value
stringlengths 25
18k
⌀ | subtecnique
int64 0
1
| answer
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 5
9
| name
stringlengths 3
102
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
Adversaries may undermine security controls that will either warn users of untrusted activity or prevent execution of untrusted programs. Operating systems and security products may contain mechanisms to identify programs or websites as possessing some level of trust. Examples of such features would include a program being allowed to run because it is signed by a valid code signing certificate, a program prompting the user with a warning because it has an attribute set from being downloaded from the Internet, or getting an indication that you are about to connect to an untrusted site.
Adversaries may attempt to subvert these trust mechanisms. The method adversaries use will depend on the specific mechanism they seek to subvert. Adversaries may conduct [File and Directory Permissions Modification](T1222) or [Modify Registry](T1112) in support of subverting these controls.(Citation: SpectorOps Subverting Trust Sept 2017) Adversaries may also create or steal code signing certificates to acquire trust on target systems.(Citation: Securelist Digital Certificates)(Citation: Symantec Digital Certificates) | 0 | reject | T1553 | Subvert Trust Controls |
Adversaries may modify client software binaries to establish persistent access to systems. Client software enables users to access services provided by a server. Common client software types are SSH clients, FTP clients, email clients, and web browsers.
Adversaries may make modifications to client software binaries to carry out malicious tasks when those applications are in use. For example, an adversary may copy source code for the client software, add a backdoor, compile for the target, and replace the legitimate application binary (or support files) with the backdoored one. Since these applications may be routinely executed by the user, the adversary can leverage this for persistent access to the host. | 0 | reject | T1554 | Compromise Client Software Binary |
Adversaries may search for common password storage locations to obtain user credentials. Passwords are stored in several places on a system, depending on the operating system or application holding the credentials. There are also specific applications that store passwords to make it easier for users manage and maintain. Once credentials are obtained, they can be used to perform lateral movement and access restricted information. | 0 | reject | T1555 | Credentials from Password Stores |
Adversaries may modify authentication mechanisms and processes to access user credentials or enable otherwise unwarranted access to accounts. The authentication process is handled by mechanisms, such as the Local Security Authentication Server (LSASS) process and the Security Accounts Manager (SAM) on Windows, pluggable authentication modules (PAM) on Unix-based systems, and authorization plugins on MacOS systems, responsible for gathering, storing, and validating credentials. By modifying an authentication process, an adversary may be able to authenticate to a service or system without using [Valid Accounts](T1078).
Adversaries may maliciously modify a part of this process to either reveal credentials or bypass authentication mechanisms. Compromised credentials or access may be used to bypass access controls placed on various resources on systems within the network and may even be used for persistent access to remote systems and externally available services, such as VPNs, Outlook Web Access and remote desktop. | 0 | reject | T1556 | Modify Authentication Process |
Adversaries may attempt to position themselves between two or more networked devices using an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique to support follow-on behaviors such as [Network Sniffing](T1040) or [Transmitted Data Manipulation](T1565.002). By abusing features of common networking protocols that can determine the flow of network traffic (e.g. ARP, DNS, LLMNR, etc.), adversaries may force a device to communicate through an adversary controlled system so they can collect information or perform additional actions.(Citation: Rapid7 MiTM Basics)
Adversaries may leverage the AiTM position to attempt to modify traffic, such as in [Transmitted Data Manipulation](T1565.002). Adversaries can also stop traffic from flowing to the appropriate destination, causing denial of service. | 0 | reject | T1557 | Adversary-in-the-Middle |
Adversaries may attempt to subvert Kerberos authentication by stealing or forging Kerberos tickets to enable [Pass the Ticket](T1550.003). Kerberos is an authentication protocol widely used in modern Windows domain environments. In Kerberos environments, referred to as “realmsâ€, there are three basic participants: client, service, and Key Distribution Center (KDC).(Citation: ADSecurity Kerberos Ring Decoder) Clients request access to a service and through the exchange of Kerberos tickets, originating from KDC, they are granted access after having successfully authenticated. The KDC is responsible for both authentication and ticket granting. Attackers may attempt to abuse Kerberos by stealing tickets or forging tickets to enable unauthorized access.
On Windows, the built-in `klist` utility can be used to list and analyze cached Kerberos tickets.(Citation: Microsoft Klist)
Linux systems on Active Directory domains store Kerberos credentials locally in the credential cache file referred to as the "ccache". The credentials are stored in the ccache file while they remain valid and generally while a user's session lasts.(Citation: MIT ccache) On modern Redhat Enterprise Linux systems, and derivative distributions, the System Security Services Daemon (SSSD) handles Kerberos tickets. By default SSSD maintains a copy of the ticket database that can be found in `/var/lib/sss/secrets/secrets.ldb` as well as the corresponding key located in `/var/lib/sss/secrets/.secrets.mkey`. Both files require root access to read. If an adversary is able to access the database and key, the credential cache Kerberos blob can be extracted and converted into a usable Kerberos ccache file that adversaries may use for [Pass the Ticket](T1550.003). The ccache file may also be converted into a Windows format using tools such as Kekeo.(Citation: Linux Kerberos Tickets)(Citation: Brining MimiKatz to Unix)(Citation: Kekeo)
Kerberos tickets on macOS are stored in a standard ccache format, similar to Linux. By default, access to these ccache entries is federated through the KCM daemon process via the Mach RPC protocol, which uses the caller's environment to determine access. The storage location for these ccache entries is influenced by the `/etc/krb5.conf` configuration file and the `KRB5CCNAME` environment variable which can specify to save them to disk or keep them protected via the KCM daemon. Users can interact with ticket storage using `kinit`, `klist`, `ktutil`, and `kcc` built-in binaries or via Apple's native Kerberos framework. Adversaries can use open source tools to interact with the ccache files directly or to use the Kerberos framework to call lower-level APIs for extracting the user's TGT or Service Tickets.(Citation: SpectorOps Bifrost Kerberos macOS 2019)(Citation: macOS kerberos framework MIT)
| 0 | reject | T1558 | Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets |
Adversaries may abuse inter-process communication (IPC) mechanisms for local code or command execution. IPC is typically used by processes to share data, communicate with each other, or synchronize execution. IPC is also commonly used to avoid situations such as deadlocks, which occurs when processes are stuck in a cyclic waiting pattern.
