Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
Dashboard / Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification Definitions
CAPEC-621: Analysis of Packet Timing and Sizes
An attacker may intercept and log encrypted transmissions for the purpose of analyzing metadata such as packet timing and sizes. Although the actual data may be encrypted, this metadata may reveal valuable information to an attacker. Note that this attack is applicable to VOIP data as well as application data, especially for interactive apps that require precise timing and low-latency (e.g. thin-clients).
CAPEC-622: Electromagnetic Side-Channel Attack
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively monitors electromagnetic emanations that are produced by the targeted electronic device as an unintentional side-effect of its processing. From these emanations, the attacker derives information about the data that is being processed (e.g. the attacker can recover cryptographic keys by monitoring emanations associated with cryptographic processing). This style of attack requires proximal access to the device, however attacks have been demonstrated at public conferences that work at distances of up to 10-15 feet. There have not been any significant studies to determine the maximum practical distance for such attacks. Since the attack is passive, it is nearly impossible to detect and the targeted device will continue to operate as normal after a successful attack.
CAPEC-623: Compromising Emanations Attack
Compromising Emanations (CE) are defined as unintentional signals which an attacker may intercept and analyze to disclose the information processed by the targeted equipment. Commercial mobile devices and retransmission devices have displays, buttons, microchips, and radios that emit mechanical emissions in the form of sound or vibrations. Capturing these emissions can help an adversary understand what the device is doing.
CAPEC-624: Hardware Fault Injection
The adversary uses disruptive signals or events, or alters the physical environment a device operates in, to cause faulty behavior in electronic devices. This can include electromagnetic pulses, laser pulses, clock glitches, ambient temperature extremes, and more. When performed in a controlled manner on devices performing cryptographic operations, this faulty behavior can be exploited to derive secret key information.
CAPEC-625: Mobile Device Fault Injection
Fault injection attacks against mobile devices use disruptive signals or events (e.g. electromagnetic pulses, laser pulses, clock glitches, etc.) to cause faulty behavior. When performed in a controlled manner on devices performing cryptographic operations, this faulty behavior can be exploited to derive secret key information. Although this attack usually requires physical control of the mobile device, it is non-destructive, and the device can be used after the attack without any indication that secret keys were compromised.
CAPEC-626: Smudge Attack
Attacks that reveal the password/passcode pattern on a touchscreen device by detecting oil smudges left behind by the user’s fingers.
CAPEC-627: Counterfeit GPS Signals
An adversary attempts to deceive a GPS receiver by broadcasting counterfeit GPS signals, structured to resemble a set of normal GPS signals. These spoofed signals may be structured in such a way as to cause the receiver to estimate its position to be somewhere other than where it actually is, or to be located where it is but at a different time, as determined by the adversary.
CAPEC-628: Carry-Off GPS Attack
A common form of a GPS spoofing attack, commonly termed a carry-off attack begins with an adversary broadcasting signals synchronized with the genuine signals observed by the target receiver. The power of the counterfeit signals is then gradually increased and drawn away from the genuine signals. Over time, the adversary can carry the target away from their intended destination and toward a location chosen by the adversary.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-630: TypoSquatting
An adversary registers a domain name with at least one character different than a trusted domain. A TypoSquatting attack takes advantage of instances where a user mistypes a URL (e.g. www.goggle.com) or not does visually verify a URL before clicking on it (e.g. phishing attack). As a result, the user is directed to an adversary-controlled destination. TypoSquatting does not require an attack against the trusted domain or complicated reverse engineering.
CAPEC-631: SoundSquatting
An adversary registers a domain name that sounds the same as a trusted domain, but has a different spelling. A SoundSquatting attack takes advantage of a user's confusion of the two words to direct Internet traffic to adversary-controlled destinations. SoundSquatting does not require an attack against the trusted domain or complicated reverse engineering.
CAPEC-632: Homograph Attack via Homoglyphs
An adversary registers a domain name containing a homoglyph, leading the registered domain to appear the same as a trusted domain. A homograph attack leverages the fact that different characters among various character sets look the same to the user. Homograph attacks must generally be combined with other attacks, such as phishing attacks, in order to direct Internet traffic to the adversary-controlled destinations.
CAPEC-633: Token Impersonation
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to create an access token (or equivalent) that impersonates a different entity, and then associates a process/thread to that that impersonated token. This action causes a downstream user to make a decision or take action that is based on the assumed identity, and not the response that blocks the adversary.
CAPEC-634: Probe Audio and Video Peripherals
The adversary exploits the target system's audio and video functionalities through malware or scheduled tasks. The goal is to capture sensitive information about the target for financial, personal, political, or other gains which is accomplished by collecting communication data between two parties via the use of peripheral devices (e.g. microphones and webcams) or applications with audio and video capabilities (e.g. Skype) on a system.
CAPEC-635: Alternative Execution Due to Deceptive Filenames
The extension of a file name is often used in various contexts to determine the application that is used to open and use it. If an attacker can cause an alternative application to be used, it may be able to execute malicious code, cause a denial of service or expose sensitive information.
CAPEC-636: Hiding Malicious Data or Code within Files
Files on various operating systems can have a complex format which allows for the storage of other data, in addition to its contents. Often this is metadata about the file, such as a cached thumbnail for an image file. Unless utilities are invoked in a particular way, this data is not visible during the normal use of the file. It is possible for an attacker to store malicious data or code using these facilities, which would be difficult to discover.
CAPEC-637: Collect Data from Clipboard
The adversary exploits an application that allows for the copying of sensitive data or information by collecting information copied to the clipboard. Data copied to the clipboard can be accessed by other applications, such as malware built to exfiltrate or log clipboard contents on a periodic basis. In this way, the adversary aims to garner information to which they are unauthorized.
CAPEC-638: Altered Component Firmware
An adversary exploits systems features and/or improperly protected firmware of hardware components, such as Hard Disk Drives (HDD), with the goal of executing malicious code from within the component's Master Boot Record (MBR). Conducting this type of attack entails the adversary infecting the target with firmware altering malware, using known tools, and a payload. Once this malware is executed, the MBR is modified to include instructions to execute the payload at desired intervals and when the system is booted up. A successful attack will obtain persistence within the victim system even if the operating system is reinstalled and/or if the component is formatted or has its data erased.
CAPEC-639: Probe System Files
An adversary obtains unauthorized information due to improperly protected files. If an application stores sensitive information in a file that is not protected by proper access control, then an adversary can access the file and search for sensitive information.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-640: Inclusion of Code in Existing Process
The adversary takes advantage of a bug in an application failing to verify the integrity of the running process to execute arbitrary code in the address space of a separate live process. The adversary could use running code in the context of another process to try to access process's memory, system/network resources, etc. The goal of this attack is to evade detection defenses and escalate privileges by masking the malicious code under an existing legitimate process. Examples of approaches include but not limited to: dynamic-link library (DLL) injection, portable executable injection, thread execution hijacking, ptrace system calls, VDSO hijacking, function hooking, reflective code loading, and more.
CAPEC-641: DLL Side-Loading
An adversary places a malicious version of a Dynamic-Link Library (DLL) in the Windows Side-by-Side (WinSxS) directory to trick the operating system into loading this malicious DLL instead of a legitimate DLL. Programs specify the location of the DLLs to load via the use of WinSxS manifests or DLL redirection and if they aren't used then Windows searches in a predefined set of directories to locate the file. If the applications improperly specify a required DLL or WinSxS manifests aren't explicit about the characteristics of the DLL to be loaded, they can be vulnerable to side-loading.
CAPEC-642: Replace Binaries
Adversaries know that certain binaries will be regularly executed as part of normal processing. If these binaries are not protected with the appropriate file system permissions, it could be possible to replace them with malware. This malware might be executed at higher system permission levels. A variation of this pattern is to discover self-extracting installation packages that unpack binaries to directories with weak file permissions which it does not clean up appropriately. These binaries can be replaced by malware, which can then be executed.
CAPEC-643: Identify Shared Files/Directories on System
An adversary discovers connections between systems by exploiting the target system's standard practice of revealing them in searchable, common areas. Through the identification of shared folders/drives between systems, the adversary may further their goals of locating and collecting sensitive information/files, or map potential routes for lateral movement within the network.
CAPEC-644: Use of Captured Hashes (Pass The Hash)
An adversary obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Windows domain credential hash values to access systems within the domain that leverage the Lan Man (LM) and/or NT Lan Man (NTLM) authentication protocols.
CAPEC-645: Use of Captured Tickets (Pass The Ticket)
An adversary uses stolen Kerberos tickets to access systems/resources that leverage the Kerberos authentication protocol. The Kerberos authentication protocol centers around a ticketing system which is used to request/grant access to services and to then access the requested services. An adversary can obtain any one of these tickets (e.g. Service Ticket, Ticket Granting Ticket, Silver Ticket, or Golden Ticket) to authenticate to a system/resource without needing the account's credentials. Depending on the ticket obtained, the adversary may be able to access a particular resource or generate TGTs for any account within an Active Directory Domain.
CAPEC-646: Peripheral Footprinting
Adversaries may attempt to obtain information about attached peripheral devices and components connected to a computer system. Examples may include discovering the presence of iOS devices by searching for backups, analyzing the Windows registry to determine what USB devices have been connected, or infecting a victim system with malware to report when a USB device has been connected. This may allow the adversary to gain additional insight about the system or network environment, which may be useful in constructing further attacks.
CAPEC-647: Collect Data from Registries
An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization to gather system-specific data and sensitive information within a registry (e.g., Windows Registry, Mac plist). These contain information about the system configuration, software, operating system, and security. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-648: Collect Data from Screen Capture
An adversary gathers sensitive information by exploiting the system's screen capture functionality. Through screenshots, the adversary aims to see what happens on the screen over the course of an operation. The adversary can leverage information gathered in order to carry out further attacks.
CAPEC-649: Adding a Space to a File Extension
An adversary adds a space character to the end of a file extension and takes advantage of an application that does not properly neutralize trailing special elements in file names. This extra space, which can be difficult for a user to notice, affects which default application is used to operate on the file and can be leveraged by the adversary to control execution.
CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code
An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
CAPEC-650: Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server
By exploiting insufficient permissions, it is possible to upload a web shell to a web server in such a way that it can be executed remotely. This shell can have various capabilities, thereby acting as a gateway to the underlying web server. The shell might execute at the higher permission level of the web server, providing the ability the execute malicious code at elevated levels.
CAPEC-651: Eavesdropping
An adversary intercepts a form of communication (e.g. text, audio, video) by way of software (e.g., microphone and audio recording application), hardware (e.g., recording equipment), or physical means (e.g., physical proximity). The goal of eavesdropping is typically to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information about the target for financial, personal, political, or other gains. Eavesdropping is different from a sniffing attack as it does not take place on a network-based communication channel (e.g., IP traffic). Instead, it entails listening in on the raw audio source of a conversation between two or more parties.
CAPEC-652: Use of Known Kerberos Credentials
An adversary obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Kerberos credentials (e.g. Kerberos service account userID/password or Kerberos Tickets) with the goal of achieving authenticated access to additional systems, applications, or services within the domain.
CAPEC-653: Use of Known Operating System Credentials
An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate operating system credentials (e.g. userID/password) to achieve authentication and to perform authorized actions on the system, under the guise of an authenticated user or service. This applies to any Operating System.
CAPEC-654: Credential Prompt Impersonation
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, impersonates a credential prompt in an attempt to steal a user's credentials.
CAPEC-655: Avoid Security Tool Identification by Adding Data
An adversary adds data to a file to increase the file size beyond what security tools are capable of handling in an attempt to mask their actions. In addition to this, adding data to a file also changes the file's hash, frustrating security tools that look for known bad files by their hash.
CAPEC-656: Voice Phishing
An adversary targets users with a phishing attack for the purpose of soliciting account passwords or sensitive information from the user. Voice Phishing is a variation of the Phishing social engineering technique where the attack is initiated via a voice call, rather than email. The user is enticed to provide sensitive information by the adversary, who masquerades as a legitimate employee of the alleged organization. Voice Phishing attacks deviate from standard Phishing attacks, in that a user doesn't typically interact with a compromised website to provide sensitive information and instead provides this information verbally. Voice Phishing attacks can also be initiated by either the adversary in the form of a cold call or by the victim if calling an illegitimate telephone number.
