Windows Suspicious Child Process of Consent.EXE

SPLUNK detection rule by Raven Tait, Splunk · Apache-2.0

The following analytic detects unexpected child processes spawned by consent.exe, the Windows UAC consent dialog binary. Consent.exe is responsible solely for rendering the UAC elevation prompt and should not spawn child processes under normal operating conditions; child process creation from this parent is a known indicator of UAC bypass and privilege escalation techniques. The detection identifies any executable launched as a child of consent.exe, excluding the expected WerFault.exe error reporting process, which may legitimately appear in crash scenarios. This behavior is associated with UAC bypass exploits and has been observed in multiple post-exploitation frameworks as a means of obtaining elevated privileges without triggering a visible UAC prompt.

name: Windows Suspicious Child Process of Consent.EXE
id: 8194b5d4-41ae-4ce7-adfb-92d375e341d2
version: 1
creation_date: '2026-07-30'
modification_date: '2026-07-30'
author: Raven Tait, Splunk
status: production
type: Anomaly
description: |-
    The following analytic detects unexpected child processes spawned by consent.exe, the Windows UAC consent dialog binary.
    Consent.exe is responsible solely for rendering the UAC elevation prompt and should not spawn child processes under normal operating conditions; child process creation from this parent is a known indicator of UAC bypass and privilege escalation techniques.
    The detection identifies any executable launched as a child of consent.exe, excluding the expected WerFault.exe error reporting process, which may legitimately appear in crash scenarios.
    This behavior is associated with UAC bypass exploits and has been observed in multiple post-exploitation frameworks as a means of obtaining elevated privileges without triggering a visible UAC prompt.
data_source:
    - Sysmon EventID 1
    - Windows Event Log Security 4688
    - CrowdStrike ProcessRollup2
search: |-
    | tstats `security_content_summariesonly`
      count min(_time) as firstTime
            max(_time) as lastTime

    from datamodel=Endpoint.Processes where

    Processes.parent_process_name="consent.exe"
    Processes.process_name="*.exe"
    NOT Processes.process_name="WerFault.exe"

    by Processes.action Processes.dest Processes.original_file_name Processes.parent_process
       Processes.parent_process_exec Processes.parent_process_guid Processes.parent_process_id
       Processes.parent_process_name Processes.parent_process_path Processes.process
       Processes.process_exec Processes.process_guid Processes.process_hash
       Processes.process_id Processes.process_integrity_level
       Processes.process_name Processes.process_path Processes.user
       Processes.user_id Processes.vendor_product

    | `drop_dm_object_name(Processes)`
    | `security_content_ctime(firstTime)`
    | `security_content_ctime(lastTime)`
    | `windows_suspicious_child_process_of_consent_exe_filter`
how_to_implement: |-
    The detection is based on data that originates from Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) agents. These agents are designed to provide security-related telemetry from the endpoints where the agent is installed. To implement this search, you must ingest logs that contain the process GUID, process name, and parent process. Additionally, you must ingest complete command-line executions. These logs must be processed using the appropriate Splunk Technology Add-ons that are specific to the EDR product. The logs must also be mapped to the `Processes` node of the `Endpoint` data model. Use the Splunk Common Information Model (CIM) to normalize the field names and speed up the data modeling process.
known_false_positives: |-
    Legitimate software installations or system updates may occasionally trigger child processes under consent.exe but these should be rare.
    Verify any flagged activity against known administrative actions or recent software changes.
references:
    - https://securelist.com/cve-2024-30051/112618/
drilldown_searches:
    - earliest_offset: $info_min_time$
      latest_offset: $info_max_time$
      name: View the detection results for - "$user$" and "$dest$"
      search: '%original_detection_search% | search  user = "$user$" dest = "$dest$"'
    - name: View risk events for the last 7 days for - "$user$" and "$dest$"
      search: '| from datamodel Risk.All_Risk | search normalized_risk_object IN ("$user$", "$dest$") | stats count min(_time) as firstTime max(_time) as lastTime values(search_name) as "Search Name" values(risk_message) as "Risk Message" values(analyticstories) as "Analytic Stories" values(annotations._all) as "Annotations" values(annotations.mitre_attack.mitre_tactic) as "ATT&CK Tactics" by normalized_risk_object | `security_content_ctime(firstTime)` | `security_content_ctime(lastTime)`'
      earliest_offset: 7d
      latest_offset: '0'
intermediate_findings:
    entities:
        - field: dest
          type: system
          score: 20
          message: Suspicious Child of [$parent_process_path$] activity observed on [$dest$] via [$process$] executed by [$user$]
threat_objects:
    - field: process_name
      type: process_name
    - field: process
      type: process
analytic_story:
    - Windows Privilege Escalation
    - Unusual Processes
asset_type: Endpoint
mitre_attack_id:
    - T1068
    - T1548.002
    - T1059
product:
    - Splunk Enterprise
    - Splunk Enterprise Security
    - Splunk Cloud
category: endpoint
security_domain: endpoint
tests:
    - name: True Positive Test
      test_type: unit
      attack_data:
        - data: https://media.githubusercontent.com/media/splunk/attack_data/master/datasets/attack_techniques/T1068/windows_suspicious_child_of_consent_exe/snapattack_windows.log
          source: XmlWinEventLog:Microsoft-Windows-Sysmon/Operational
          sourcetype: XmlWinEventLog

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

cca57acd-4279-4211-900f-367cb367b95a

Propose edits, view related rules, and engage with the community through comments.

Executable code, not a declarative rule

This submission is arbitrary [[ currentRule.format ? currentRule.format.toUpperCase() : '' ]] code, not a declarative detection rule — review it as you would any script before running it, and note that it cannot be safely aggregated or auto-executed alongside YARA/Sigma/Suricata/CRS rules.

Rejected pattern present

[[ reason ]]

What does this mean?

Format & documentation suggestions

Not a security issue — this rule is valid and was accepted as-is. These are optional fields/conventions its own format recommends, mainly affecting its quality score and how well it documents itself for other reviewers.

[[ reason ]]

What do these messages mean?

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

[[ currentRule.title ]]

Community Discussion