Adversaries may abuse IPC to execute arbitrary code or commands. IPC mechanisms may differ depending on OS, but typically exists in a form accessible through programming languages/libraries or native interfaces such as Windows [Dynamic Data Exchange](T1559.002) or [Component Object Model](T1559.001). Higher level execution mediums, such as those of [Command and Scripting Interpreter](T1059)s, may also leverage underlying IPC mechanisms. Adversaries may also use [Remote Services](T1021) such as [Distributed Component Object Model](T1021.003) to facilitate remote IPC execution.(Citation: Fireeye Hunting COM June 2019) | 0 | reject | T1559 | Inter-Process Communication |
An adversary may compress and/or encrypt data that is collected prior to exfiltration. Compressing the data can help to obfuscate the collected data and minimize the amount of data sent over the network. Encryption can be used to hide information that is being exfiltrated from detection or make exfiltration less conspicuous upon inspection by a defender.
Both compression and encryption are done prior to exfiltration, and can be performed using a utility, 3rd party library, or custom method. | 0 | reject | T1560 | Archive Collected Data |
Adversaries may wipe or corrupt raw disk data on specific systems or in large numbers in a network to interrupt availability to system and network resources. With direct write access to a disk, adversaries may attempt to overwrite portions of disk data. Adversaries may opt to wipe arbitrary portions of disk data and/or wipe disk structures like the master boot record (MBR). A complete wipe of all disk sectors may be attempted.
To maximize impact on the target organization in operations where network-wide availability interruption is the goal, malware used for wiping disks may have worm-like features to propagate across a network by leveraging additional techniques like [Valid Accounts](T1078), [OS Credential Dumping](T1003), and [SMB/Windows Admin Shares](T1021.002).(Citation: Novetta Blockbuster Destructive Malware) | 0 | reject | T1561 | Disk Wipe |
Adversaries may maliciously modify components of a victim environment in order to hinder or disable defensive mechanisms. This not only involves impairing preventative defenses, such as firewalls and anti-virus, but also detection capabilities that defenders can use to audit activity and identify malicious behavior. This may also span both native defenses as well as supplemental capabilities installed by users and administrators.
Adversaries could also target event aggregation and analysis mechanisms, or otherwise disrupt these procedures by altering other system components. | 0 | reject | T1562 | Impair Defenses |
Adversaries may take control of preexisting sessions with remote services to move laterally in an environment. Users may use valid credentials to log into a service specifically designed to accept remote connections, such as telnet, SSH, and RDP. When a user logs into a service, a session will be established that will allow them to maintain a continuous interaction with that service.
Adversaries may commandeer these sessions to carry out actions on remote systems. [Remote Service Session Hijacking](T1563) differs from use of [Remote Services](T1021) because it hijacks an existing session rather than creating a new session using [Valid Accounts](T1078).(Citation: RDP Hijacking Medium)(Citation: Breach Post-mortem SSH Hijack) | 0 | reject | T1563 | Remote Service Session Hijacking |
Adversaries may attempt to hide artifacts associated with their behaviors to evade detection. Operating systems may have features to hide various artifacts, such as important system files and administrative task execution, to avoid disrupting user work environments and prevent users from changing files or features on the system. Adversaries may abuse these features to hide artifacts such as files, directories, user accounts, or other system activity to evade detection.(Citation: Sofacy Komplex Trojan)(Citation: Cybereason OSX Pirrit)(Citation: MalwareBytes ADS July 2015)
Adversaries may also attempt to hide artifacts associated with malicious behavior by creating computing regions that are isolated from common security instrumentation, such as through the use of virtualization technology.(Citation: Sophos Ragnar May 2020) | 0 | reject | T1564 | Hide Artifacts |
Adversaries may insert, delete, or manipulate data in order to manipulate external outcomes or hide activity. By manipulating data, adversaries may attempt to affect a business process, organizational understanding, or decision making.
The type of modification and the impact it will have depends on the target application and process as well as the goals and objectives of the adversary. For complex systems, an adversary would likely need special expertise and possibly access to specialized software related to the system that would typically be gained through a prolonged information gathering campaign in order to have the desired impact. | 0 | reject | T1565 | Data Manipulation |
Adversaries may send phishing messages to gain access to victim systems. All forms of phishing are electronically delivered social engineering. Phishing can be targeted, known as spearphishing. In spearphishing, a specific individual, company, or industry will be targeted by the adversary. More generally, adversaries can conduct non-targeted phishing, such as in mass malware spam campaigns.
Adversaries may send victims emails containing malicious attachments or links, typically to execute malicious code on victim systems. Phishing may also be conducted via third-party services, like social media platforms. Phishing may also involve social engineering techniques, such as posing as a trusted source. | 0 | reject | T1566 | Phishing |
Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service to exfiltrate data rather than their primary command and control channel. Popular Web services acting as an exfiltration mechanism may give a significant amount of cover due to the likelihood that hosts within a network are already communicating with them prior to compromise. Firewall rules may also already exist to permit traffic to these services.
Web service providers also commonly use SSL/TLS encryption, giving adversaries an added level of protection. | 0 | reject | T1567 | Exfiltration Over Web Service |
Adversaries may dynamically establish connections to command and control infrastructure to evade common detections and remediations. This may be achieved by using malware that shares a common algorithm with the infrastructure the adversary uses to receive the malware's communications. These calculations can be used to dynamically adjust parameters such as the domain name, IP address, or port number the malware uses for command and control.
