deception vs edr Piergiorgio Venuti

Deception vs EDR: What’s the Best Threat Defense Strategy?

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Introduction

Cybersecurity is a daily challenge for businesses, with threats constantly evolving. Two approaches that are emerging to strengthen your security posture are Deception technology and Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools. But what are the differences and advantages of each? This article compares Deception and EDR to help choose the best strategy.

What is Deception Technology?

Deception technology uses deceptive security traps to identify and fool attackers. Dummy assets such as fake endpoints, documents, credentials, and network traffic are created to confuse hackers and divert them from valuable resources.

Key benefits include:

  • Early detection of threats – traps attract attackers and generate alerts as soon as there is an intrusion.
  • Active deception – confuse and slow down hackers by redirecting them to fake assets.
  • Fewer false positives – only unauthorized access triggers alerts.
  • Threat intelligence – gain valuable insight into attacker tactics and techniques.

Deception solutions are effective against a wide range of internal and external threats.

What is Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)?

EDR tools are focused on detecting and responding to endpoint threats. They use agents installed on laptops, servers, IoT devices and other endpoints to monitor suspicious events and activities.

The main advantages include:

  • Endpoint visibility – EDR agents provide real-time telemetry about processes, network connections, and anomalous behavior.
  • Advanced detection – behavioral analysis, machine learning and signatures to detect attacks never seen before.
  • Responsiveness – EDR tools allow you to contain threats, isolate compromised devices and initiate remediation actions.
  • Threat hunting – ability to search for threats at scale across all endpoints.

EDRs are effective against malware, targeted attacks, and insider threats.

Comparison between Deception and EDR

While both technologies aim to strengthen security, they have complementary approaches with different strengths:

DeceptionEDR
Deceptive traps activePassive monitoring of endpoints
Early intrusion detectionVisibility into suspicious activity
Identify the attackers’ tacticsThreat blocking and containment
Few false positivesDetection of unknown malware
Effective against external threatsEffective against malware and internal intrusions

In summary, Deception technology focuses on deception and initial intrusion detection, while EDR provides visibility, detection and responsiveness on endpoints.

How Deception and EDR work

Let’s dive into the specific actions Deception technology and EDR tools take to counter threats:

Deception Actions:

  • It generates fake data such as documents, credentials and network traffic to attract hackers
  • Create fake endpoints and servers to confuse attackers
  • Isolate and analyze malware targeting deceptive traps
  • Provides instant alerts as soon as fake credentials are used or traps are triggered
  • Track attackers’ lateral movement across the network with false hop points
  • Acquire threat intelligence about adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures

EDR actions:

  • Agents monitor filesystems, processes, network connections, and logs on each endpoint in real time
  • Detect exploits, lateral movement, and threat persistence techniques
  • Use machine learning to identify anomalous activities and processes
  • Automatically block and isolate compromised devices
  • Fornisce capacità di threat hunting per cercare proattivamente le intrusioni
  • It allows you to analyze and contain an attack in progress
  • Generate incident alerts and automate security responses

In summary, Deception lures and tricks attackers, while EDR detects and blocks infiltrating threats.

Conclusion

Deception technology and EDR tools are both invaluable in strengthening the security of organizations against today’s threats.

Deception provides early intrusion detection and the advantage of active deception, while EDR provides endpoint-level visibility, detection, and response capabilities. By integrating them together, you get unmatched active “on and off” network defense protection.

In fact, by combining Secure Online Desktop’s Active Defense Deception service with their SOCaaS EDR solutions, you can cover the corporate perimeter and critical endpoints with deceptive traps and real-time threat detection.

This multi-layered approach to active cyber defense helps identify and stop attacks in their early stages, dramatically reducing the risk of security breaches.

