Adaptive Honeypot Entity for Safe, Realistic Attacker Interaction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing honeypot systems, both low-interaction and high-interaction, face challenges in effectively engaging with attackers, with high-interaction systems being costly and risky, and low-interaction systems failing to simulate real systems adequately, leading to incomplete threat intelligence and inefficient defense strategies.

Innovation Solution

A honeypot entity that combines low-interaction and high-interaction methodologies by using reinforcement learning to adaptively select responses, leveraging a knowledge base and controlled backend systems for real-time interaction and learning, allowing for safer and richer interactions with attackers.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If high-interaction honeypots are deployed to engage attackers with real systems, then the expressivity and realism of attacker interaction is improved, but the system becomes costly and risky since it exposes real systems that can easily get out of control

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveexpressivity and realism of attacker interactionVSAvoidsystem safety and control
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system is segmented into a frontend honeypot entity that interacts with attackers and backend systems that are isolated and controlled. The honeypot entity acts as a separate layer between attackers and real backend systems, allowing realistic interaction while preventing direct access to vulnerable systems. This segmentation resolves the contradiction by enabling high-interaction capabilities without exposing real systems to direct risk.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The honeypot entity serves as an intermediary between attackers and backend systems. It receives and processes attacker commands, determines whether assessment is required, and selectively forwards commands to backend systems. This intermediary role allows the system to maintain realistic interaction while controlling and limiting exposure of actual systems, thus resolving the safety concern.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Device complexity

If low-interaction honeypots are used to simulate servers and study intrusion attempts, then the system lightweightness is improved, but the simulation fails to include possible subsystems, causing attackers to abandon their attack

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem lightweightnessVSAvoidsimulation completeness
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The honeypot entity dynamically adapts its behavior based on the attacker's actions and the situation. It uses reinforcement learning to adjust its responses and determine when to involve backend systems. This dynamic approach allows the system to maintain lightweight characteristics while selectively providing comprehensive simulation capabilities when needed, resolving the contradiction between simplicity and completeness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The honeypot entity autonomously determines whether to assess commands and engage backend systems based on its own judgment and learned policies. It self-manages the balance between maintaining lightweight operation and providing complete simulation, deciding when to invoke additional resources without requiring constant external control or configuration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Loss of information

If the honeypot entity forwards commands to backend systems for assessment, then the knowledge base is populated with comprehensive command outputs, but the interaction time and system resource usage increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvethreat intelligence completenessVSAvoidcommand assessment time
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The honeypot entity applies partial action by selectively forwarding only certain commands to backend systems for assessment. It uses its knowledge base and learned policies to determine which commands require comprehensive assessment and which can be handled with existing information. This approach ensures complete threat intelligence for critical commands while minimizing unnecessary interaction time for routine commands.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary action by pre-populating the knowledge base with command outputs from backend systems during off-peak times or when resources are available. This preliminary preparation reduces the need for real-time backend interaction during active attacks, thereby reducing command assessment time while maintaining comprehensive threat intelligence availability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Adaptability or versatility

If reinforcement learning is used to adapt the policy in real-time, then the system's adaptability to different attack patterns is improved, but the computational complexity and processing requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereal-time adaptation to attack patternsVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The computational workload is segmented between the honeypot entity and backend systems. The honeypot entity focuses on learning and decision-making (policy adaptation), while backend systems handle heavy computational tasks like command execution and data processing. This segmentation allows real-time adaptation without overburdening the honeypot entity with excessive computational complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The honeypot entity acts as an intermediary that manages the complexity of reinforcement learning by working with simplified state representations and action spaces. It mediates between the complex attack patterns and the learning algorithm, reducing the effective computational complexity while maintaining adaptability to different attack scenarios through intelligent feature selection and abstraction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP4396709B1Honeypot entity and method of operating the same
Publication Date: 2025.07.30 HUAWEI TECH CO LTD
  • EP4396709B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4396709B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4396709B1 patent drawing

AI summary

The present disclosure relates generally to the field of IT/network security, and particularly discloses a honeypot entity. The honeypot entity is configured to receive a command of a user, and determine if an assessment of the received command is required. If the assessment is required the entity is configured to retrieve a first set of command outputs associated with the command from backend systems, and populate a knowledge base with the command and the first set of command outputs. Further, the entity is configured to retrieve a second set of command outputs from the knowledge base, and select a command output of the second set in dependence of a policy. The entity is then configured to output the selected command to the user, and adapt the policy in dependence of an interaction history associated with the user and an immediate reward associated with the selected command.