Adversaries may use dynamic resolution for the purpose of [Fallback Channels](T1008). When contact is lost with the primary command and control server malware may employ dynamic resolution as a means to reestablishing command and control.(Citation: Talos CCleanup 2017)(Citation: FireEye POSHSPY April 2017)(Citation: ESET Sednit 2017 Activity) | 0 | reject | T1568 | Dynamic Resolution |
Adversaries may abuse system services or daemons to execute commands or programs. Adversaries can execute malicious content by interacting with or creating services either locally or remotely. Many services are set to run at boot, which can aid in achieving persistence ([Create or Modify System Process](T1543)), but adversaries can also abuse services for one-time or temporary execution. | 0 | reject | T1569 | System Services |
Adversaries may transfer tools or other files between systems in a compromised environment. Files may be copied from one system to another to stage adversary tools or other files over the course of an operation. Adversaries may copy files laterally between internal victim systems to support lateral movement using inherent file sharing protocols such as file sharing over SMB to connected network shares or with authenticated connections with [SMB/Windows Admin Shares](T1021.002) or [Remote Desktop Protocol](T1021.001). Files can also be copied over on Mac and Linux with native tools like scp, rsync, and sftp. | 0 | reject | T1570 | Lateral Tool Transfer |
Adversaries may communicate using a protocol and port paring that are typically not associated. For example, HTTPS over port 8088(Citation: Symantec Elfin Mar 2019) or port 587(Citation: Fortinet Agent Tesla April 2018) as opposed to the traditional port 443. Adversaries may make changes to the standard port used by a protocol to bypass filtering or muddle analysis/parsing of network data. | 0 | reject | T1571 | Non-Standard Port |
Adversaries may tunnel network communications to and from a victim system within a separate protocol to avoid detection/network filtering and/or enable access to otherwise unreachable systems. Tunneling involves explicitly encapsulating a protocol within another. This behavior may conceal malicious traffic by blending in with existing traffic and/or provide an outer layer of encryption (similar to a VPN). Tunneling could also enable routing of network packets that would otherwise not reach their intended destination, such as SMB, RDP, or other traffic that would be filtered by network appliances or not routed over the Internet.
There are various means to encapsulate a protocol within another protocol. For example, adversaries may perform SSH tunneling (also known as SSH port forwarding), which involves forwarding arbitrary data over an encrypted SSH tunnel.(Citation: SSH Tunneling)
[Protocol Tunneling](T1572) may also be abused by adversaries during [Dynamic Resolution](T1568). Known as DNS over HTTPS (DoH), queries to resolve C2 infrastructure may be encapsulated within encrypted HTTPS packets.(Citation: BleepingComp Godlua JUL19)
Adversaries may also leverage [Protocol Tunneling](T1572) in conjunction with [Proxy](T1090) and/or [Protocol Impersonation](T1001.003) to further conceal C2 communications and infrastructure. | 0 | reject | T1572 | Protocol Tunneling |
Adversaries may employ a known encryption algorithm to conceal command and control traffic rather than relying on any inherent protections provided by a communication protocol. Despite the use of a secure algorithm, these implementations may be vulnerable to reverse engineering if secret keys are encoded and/or generated within malware samples/configuration files. | 0 | reject | T1573 | Encrypted Channel |
Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the way operating systems run programs. Hijacking execution flow can be for the purposes of persistence, since this hijacked execution may reoccur over time. Adversaries may also use these mechanisms to elevate privileges or evade defenses, such as application control or other restrictions on execution.
There are many ways an adversary may hijack the flow of execution, including by manipulating how the operating system locates programs to be executed. How the operating system locates libraries to be used by a program can also be intercepted. Locations where the operating system looks for programs/resources, such as file directories and in the case of Windows the Registry, could also be poisoned to include malicious payloads. | 0 | reject | T1574 | Hijack Execution Flow |
An adversary may attempt to modify a cloud account's compute service infrastructure to evade defenses. A modification to the compute service infrastructure can include the creation, deletion, or modification of one or more components such as compute instances, virtual machines, and snapshots.
Permissions gained from the modification of infrastructure components may bypass restrictions that prevent access to existing infrastructure. Modifying infrastructure components may also allow an adversary to evade detection and remove evidence of their presence.(Citation: Mandiant M-Trends 2020) | 0 | reject | T1578 | Modify Cloud Compute Infrastructure |
An adversary may attempt to discover resources that are available within an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) environment. This includes compute service resources such as instances, virtual machines, and snapshots as well as resources of other services including the storage and database services.
Cloud providers offer methods such as APIs and commands issued through CLIs to serve information about infrastructure. For example, AWS provides a `DescribeInstances` API within the Amazon EC2 API that can return information about one or more instances within an account, the `ListBuckets` API that returns a list of all buckets owned by the authenticated sender of the request, or the `GetPublicAccessBlock` API to retrieve access block configuration for a bucket (Citation: Amazon Describe Instance)(Citation: Amazon Describe Instances API)(Citation: AWS Get Public Access Block).
Similarly, GCP's Cloud SDK CLI provides the `gcloud compute instances list` command to list all Google Compute Engine instances in a project (Citation: Google Compute Instances), and Azure's CLI command `az vm list` lists details of virtual machines.(Citation: Microsoft AZ CLI)
An adversary may enumerate resources using a compromised user's access keys to determine which are available to that user.(Citation: Expel IO Evil in AWS) The discovery of these available resources may help adversaries determine their next steps in the Cloud environment, such as establishing Persistence.(Citation: Mandiant M-Trends 2020)An adversary may also use this information to change the configuration to make the bucket publicly accessible, allowing data to be accessed without authentication. Adversaries have also may use infrastructure discovery APIs such as `DescribeDBInstances` to determine size, owner, permissions, and network ACLs of database resources. (Citation: AWS Describe DB Instances) Adversaries can use this information to determine the potential value of databases and discover the requirements to access them. Unlike in [Cloud Service Discovery](T1526), this technique focuses on the discovery of components of the provided services rather than the services themselves. | 0 | reject | T1580 | Cloud Infrastructure Discovery |
Adversaries may buy, lease, or rent infrastructure that can be used during targeting. A wide variety of infrastructure exists for hosting and orchestrating adversary operations. Infrastructure solutions include physical or cloud servers, domains, and third-party web services.(Citation: TrendmicroHideoutsLease) Additionally, botnets are available for rent or purchase.
Use of these infrastructure solutions allows an adversary to stage, launch, and execute an operation. Solutions may help adversary operations blend in with traffic that is seen as normal, such as contact to third-party web services. Depending on the implementation, adversaries may use infrastructure that makes it difficult to physically tie back to them as well as utilize infrastructure that can be rapidly provisioned, modified, and shut down. | 0 | reject | T1583 | Acquire Infrastructure |
Adversaries may compromise third-party infrastructure that can be used during targeting. Infrastructure solutions include physical or cloud servers, domains, and third-party web services. Instead of buying, leasing, or renting infrastructure an adversary may compromise infrastructure and use it during other phases of the adversary lifecycle.(Citation: Mandiant APT1)(Citation: ICANNDomainNameHijacking)(Citation: Talos DNSpionage Nov 2018)(Citation: FireEye EPS Awakens Part 2) Additionally, adversaries may compromise numerous machines to form a botnet they can leverage.
Use of compromised infrastructure allows an adversary to stage, launch, and execute an operation. Compromised infrastructure can help adversary operations blend in with traffic that is seen as normal, such as contact with high reputation or trusted sites. By using compromised infrastructure, adversaries may make it difficult to tie their actions back to them. Prior to targeting, adversaries may compromise the infrastructure of other adversaries.(Citation: NSA NCSC Turla OilRig) | 0 | reject | T1584 | Compromise Infrastructure |
Adversaries may create and cultivate accounts with services that can be used during targeting. Adversaries can create accounts that can be used to build a persona to further operations. Persona development consists of the development of public information, presence, history and appropriate affiliations. This development could be applied to social media, website, or other publicly available information that could be referenced and scrutinized for legitimacy over the course of an operation using that persona or identity.(Citation: NEWSCASTER2014)(Citation: BlackHatRobinSage)
For operations incorporating social engineering, the utilization of an online persona may be important. These personas may be fictitious or impersonate real people. The persona may exist on a single site or across multiple sites (ex: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, GitHub, Docker Hub, etc.). Establishing a persona may require development of additional documentation to make them seem real. This could include filling out profile information, developing social networks, or incorporating photos.(Citation: NEWSCASTER2014)(Citation: BlackHatRobinSage)
Establishing accounts can also include the creation of accounts with email providers, which may be directly leveraged for [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Phishing](T1566).(Citation: Mandiant APT1) | 0 | reject | T1585 | Establish Accounts |
Adversaries may compromise accounts with services that can be used during targeting. For operations incorporating social engineering, the utilization of an online persona may be important. Rather than creating and cultivating accounts (i.e. [Establish Accounts](T1585)), adversaries may compromise existing accounts. Utilizing an existing persona may engender a level of trust in a potential victim if they have a relationship, or knowledge of, the compromised persona.
A variety of methods exist for compromising accounts, such as gathering credentials via [Phishing for Information](T1598), purchasing credentials from third-party sites, or by brute forcing credentials (ex: password reuse from breach credential dumps).(Citation: AnonHBGary) Prior to compromising accounts, adversaries may conduct Reconnaissance to inform decisions about which accounts to compromise to further their operation.
Personas may exist on a single site or across multiple sites (ex: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.). Compromised accounts may require additional development, this could include filling out or modifying profile information, further developing social networks, or incorporating photos.
Adversaries may directly leverage compromised email accounts for [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Phishing](T1566). | 0 | reject | T1586 | Compromise Accounts |
Adversaries may build capabilities that can be used during targeting. Rather than purchasing, freely downloading, or stealing capabilities, adversaries may develop their own capabilities in-house. This is the process of identifying development requirements and building solutions such as malware, exploits, and self-signed certificates. Adversaries may develop capabilities to support their operations throughout numerous phases of the adversary lifecycle.(Citation: Mandiant APT1)(Citation: Kaspersky Sofacy)(Citation: Bitdefender StrongPity June 2020)(Citation: Talos Promethium June 2020)
As with legitimate development efforts, different skill sets may be required for developing capabilities. The skills needed may be located in-house, or may need to be contracted out. Use of a contractor may be considered an extension of that adversary's development capabilities, provided the adversary plays a role in shaping requirements and maintains a degree of exclusivity to the capability. | 0 | reject | T1587 | Develop Capabilities |
Adversaries may buy and/or steal capabilities that can be used during targeting. Rather than developing their own capabilities in-house, adversaries may purchase, freely download, or steal them. Activities may include the acquisition of malware, software (including licenses), exploits, certificates, and information relating to vulnerabilities. Adversaries may obtain capabilities to support their operations throughout numerous phases of the adversary lifecycle.
In addition to downloading free malware, software, and exploits from the internet, adversaries may purchase these capabilities from third-party entities. Third-party entities can include technology companies that specialize in malware and exploits, criminal marketplaces, or from individuals.(Citation: NationsBuying)(Citation: PegasusCitizenLab)
In addition to purchasing capabilities, adversaries may steal capabilities from third-party entities (including other adversaries). This can include stealing software licenses, malware, SSL/TLS and code-signing certificates, or raiding closed databases of vulnerabilities or exploits.(Citation: DiginotarCompromise) | 0 | reject | T1588 | Obtain Capabilities |
Adversaries may gather information about the victim's organization that can be used during targeting. Information about an organization may include a variety of details, including the names of divisions/departments, specifics of business operations, as well as the roles and responsibilities of key employees.
Adversaries may gather this information in various ways, such as direct elicitation via [Phishing for Information](T1598). Information about an organization may also be exposed to adversaries via online or other accessible data sets (ex: [Social Media](T1593.001) or [Search Victim-Owned Websites](T1594)).(Citation: ThreatPost Broadvoice Leak)(Citation: SEC EDGAR Search) Gathering this information may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Search Open Websites/Domains](T1593)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Establish Accounts](T1585) or [Compromise Accounts](T1586)), and/or initial access (ex: [Phishing](T1566) or [Trusted Relationship](T1199)). | 0 | reject | T1591 | Gather Victim Org Information |
Adversaries may gather information about the victim's hosts that can be used during targeting. Information about hosts may include a variety of details, including administrative data (ex: name, assigned IP, functionality, etc.) as well as specifics regarding its configuration (ex: operating system, language, etc.).
