Cyber deception and assume-breach defence: what teams should change

TL;DR: Deception technology can produce 100% true positives and deny 80% of attacker objectives across enumeration, credential access, lateral movement, privilege escalation and exfiltration, according to Acalvio’s Navy Cyber Challenge result. The lesson is that assume-breach defence now needs active disruption, not just faster detection.

NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Acalvio: Deception Technology Triumphs at Navy Cyber Challenge

By the numbers:

• 100% True Positives: Every alert generated was a confirmed, malicious interaction, eliminating false alarms and streamlining security operations.
• 80% Denial of Attacker Objectives: This critical metric highlights our ability to actively thwart sophisticated attacks and prevent their desired outcomes.

Questions worth separating out

Q: How should security teams use deception technology against identity-driven attacks?

A: Security teams should place deception assets where attackers are most likely to probe trust, credentials, and administrative pathways.

Q: Why do deception controls matter in assume-breach environments?

A: They matter because assume-breach environments already accept that an attacker may be inside, so the real problem becomes visibility and disruption.

Q: How do deception alerts improve SOC decision-making?

A: Deception alerts improve SOC decision-making by reducing ambiguity.

Practitioner guidance

• Map decoy placement to privileged trust paths Place believable decoys near administrative shares, credential stores, and high-value service-account routes so probing activity produces immediate, high-confidence alerts.
• Use deception to validate lateral-movement assumptions Test whether existing detection can distinguish legitimate administrative movement from hostile reconnaissance by introducing controlled bait assets in segments where trust is already assumed.
• Route confirmed deception hits into privileged-access workflows Treat validated decoy interactions as signals to review adjacent privileged accounts, service credentials, and administrative sessions.

What's in the full article

Acalvio's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:

• The competition setup, scoring criteria, and how the Navy evaluated detect, deny, and deter outcomes across competing teams
• Specific product-oriented descriptions of the deception strategies, triage workflow, and artefact design used in the exercise
• The vendor's own account of technical performance, including how it correlated incidents into single high-fidelity alerts
• The referenced context around the Navy's post-security posture and the challenge programme

👉 Read Acalvio’s analysis of deception technology performance in the Navy cyber challenge →

Cyber deception and assume-breach defence: what teams should change?

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →