Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
A Community Resource for Identifying and Understanding Attacks
View customized information:
An adversary sends a UDP datagram having an assigned value to its internet identification field (ID) to a closed port on a target to observe the manner in which this bit is echoed back in the ICMP error message. This allows the attacker to construct a fingerprint of specific OS behaviors.
The internet identification field (ID) is typically utilized for reassembling a fragmented packet. RFC791 and RFC815 discusses about IP datagrams, fragmentation and reassembly. Some operating systems or router firmware reverse the bit order of the ID field when echoing the IP Header portion of the original datagram within the ICMP error message. There are three behaviors related to the IP ID field that can be used to distinguish remote operating systems or firmware: 1) it is echoed back identically to the bit order of the ID field in the original IP header, 2) it is echoed back, but the byte order has been reversed, or it contains an incorrect or unexpected value. Different operating systems will respond by setting the IP ID field differently within error messaging.
This table shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf and ParentOf, and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
This table shows the views that this attack pattern belongs to and top level categories within that view.
This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the attack pattern. The Scope identifies the security property that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in their attack. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a pattern will be used to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
A Related Weakness relationship associates a weakness with this attack pattern. Each association implies a weakness that must exist for a given attack to be successful. If multiple weaknesses are associated with the attack pattern, then any of the weaknesses (but not necessarily all) may be present for the attack to be successful. Each related weakness is identified by a CWE identifier.
CAPEC mappings to ATT&CK techniques leverage an inheritance model to streamline and minimize direct CAPEC/ATT&CK mappings. Inheritance of a mapping is indicated by text stating that the parent CAPEC has relevant ATT&CK mappings. Note that the ATT&CK Enterprise Framework does not use an inheritance model as part of the mapping to CAPEC.
Relevant to the ATT&CK taxonomy mapping (see parent )
More information is available — Please select a different filter.