Adversaries may gather this information in various ways, such as direct collection actions via [Active Scanning](T1595) or [Phishing for Information](T1598). Adversaries may also compromise sites then include malicious content designed to collect host information from visitors.(Citation: ATT ScanBox) Information about hosts may also be exposed to adversaries via online or other accessible data sets (ex: [Social Media](T1593.001) or [Search Victim-Owned Websites](T1594)). Gathering this information may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Search Open Websites/Domains](T1593) or [Search Open Technical Databases](T1596)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Develop Capabilities](T1587) or [Obtain Capabilities](T1588)), and/or initial access (ex: [Supply Chain Compromise](T1195) or [External Remote Services](T1133)). | 0 | reject | T1592 | Gather Victim Host Information |
Adversaries may search freely available websites and/or domains for information about victims that can be used during targeting. Information about victims may be available in various online sites, such as social media, new sites, or those hosting information about business operations such as hiring or requested/rewarded contracts.(Citation: Cyware Social Media)(Citation: SecurityTrails Google Hacking)(Citation: ExploitDB GoogleHacking)
Adversaries may search in different online sites depending on what information they seek to gather. Information from these sources may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Search Open Technical Databases](T1596)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Establish Accounts](T1585) or [Compromise Accounts](T1586)), and/or initial access (ex: [External Remote Services](T1133) or [Phishing](T1566)). | 0 | reject | T1593 | Search Open Websites/Domains |
Adversaries may search websites owned by the victim for information that can be used during targeting. Victim-owned websites may contain a variety of details, including names of departments/divisions, physical locations, and data about key employees such as names, roles, and contact info (ex: [Email Addresses](T1589.002)). These sites may also have details highlighting business operations and relationships.(Citation: Comparitech Leak)
Adversaries may search victim-owned websites to gather actionable information. Information from these sources may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Search Open Technical Databases](T1596)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Establish Accounts](T1585) or [Compromise Accounts](T1586)), and/or initial access (ex: [Trusted Relationship](T1199) or [Phishing](T1566)). | 0 | reject | T1594 | Search Victim-Owned Websites |
Adversaries may execute active reconnaissance scans to gather information that can be used during targeting. Active scans are those where the adversary probes victim infrastructure via network traffic, as opposed to other forms of reconnaissance that do not involve direct interaction.
Adversaries may perform different forms of active scanning depending on what information they seek to gather. These scans can also be performed in various ways, including using native features of network protocols such as ICMP.(Citation: Botnet Scan)(Citation: OWASP Fingerprinting) Information from these scans may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Search Open Websites/Domains](T1593) or [Search Open Technical Databases](T1596)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Develop Capabilities](T1587) or [Obtain Capabilities](T1588)), and/or initial access (ex: [External Remote Services](T1133) or [Exploit Public-Facing Application](T1190)). | 0 | reject | T1595 | Active Scanning |
Adversaries may search freely available technical databases for information about victims that can be used during targeting. Information about victims may be available in online databases and repositories, such as registrations of domains/certificates as well as public collections of network data/artifacts gathered from traffic and/or scans.(Citation: WHOIS)(Citation: DNS Dumpster)(Citation: Circl Passive DNS)(Citation: Medium SSL Cert)(Citation: SSLShopper Lookup)(Citation: DigitalShadows CDN)(Citation: Shodan)
Adversaries may search in different open databases depending on what information they seek to gather. Information from these sources may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Search Open Websites/Domains](T1593)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Acquire Infrastructure](T1583) or [Compromise Infrastructure](T1584)), and/or initial access (ex: [External Remote Services](T1133) or [Trusted Relationship](T1199)). | 0 | reject | T1596 | Search Open Technical Databases |
Adversaries may search and gather information about victims from closed sources that can be used during targeting. Information about victims may be available for purchase from reputable private sources and databases, such as paid subscriptions to feeds of technical/threat intelligence data.(Citation: D3Secutrity CTI Feeds) Adversaries may also purchase information from less-reputable sources such as dark web or cybercrime blackmarkets.(Citation: ZDNET Selling Data)
Adversaries may search in different closed databases depending on what information they seek to gather. Information from these sources may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](T1598) or [Search Open Websites/Domains](T1593)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Develop Capabilities](T1587) or [Obtain Capabilities](T1588)), and/or initial access (ex: [External Remote Services](T1133) or [Valid Accounts](T1078)). | 0 | reject | T1597 | Search Closed Sources |
Adversaries may send phishing messages to elicit sensitive information that can be used during targeting. Phishing for information is an attempt to trick targets into divulging information, frequently credentials or other actionable information. Phishing for information is different from [Phishing](T1566) in that the objective is gathering data from the victim rather than executing malicious code.
All forms of phishing are electronically delivered social engineering. Phishing can be targeted, known as spearphishing. In spearphishing, a specific individual, company, or industry will be targeted by the adversary. More generally, adversaries can conduct non-targeted phishing, such as in mass credential harvesting campaigns.
Adversaries may also try to obtain information directly through the exchange of emails, instant messages, or other electronic conversation means.(Citation: ThreatPost Social Media Phishing)(Citation: TrendMictro Phishing)(Citation: PCMag FakeLogin)(Citation: Sophos Attachment)(Citation: GitHub Phishery) Phishing for information frequently involves social engineering techniques, such as posing as a source with a reason to collect information (ex: [Establish Accounts](T1585) or [Compromise Accounts](T1586)) and/or sending multiple, seemingly urgent messages. | 0 | reject | T1598 | Phishing for Information |
Adversaries may bridge network boundaries by compromising perimeter network devices. Breaching these devices may enable an adversary to bypass restrictions on traffic routing that otherwise separate trusted and untrusted networks.
Devices such as routers and firewalls can be used to create boundaries between trusted and untrusted networks. They achieve this by restricting traffic types to enforce organizational policy in an attempt to reduce the risk inherent in such connections. Restriction of traffic can be achieved by prohibiting IP addresses, layer 4 protocol ports, or through deep packet inspection to identify applications. To participate with the rest of the network, these devices can be directly addressable or transparent, but their mode of operation has no bearing on how the adversary can bypass them when compromised.
When an adversary takes control of such a boundary device, they can bypass its policy enforcement to pass normally prohibited traffic across the trust boundary between the two separated networks without hinderance. By achieving sufficient rights on the device, an adversary can reconfigure the device to allow the traffic they want, allowing them to then further achieve goals such as command and control via [Multi-hop Proxy](T1090.003) or exfiltration of data via [Traffic Duplication](T1020.001). In the cases where a border device separates two separate organizations, the adversary can also facilitate lateral movement into new victim environments. | 0 | reject | T1599 | Network Boundary Bridging |
Adversaries may compromise a network device’s encryption capability in order to bypass encryption that would otherwise protect data communications. (Citation: Cisco Synful Knock Evolution)
Encryption can be used to protect transmitted network traffic to maintain its confidentiality (protect against unauthorized disclosure) and integrity (protect against unauthorized changes). Encryption ciphers are used to convert a plaintext message to ciphertext and can be computationally intensive to decipher without the associated decryption key. Typically, longer keys increase the cost of cryptanalysis, or decryption without the key.