Useful links:

Share


RSS

More Articles…

Categories …

Tags

RSS Unknown Feed

RSS Full Disclosure

  • MitM attack against OpenSSH's VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client February 21, 2025
    Posted by Qualys Security Advisory via Fulldisclosure on Feb 20Qualys Security Advisory CVE-2025-26465: MitM attack against OpenSSH's VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client CVE-2025-26466: DoS attack against OpenSSH's client and server ======================================================================== Contents ======================================================================== Summary Background Experiments Results MitM attack against OpenSSH's VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client DoS...
  • Self Stored XSS - acp2sev7.2.2 February 21, 2025
    Posted by Andrey Stoykov on Feb 20# Exploit Title: Self Stored XSS - acp2sev7.2.2 # Date: 02/2025 # Exploit Author: Andrey Stoykov # Version: 7.2.2 # Tested on: Ubuntu 22.04 # Blog: https://msecureltd.blogspot.com/2025/02/friday-fun-pentest-series-19-self.html Self Stored XSS #1: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Visit "http://192.168.58.168/acp2se/mul/muladmin.php" and login with "admin" / "adminpass" 2. In the field "Put the […]
  • Python's official documentation contains textbook example of insecure code (XSS) February 21, 2025
    Posted by Georgi Guninski on Feb 20Python's official documentation contains textbook example of insecure code (XSS) Date: 2025-02-18 Author: Georgi Guninski === form = cgi.FieldStorage() if "name" not in form or "addr" not in form: print("Error") print("Please fill in the name and addr fields.") return print("name:", form["name"].value) print("addr:",...
  • Re: Netgear Router Administrative Web Interface Lacks Transport Encryption By Default February 18, 2025
    Posted by Gynvael Coldwind on Feb 17Hi, This isn't really a problem a vendor can solve in firmware (apart from offering configuration via cloud, which has its own issues). Even if they would enable TLS/SSL by default, it would just give one a false sense of security, since: - the certificates would be invalid (public […]
  • Monero 18.3.4 zero-day DoS vulnerability has been dropped publicly on social network. February 16, 2025
    Posted by upper.underflow via Fulldisclosure on Feb 16Hello, About an hour ago, a group appearing to be named WyRCV2 posted a note on the nostr social network, which can be found at the following link: https://primal.net/e/note1vzh0mj9rcxax9cgcdapupyxeehjprd68gd9kk9wrv939m8knulrs4780x7 Save, share, use. The paste link includes a list of nodes that the attacker has instructed to target, along […]
  • Netgear Router Administrative Web Interface Lacks Transport Encryption By Default February 16, 2025
    Posted by Ryan Delaney via Fulldisclosure on Feb 16
  • [CVE-2024-54756] GZDoom <= 4.13.1 Arbitrary Code Execution via Malicious ZScript February 16, 2025
    Posted by Gabriel Valachi via Fulldisclosure on Feb 15In GZDoom 4.13.1 and below, there is a vulnerability involving array sizes in ZScript, the game engine&apos;s primary scripting language. It is possible to dynamically allocate an array of 1073741823 dwords, permitting access to the rest of the heap from the start of the array and causing […]
  • Re: Text injection on https://www.google.com/sorry/index via ?q parameter (no XSS) February 16, 2025
    Posted by David Fifield on Feb 15Today at about 2025-02-13 19:00 I noticed the "≠" is back, but now the type 0x12 payload of the ?q query parameter gets formatted into the string representation of an IP address, rather than being copied almost verbatim into the page. If the payload length is 4 bytes, it […]
  • SEC Consult SA-20250211-0 :: Multiple vulnerabilities in Wattsense Bridge February 13, 2025
    Posted by SEC Consult Vulnerability Lab via Fulldisclosure on Feb 12SEC Consult Vulnerability Lab Security Advisory < 20250211-0 > ======================================================================= title: Multiple vulnerabilities product: Wattsense - Wattsense Bridge vulnerable version: Wattsense Bridge * Hardware Revision: WSG-EU-SC-14-00, 20230801 * Firmware Revision: Wattsense (Wattsense minimal)...
  • APPLE-SA-02-10-2025-2 iPadOS 17.7.5 February 11, 2025
    Posted by Apple Product Security via Fulldisclosure on Feb 10APPLE-SA-02-10-2025-2 iPadOS 17.7.5 iPadOS 17.7.5 addresses the following issues. Information about the security content is also available at https://support.apple.com/122173. Apple maintains a Security Releases page at https://support.apple.com/100100 which lists recent software updates with security advisories. Accessibility Available for: iPad Pro 12.9-inch 2nd generation, iPad Pro 10.5-inch, […]

Customers

Newsletter

{subscription_form_1}