Where this offering fits
A deception platform creates a controlled environment intended to produce useful evidence when suspicious actors interact with it. Evaluate CounterCraft through the assets, scenarios and investigation questions in scope. Deception should be distinguishable from production infrastructure and should not introduce an uncontrolled path into real systems.
Architecture and rollout decisions
Agree the deployment boundary and the interactions to observe. Confirm current platform components and supported integrations with the manufacturer. Use an authorised test interaction to validate alert context, evidence handling and analyst response. Define maintenance and access to the deception environment separately from the production service it resembles. Any engagement or response action needs explicit authority.
An evaluation scenario for this offering
Build an illustrative exercise around an isolated, clearly authorised decoy resource with no production secrets. Have an approved tester perform one expected interaction while the analyst follows the resulting evidence. Then include a legitimate administrative check so the team must explain why the two activities are interpreted differently. Verify that the decoy cannot become an unintended route into real services and that its owner can terminate the exercise. Retain the isolation diagram, event timeline and analyst decision. The result demonstrates this bounded evidence workflow; it does not establish that every production intrusion would encounter the deception environment.
Evidence to request for this scope
- Document isolation and permitted interaction boundaries.
- Validate a controlled test event and analyst handoff.
- Confirm current packaging and operating responsibilities.