Adversaries can compromise and manipulate devices that perform encryption of network traffic. For example, through behaviors such as [Modify System Image](T1601), [Reduce Key Space](T1600.001), and [Disable Crypto Hardware](T1600.002), an adversary can negatively effect and/or eliminate a device’s ability to securely encrypt network traffic. This poses a greater risk of unauthorized disclosure and may help facilitate data manipulation, Credential Access, or Collection efforts. (Citation: Cisco Blog Legacy Device Attacks) | 0 | reject | T1600 | Weaken Encryption |
Adversaries may make changes to the operating system of embedded network devices to weaken defenses and provide new capabilities for themselves. On such devices, the operating systems are typically monolithic and most of the device functionality and capabilities are contained within a single file.
To change the operating system, the adversary typically only needs to affect this one file, replacing or modifying it. This can either be done live in memory during system runtime for immediate effect, or in storage to implement the change on the next boot of the network device. | 0 | reject | T1601 | Modify System Image |
Adversaries may collect data related to managed devices from configuration repositories. Configuration repositories are used by management systems in order to configure, manage, and control data on remote systems. Configuration repositories may also facilitate remote access and administration of devices.
Adversaries may target these repositories in order to collect large quantities of sensitive system administration data. Data from configuration repositories may be exposed by various protocols and software and can store a wide variety of data, much of which may align with adversary Discovery objectives.(Citation: US-CERT-TA18-106A)(Citation: US-CERT TA17-156A SNMP Abuse 2017) | 0 | reject | T1602 | Data from Configuration Repository |
Adversaries may forge credential materials that can be used to gain access to web applications or Internet services. Web applications and services (hosted in cloud SaaS environments or on-premise servers) often use session cookies, tokens, or other materials to authenticate and authorize user access.
Adversaries may generate these credential materials in order to gain access to web resources. This differs from [Steal Web Session Cookie](T1539), [Steal Application Access Token](T1528), and other similar behaviors in that the credentials are new and forged by the adversary, rather than stolen or intercepted from legitimate users. The generation of web credentials often requires secret values, such as passwords, [Private Keys](T1552.004), or other cryptographic seed values.(Citation: GitHub AWS-ADFS-Credential-Generator)
Once forged, adversaries may use these web credentials to access resources (ex: [Use Alternate Authentication Material](T1550)), which may bypass multi-factor and other authentication protection mechanisms.(Citation: Pass The Cookie)(Citation: Unit 42 Mac Crypto Cookies January 2019)(Citation: Microsoft SolarWinds Customer Guidance) | 0 | reject | T1606 | Forge Web Credentials |
Adversaries may upload, install, or otherwise set up capabilities that can be used during targeting. To support their operations, an adversary may need to take capabilities they developed ([Develop Capabilities](T1587)) or obtained ([Obtain Capabilities](T1588)) and stage them on infrastructure under their control. These capabilities may be staged on infrastructure that was previously purchased/rented by the adversary ([Acquire Infrastructure](T1583)) or was otherwise compromised by them ([Compromise Infrastructure](T1584)). Capabilities can also be staged on web services, such as GitHub or Pastebin.(Citation: Volexity Ocean Lotus November 2020)
Staging of capabilities can aid the adversary in a number of initial access and post-compromise behaviors, including (but not limited to):
* Staging web resources necessary to conduct [Drive-by Compromise](T1189) when a user browses to a site.(Citation: FireEye CFR Watering Hole 2012)(Citation: Gallagher 2015)(Citation: ATT ScanBox)
* Staging web resources for a link target to be used with spearphishing.(Citation: Malwarebytes Silent Librarian October 2020)(Citation: Proofpoint TA407 September 2019)
* Uploading malware or tools to a location accessible to a victim network to enable [Ingress Tool Transfer](T1105).(Citation: Volexity Ocean Lotus November 2020)
* Installing a previously acquired SSL/TLS certificate to use to encrypt command and control traffic (ex: [Asymmetric Cryptography](T1573.002) with [Web Protocols](T1071.001)).(Citation: DigiCert Install SSL Cert) | 0 | reject | T1608 | Stage Capabilities |
Adversaries may abuse a container administration service to execute commands within a container. A container administration service such as the Docker daemon, the Kubernetes API server, or the kubelet may allow remote management of containers within an environment.(Citation: Docker Daemon CLI)(Citation: Kubernetes API)(Citation: Kubernetes Kubelet)
In Docker, adversaries may specify an entrypoint during container deployment that executes a script or command, or they may use a command such as `docker exec` to execute a command within a running container.(Citation: Docker Entrypoint)(Citation: Docker Exec) In Kubernetes, if an adversary has sufficient permissions, they may gain remote execution in a container in the cluster via interaction with the Kubernetes API server, the kubelet, or by running a command such as `kubectl exec`.(Citation: Kubectl Exec Get Shell) | 0 | reject | T1609 | Container Administration Command |
Adversaries may deploy a container into an environment to facilitate execution or evade defenses. In some cases, adversaries may deploy a new container to execute processes associated with a particular image or deployment, such as processes that execute or download malware. In others, an adversary may deploy a new container configured without network rules, user limitations, etc. to bypass existing defenses within the environment.
Containers can be deployed by various means, such as via Docker's `create` and `start` APIs or via a web application such as the Kubernetes dashboard or Kubeflow.(Citation: Docker Containers API)(Citation: Kubernetes Dashboard)(Citation: Kubeflow Pipelines) Adversaries may deploy containers based on retrieved or built malicious images or from benign images that download and execute malicious payloads at runtime.(Citation: Aqua Build Images on Hosts) | 0 | reject | T1610 | Deploy Container |
Adversaries may break out of a container to gain access to the underlying host. This can allow an adversary access to other containerized resources from the host level or to the host itself. In principle, containerized resources should provide a clear separation of application functionality and be isolated from the host environment.(Citation: Docker Overview)
There are multiple ways an adversary may escape to a host environment. Examples include creating a container configured to mount the host’s filesystem using the bind parameter, which allows the adversary to drop payloads and execute control utilities such as cron on the host, or utilizing a privileged container to run commands on the underlying host.(Citation: Docker Bind Mounts)(Citation: Trend Micro Privileged Container)(Citation: Intezer Doki July 20) Adversaries may also escape via [Exploitation for Privilege Escalation](T1068), such as exploiting vulnerabilities in global symbolic links in order to access the root directory of a host machine.(Citation: Windows Server Containers Are Open)
Gaining access to the host may provide the adversary with the opportunity to achieve follow-on objectives, such as establishing persistence, moving laterally within the environment, or setting up a command and control channel on the host. | 0 | reject | T1611 | Escape to Host |
Adversaries may build a container image directly on a host to bypass defenses that monitor for the retrieval of malicious images from a public registry. A remote `build` request may be sent to the Docker API that includes a Dockerfile that pulls a vanilla base image, such as alpine, from a public or local registry and then builds a custom image upon it.(Citation: Docker Build Image)
An adversary may take advantage of that `build` API to build a custom image on the host that includes malware downloaded from their C2 server, and then they then may utilize [Deploy Container](T1610) using that custom image.(Citation: Aqua Build Images on Hosts)(Citation: Aqua Security Cloud Native Threat Report June 2021) If the base image is pulled from a public registry, defenses will likely not detect the image as malicious since it’s a vanilla image. If the base image already resides in a local registry, the pull may be considered even less suspicious since the image is already in the environment. | 0 | reject | T1612 | Build Image on Host |
Adversaries may attempt to discover containers and other resources that are available within a containers environment. Other resources may include images, deployments, pods, nodes, and other information such as the status of a cluster.
