Automated Honeypot State Modeling for Safe Target Mimicry

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Implementing suitable honeypots for specific needs and target systems requires considerable manual work by experts, making it difficult to deploy and configure effectively.

Innovation Solution

A method for creating a honeypot that involves sending messages to a target system, observing reactions, generating a state machine model, determining vulnerability chains, and removing states to automate the honeypot implementation, including automatic adaptation of operating system behavior.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If manual configuration methods are used to create honeypots, then the honeypot can be customized for specific target systems, but the deployment process requires considerable manual work by experts and is difficult to deploy effectively

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of honeypot deploymentVSAvoidcomplexity of honeypot configuration
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-service by automatically generating state machine models through automated interaction with target systems. The honeypot configuration process is self-configuring, eliminating the need for expert manual intervention while maintaining system-specific accuracy through automated observation and model generation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The invention changes parameters by dynamically adapting the state machine model parameters based on observed target system behavior. The honeypot configuration parameters are automatically adjusted through systematic exploration of target system responses, transforming manual configuration into an automated parameter optimization process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If a complete state machine model is generated for the target system, then the honeypot can accurately mimic the target system behavior, but attackers may exploit the honeypot to attack third-party systems

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of target system mimicryVSAvoidrisk of attacker abuse
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The invention extracts only the necessary states for accurate mimicry while removing dangerous states that could enable third-party attacks. By selectively extracting and retaining specific state machine states, the system maintains reliability for detection purposes while eliminating harmful capabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by proactively removing or neutralizing states that could be exploited for attacks on third-party systems. Before deploying the honeypot, dangerous states are identified and eliminated, preventing potential abuse while preserving the honeypot's ability to detect and analyze attack patterns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

3Adaptability or versatility

If the honeypot provides comprehensive system functionality, then it becomes a more powerful tool for attackers, but this increases the risk that attackers will use it against third parties

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepower of honeypot as analysis toolVSAvoidthreat to third-party systems
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The invention converts the potential harm of a powerful honeypot into a benefit by using the state machine model to identify and remove dangerous capabilities. The comprehensive system analysis that could create security risks is transformed into a filtering mechanism that eliminates threats while preserving analytical value.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #22Blessing in disguise (Convert harm into benefit)

Solution Approach 2:

The system segments the honeypot functionality by dividing the state machine model into safe and dangerous states. By segmenting capabilities in this way, the honeypot retains sufficient versatility for threat analysis while isolating and removing the specific functions that could harm third-party systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP4586549A1Method for producing a honeypot
Publication Date: 2025.07.16 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
  • EP4586549A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4586549A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4586549A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

According to various embodiments, a method for creating a honeypot is described, comprising sending messages to a target system, observing reactions of the target system to the messages, generating, according to the observed reactions of the target system, a state machine model for one or more interfaces of the target system, determining, for each one or more known vulnerabilities, a chain of states of the state machine model which, when traced, enables exploitation of the vulnerability, removing, for each of the one or more vulnerabilities, at least one state of the chain from the state machine model and generating a honeypot which reacts to messages according to the state machine model.