhat analogous to immunization – exposure to controlled attacks builds immunity (readiness) to real ones. In disaster recovery and business continuity planning, scenarios can incorporate insights from honeypot experiences (for instance, planning for how to continue operations if certain data were exfiltrated, knowing from honeypots what attackers might go for).

Let’s not forget CISO and board relationship aspects. CISOs often have to communicate complex technical issues to board members in a digestible way. Honeypots produce concrete stories: “We set up a fake manufacturing plant control system; within 2 days, someone tried to shut it down – here’s how they did it and here’s what we learned.” Such storytelling is far more impactful than speaking in abstractions. It underscores threats in a tangible manner. Board members can visualize an attacker stuck in a maze of fake systems, rather than loose in the real crown jewels. It underscores both the severity of threats and the ingenuity of the defense team. It can also justify budgets with real examples (“this is not a hypothetical – this attempted breach happened, and because of our decoys no real harm was done, but it validated our need for investing in X”).

Finally, adopting deceptive defense contributes to an overall culture of cybersecurity innovation. When employees from IT to executive leadership see that the organization uses creative strategies like honeypots, it sends a message: security here isn’t just about compliance checklists, it’s about outsmarting adversaries. This can encourage proactive thinking across the board. Perhaps developers start thinking about building honeytokens in their applications (like fake data entries to catch misuse), or network engineers think about where to place trap accounts. The security team moves from being seen solely as gatekeepers to also being threat intel producers and strategists – a shift that many modern CISOs aim for, to be viewed as enabling business safely rather than just saying “no.”

In wrapping up, the art of honeypots and honeynets exemplifies the adage “forewarned is forearmed.” By deceiving attackers, we extract knowledge and forewarning of their intents. This knowledge arms executives to make more informed decisions, whether that’s shoring up defenses, allocating budgets, or even altering business strategies to mitigate risk. It’s a marriage of technical prowess and strategic foresight – exactly what’s needed to navigate the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Conclusion

Deceptive Defense through honeypots and honeynets has emerged as both a technical marvel and a strategic asset in modern cybersecurity. On the technical front, we’ve seen how these decoy systems can detect intrusions that evade ordinary controls, gather detailed intelligence on attacker tactics, and even distract adversaries away from real targets. Honeypots embody a proactive philosophy: don’t just wait to be attacked – anticipate it, and use the attacker’s curiosity against them. They have proven effective in global contexts and have particular promise in high-threat regions like Southeast Asia, where rapidly growing digital infrastructure is matched by a surge in cyber threats.

For security professionals, honeypots offer a deeper understanding of the battlefield. They provide a safe space to watch how malware and humans behave under the hood, mapping those behaviors to frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK to ensure our defenses cover every tactic and technique an attacker might employ. By integrating deception with existing security operations, organizations achieve a more robust detection fabric – one that catches subtle signs of breach that would otherwise slip by until it’s too late.

For CISOs and executives, deceptive defense translates into actionable risk management. Honeynets inform better decision-making by highlighting where your organization is being targeted and how. This enables smarter allocation of resources and sharpens the focus of cybersecurity investments. Furthermore, it demonstrates to stakeholders that the organization is not complacent; instead, it’s innovating and staying one step ahead of adversaries. Aligning these efforts with standards like NIST and ISO and frameworks like COBIT ensures that honeypots bolster compliance and governance objectives, rather than exist on the fringe of the security program.

Implementing honeypots is not without its challenges – it requires planning, skilled oversight, and a commitment to continuous adaptation. However, the payoff is a significantly strengthened security posture: reduced dwell times for attackers, fewer false positives for analysts, enriched threat intelligence, and ultimately a higher degree of confidence that the organization can withstand and respond to attacks. It’s about moving from reactive to proactive, and from uncertainty to insight.

In the cat-and-mouse game of cybersecurity, honeypots and honeynets change the rules of engagement. They create an environment where attackers unknowingly reveal themselves and their methods, turning every attempted breach into an opportunity for learning and improvement. In doing so, deceptive defense embodies the “art” in the science of cybersecurity – a blend of creativity, strategy, and technology that empowers defenders. By unveiling this art and integrating it from the server room to the boardroom, organizations around the world, including those across Southeast Asia, can enhance their cyber resilience and confidently navigate an increasingly perilous digital landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions

Keep the Curiosity Rolling →

• Deepfakes Dilemma: A Guide to Recognising AI Fabrications
• Vulnerability Assessment: Confidently Navigating Cyber Threats
• Malware Analysis: Unlocking Cyber Threat Secrets
• Phishing Psychology: Cognitive Biases and Cybersecurity
• Multimodal AI Threats in Financial Services