These resources can be viewed within web applications such as the Kubernetes dashboard or can be queried via the Docker and Kubernetes APIs.(Citation: Docker API)(Citation: Kubernetes API) In Docker, logs may leak information about the environment, such as the environment’s configuration, which services are available, and what cloud provider the victim may be utilizing. The discovery of these resources may inform an adversary’s next steps in the environment, such as how to perform lateral movement and which methods to utilize for execution. | 0 | reject | T1613 | Container and Resource Discovery |
Adversaries may gather information on Group Policy settings to identify paths for privilege escalation, security measures applied within a domain, and to discover patterns in domain objects that can be manipulated or used to blend in the environment. Group Policy allows for centralized management of user and computer settings in Active Directory (AD). Group policy objects (GPOs) are containers for group policy settings made up of files stored within a predicable network path `\<DOMAIN>\SYSVOL\<DOMAIN>\Policies\`.(Citation: TechNet Group Policy Basics)(Citation: ADSecurity GPO Persistence 2016)
Adversaries may use commands such as `gpresult` or various publicly available PowerShell functions, such as `Get-DomainGPO` and `Get-DomainGPOLocalGroup`, to gather information on Group Policy settings.(Citation: Microsoft gpresult)(Citation: Github PowerShell Empire) Adversaries may use this information to shape follow-on behaviors, including determining potential attack paths within the target network as well as opportunities to manipulate Group Policy settings (i.e. [Domain Policy Modification](T1484)) for their benefit. | 0 | reject | T1615 | Group Policy Discovery |
Adversaries may enumerate objects in cloud storage infrastructure. Adversaries may use this information during automated discovery to shape follow-on behaviors, including requesting all or specific objects from cloud storage. Similar to [File and Directory Discovery](T1083) on a local host, after identifying available storage services (i.e. [Cloud Infrastructure Discovery](T1580)) adversaries may access the contents/objects stored in cloud infrastructure.
Cloud service providers offer APIs allowing users to enumerate objects stored within cloud storage. Examples include ListObjectsV2 in AWS (Citation: ListObjectsV2) and List Blobs in Azure(Citation: List Blobs) . | 0 | reject | T1619 | Cloud Storage Object Discovery |
Adversaries may reflectively load code into a process in order to conceal the execution of malicious payloads. Reflective loading involves allocating then executing payloads directly within the memory of the process, vice creating a thread or process backed by a file path on disk. Reflectively loaded payloads may be compiled binaries, anonymous files (only present in RAM), or just snubs of fileless executable code (ex: position-independent shellcode).(Citation: Introducing Donut)(Citation: S1 Custom Shellcode Tool)(Citation: Stuart ELF Memory)(Citation: 00sec Droppers)(Citation: Mandiant BYOL)
Reflective code injection is very similar to [Process Injection](T1055) except that the injection loads code into the processes own memory instead of that of a separate process. Reflective loading may evade process-based detections since the execution of the arbitrary code may be masked within a legitimate or otherwise benign process. Reflectively loading payloads directly into memory may also avoid creating files or other artifacts on disk, while also enabling malware to keep these payloads encrypted (or otherwise obfuscated) until execution.(Citation: Stuart ELF Memory)(Citation: 00sec Droppers)(Citation: Intezer ACBackdoor)(Citation: S1 Old Rat New Tricks) | 0 | reject | T1620 | Reflective Code Loading |
Astaroth has been delivered via malicious e-mail attachments. | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
Sidewinder has sent e-mails with malicious attachments that lead victims to credential harvesting websites. | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
A phishing campaign has been observed by researchers from Trend Micro that contain a macro-enabled document that exploits the legitimate script engine, “AutoHotKey.” | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
Researchers have discovered a wave of emails with malicious attachments orchestrated by Russian Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) group APT29. | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
Using attached HTML files containing JavaScript, the email will write an ISO file to disk; this contains a Cobalt Strike beacon that will activate on completion. | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
Strrat, a Java-based malware, is currently being delivered as an attached PDF document via a phishing campaign using compromised email accounts. | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
Although the email may look official and legitimate, if you have no reason to receive such an email or if the content is questionable, you should not open any attached files. | 1 | accept | T1598.002 | Phishing for Information: Spearphishing Attachment |
Some spam lists are selected to target a specific business role, for example identified sales representatives. | 1 | accept | T1591.004 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Roles |
Through reading the extracted emails, threat actors identified that fund transfers were originating in the accounting department by person A and approved by manager B. | 1 | accept | T1591.004 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Roles |
RestorePrivacy, an information site about privacy, examined the proof the seller put out and found the following information, scraped from LinkedIn user profiles: Email addresses, Full names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, LinkedIn username and profile URL, Personal and professional experience/background. | 1 | accept | T1591.004 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Roles |
Targets are identified, groomed, and then deceived by quite sophisticated email techniques into wiring funds to 'burner' bank accounts, and thinking that the email request comes from the CEO, the victim willingly sends the money. | 1 | accept | T1591.004 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Roles |
This threat group instructs its affiliates to parse companies’ websites and social media to identify leadership, HR, and accounting staff for following targeted spear phishing attacks. | 1 | accept | T1591.004 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Roles |
Threat actors identified that long holiday weekend in the US will be the best time to lunch a cyber attack against this company. | 1 | accept | T1591.003 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Business Tempo |
The federal advisory makes note of "recent holiday targeting," stating that "cyber actors have conducted increasingly impactful attacks against U.S. entities on or around holiday weekends." Neither FBI nor CISA has information about a cyberattack "coinciding with upcoming holidays and weekends," per the advisory, but the document says cybercriminals may see holidays and weekends as "as attractive timeframes" to "target potential victims." | 1 | accept | T1591.003 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Business Tempo |
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or Thanksgiving, your chances of being the victim of a cyber attack increase. The vacation season is yet another perfect period for cyber attacks. If a hacker had a choice between attacking your organization when your IT security team is fully staffed or when it isn’t- what do you think they will choose? | 1 | accept | T1591.003 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Business Tempo |