CAPEC-657: Malicious Automated Software Update via Spoofing
An attackers uses identify or content spoofing to trick a client into performing an automated software update from a malicious source. A malicious automated software update that leverages spoofing can include content or identity spoofing as well as protocol spoofing. Content or identity spoofing attacks can trigger updates in software by embedding scripted mechanisms within a malicious web page, which masquerades as a legitimate update source. Scripting mechanisms communicate with software components and trigger updates from locations specified by the attackers' server. The result is the client believing there is a legitimate software update available but instead downloading a malicious update from the attacker.
CAPEC-66: SQL Injection
This attack exploits target software that constructs SQL statements based on user input. An attacker crafts input strings so that when the target software constructs SQL statements based on the input, the resulting SQL statement performs actions other than those the application intended. SQL Injection results from failure of the application to appropriately validate input.
CAPEC-660: Root/Jailbreak Detection Evasion via Hooking
An adversary forces a non-restricted mobile application to load arbitrary code or code files, via Hooking, with the goal of evading Root/Jailbreak detection. Mobile device users often Root/Jailbreak their devices in order to gain administrative control over the mobile operating system and/or to install third-party mobile applications that are not provided by authorized application stores (e.g. Google Play Store and Apple App Store). Adversaries may further leverage these capabilities to escalate privileges or bypass access control on legitimate applications. Although many mobile applications check if a mobile device is Rooted/Jailbroken prior to authorized use of the application, adversaries may be able to hook code in order to circumvent these checks. Successfully evading Root/Jailbreak detection allows an adversary to execute administrative commands, obtain confidential data, impersonate legitimate users of the application, and more.
CAPEC-661: Root/Jailbreak Detection Evasion via Debugging
An adversary inserts a debugger into the program entry point of a mobile application to modify the application binary, with the goal of evading Root/Jailbreak detection. Mobile device users often Root/Jailbreak their devices in order to gain administrative control over the mobile operating system and/or to install third-party mobile applications that are not provided by authorized application stores (e.g. Google Play Store and Apple App Store). Rooting/Jailbreaking a mobile device also provides users with access to system debuggers and disassemblers, which can be leveraged to exploit applications by dumping the application's memory at runtime in order to remove or bypass signature verification methods. This further allows the adversary to evade Root/Jailbreak detection mechanisms, which can result in execution of administrative commands, obtaining confidential data, impersonating legitimate users of the application, and more.
CAPEC-662: Adversary in the Browser (AiTB)
An adversary exploits security vulnerabilities or inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to manipulate traffic between two endpoints.
CAPEC-663: Exploitation of Transient Instruction Execution
An adversary exploits a hardware design flaw in a CPU implementation of transient instruction execution to expose sensitive data and bypass/subvert access control over restricted resources. Typically, the adversary conducts a covert channel attack to target non-discarded microarchitectural changes caused by transient executions such as speculative execution, branch prediction, instruction pipelining, and/or out-of-order execution. The transient execution results in a series of instructions (gadgets) which construct covert channel and access/transfer the secret data.
CAPEC-664: Server Side Request Forgery
An adversary exploits improper input validation by submitting maliciously crafted input to a target application running on a server, with the goal of forcing the server to make a request either to itself, to web services running in the server’s internal network, or to external third parties. If successful, the adversary’s request will be made with the server’s privilege level, bypassing its authentication controls. This ultimately allows the adversary to access sensitive data, execute commands on the server’s network, and make external requests with the stolen identity of the server. Server Side Request Forgery attacks differ from Cross Site Request Forgery attacks in that they target the server itself, whereas CSRF attacks exploit an insecure user authentication mechanism to perform unauthorized actions on the user's behalf.
CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.
CAPEC-666: BlueSmacking
An adversary uses Bluetooth flooding to transfer large packets to Bluetooth enabled devices over the L2CAP protocol with the goal of creating a DoS. This attack must be carried out within close proximity to a Bluetooth enabled device.
CAPEC-667: Bluetooth Impersonation AttackS (BIAS)
An adversary disguises the MAC address of their Bluetooth enabled device to one for which there exists an active and trusted connection and authenticates successfully. The adversary can then perform malicious actions on the target Bluetooth device depending on the target’s capabilities.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-669: Alteration of a Software Update
An adversary with access to an organization’s software update infrastructure inserts malware into the content of an outgoing update to fielded systems where a wide range of malicious effects are possible. With the same level of access, the adversary can alter a software update to perform specific malicious acts including granting the adversary control over the software’s normal functionality.