Many times, organizations are overburdened, and cyberattacks during the holidays are the last thing on their minds. The current pandemic heightened the threat, which has resulted in many firms operating with significant cybersecurity flaws resulting from the rapid shift to working from home. Cybercriminals exploit these flaws to get access to systems – and vulnerabilities increase with less network supervision during the holidays. | 1 | accept | T1591.003 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Business Tempo |
Once they had infected the computers of the personnel in charge of cash transfer systems or ATMs, the attackers collected snapshots of victims’ screens and studied their daily activities in the bank. | 1 | accept | T1591.003 | Gather Victim Org Information: Identify Business Tempo |
REvil was previously known as GandCrab, and one of the many things GandCrab had in common with REvil was that both programs barred affiliates from infecting victims in Syria. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
As we can see from the chart above, Syria is also exempted from infections by DarkSide ransomware. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
However, upon closer inspection, it turns out this is actually a clever language check to ensure that the payload will not be downloaded outside of France. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
The majority of the actors behind the ransomware are likely based outside of the CIS, for example, ransomware Fonix won’t run if IP geolocation is Iranian. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
DarkSide, like a great many other malware strains, has a hard-coded do-not-install list of countries which are the principal members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) — former Soviet satellites that mostly have favorable relations with the Kremlin. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
REvil was previously known as GandCrab, and one of the many things GandCrab had in common with REvil was that both programs barred affiliates from infecting victims in Syria. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
As we can see from the chart above, Syria is also exempted from infections by DarkSide ransomware. ;; However, upon closer inspection, it turns out this is actually a clever language check to ensure that the payload will not be downloaded outside of France. | 1 | accept | T1591.001 | Gather Victim Org Information: Determine Physical Locations |
In preparation for its attack against the 2018 Winter Olympics Sandworm Team conducted online research of partner organizations listed on an official PyeongChang Olympics partnership site. | 1 | accept | T1591.002 | Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships |
Generally, supply chain attacks on information systems begin with an advanced persistent threat (APT) that determines a member of the supply network with the weakest cyber security in order to affect the target organization. | 1 | accept | T1591.002 | Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships |
It also found that hackers can steal sensitive data, including information about partners. | 1 | accept | T1591.002 | Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships |
The attackers were after Facebook’s information about partners. | 1 | accept | T1591.002 | Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships |
Clues about business partners can provide a hacker with other potential avenues of attack.
| 1 | accept | T1591.002 | Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships |
Attackers identified and impersonated the company’s foreign supplier in a Bogus Invoice Scheme attack. | 1 | accept | T1591.002 | Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships |
Attackers are looking for IT service providers that have privileged access to their clients’ networks.
| 1 | accept | T1590.003 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Trust Dependencies |
Nation-state sponsored hackers are targeting IT service providers and discovering network trust relationships with their client organizations from government and military sectors.
| 1 | accept | T1590.003 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Trust Dependencies |
The threat actors were looking for MSPs and MSSPs managing IT and security within the target organization.
| 1 | accept | T1590.003 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Trust Dependencies |
In all of the cases, attackers enumerated network trust relationships, hijacked the managed service providers’ internal management tools to distribute Sodinokibi ransomware to their customers.
| 1 | accept | T1590.003 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Trust Dependencies |
A hacker can make one strategic breach into an MSP, discover network access to their clients, and gain access to multiple customers’ information across multiple industries. | 1 | accept | T1590.003 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Trust Dependencies |
The group utilizes active scanning to collect information on the victim network.
| 1 | accept | T1590.004 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Topology |
After the initial foothold the actors were scanning to map the local network devices and plan the lateral movement.
| 1 | accept | T1590.004 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Topology |
During the exfiltration stage, attackers were identifying documents related to local accounts, network security and topology.
| 1 | accept | T1590.004 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Topology |
Requirement to publish procurement documents made it possible for the attackers to access specifics regarding network devices used by the organization (gateways, routers, etc.)
| 1 | accept | T1590.004 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Topology |
All the graphs, mind maps, presentations including the physical and/or logical arrangement of both external-facing and internal network environments should be treated as sensitive information.
| 1 | accept | T1590.004 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Topology |
This firewall company had a few large customers listed on their website thus providing the attackers with convenient targets. | 1 | accept | T1590.006 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Security Appliances |
Requirement to publish procurement documents made it possible for the attackers to access specifics regarding network security appliances used by the organization (firewalls, content filters, NIDS, etc.)
| 1 | accept | T1590.006 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Security Appliances |
Following the intrusion, actors were scanning to identify firewalls and other deployed security appliances.
| 1 | accept | T1590.006 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Security Appliances |
This group phishes for information trying to identify deployed security appliances and leverage it for initial access.
| 1 | accept | T1590.006 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Security Appliances |
This APT group was identifying the use of proxies and company VPN and then utilizing these security appliances for stealthy lateral movement. | 1 | accept | T1590.006 | Gather Victim Network Information: Network Security Appliances |
HAFNIUM has obtained IP addresses for publicly-accessible Exchange servers. | 1 | accept | T1590.005 | Gather Victim Network Information: Ip Addresses |
Andariel has limited its watering hole attacks to specific IP address ranges.
| 1 | accept | T1590.005 | Gather Victim Network Information: Ip Addresses |
Initially the attackers research the victim’s IP ranges and scan them for open ports and opportunities for the initial access.
| 1 | accept | T1590.005 | Gather Victim Network Information: Ip Addresses |