USENIX Security2024Top-tier venue
How does Endpoint Detection use the MITRE ATT&CK Framework?
Apurva Virkud, Muhammad Adil Inam, Andy Riddle, Jason Liu, Gang Wang, Adam Bates
Abstract
MITRE ATT&CK is an open-source taxonomy of adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures based on real-world observations. Increasingly, organizations leverage ATT&CK technique "coverage" as the basis for evaluating their security posture, while Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Security Indicator and Event Management (SIEM) products integrate ATT&CK into their design as well as marketing. However, the extent to which ATT&CK coverage is suitable to serve as a security metric remains unclear-Does ATT&CK coverage vary meaningfully across different products? Is it possible to achieve total coverage of ATT&CK? Do endpoint products that detect the same attack behaviors even claim to cover the same ATT&CK techniques? In this work, we attempt to answer these questions by conducting a comprehensive (and, to our knowledge, the first) analysis of endpoint detection products' use of MITRE ATT&CK. We begin by evaluating 3 ATT&CK-annotated detection rulesets from major commercial providers (Carbon Black, Splunk, Elastic) and a crowdsourced ruleset (Sigma) to identify commonalities and underutilized regions of the ATT&CK matrix. We continue by performing a qualitative analysis of unimplemented ATT&CK techniques to determine their feasibility as detection rules. Finally, we perform a consistency analysis of ATT&CK labeling by examining 37 specific threat entities for which at least 2 products include specific detection rules. Combined, our findings highlight the limitations of overdepending on ATT&CK coverage when evaluating security posture; most notably, many techniques are unrealizable as detection rules, and coverage of an ATT&CK technique does not consistently imply coverage of the same real-world threats.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext dd6811aa-ade8-4116-a854-d295b6cccc6aCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on8
- NoDoze: Combatting Threat Alert Fatigue with Automated Provenance TriageWajih Ul Hassan, Shengjian Guo, Ding Li, Zhengzhang Chen et al.NDSS 2019 · 411 citations
- Tactical Provenance Analysis for Endpoint Detection and Response SystemsWajih Ul Hassan, Adam Bates, Daniel MarinoS&P 2020 · 317 citations
- Matched and Mismatched SOCs: A Qualitative Study on Security Operations Center IssuesFaris Bugra Kokulu, Ananta Soneji, Tiffany Bao, Yan Shoshitaishvili et al.CCS 2019 · 134 citations
- Reading the Tea leaves: A Comparative Analysis of Threat IntelligenceVector Guo Li, Matthew Dunn, Paul Pearce, Damon McCoy et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 123 citations
- Are we there yet? An Industrial Viewpoint on Provenance-based Endpoint Detection and Response ToolsFeng Dong, Shaofei Li, Peng Jiang, Ding Li et al.CCS 2023 · 24 citations
Related papers
- A different cup of TI? The added value of commercial threat intelligenceXander Bouwman, Harm Griffioen, Jelle Egbers, Christian Doerr et al.USENIX Security 2020
- APT to Disagree: A Comparative Analysis of Attribution in Commercial TIAksel Ethembabaoglu, Rolf van Wegberg, Yury Zhauniarovich, Michel van EetenS&P 2026 · 2 citations
- You Cannot Escape Me: Detecting Evasions of SIEM Rules in Enterprise NetworksRafael Uetz, Marco Herzog, Louis Hackländer, Simon Schwarz et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 23 citations
- Combating Dependence Explosion in Forensic Analysis Using Alternative Tag Propagation SemanticsMd Nahid Hossain, Sanaz Sheikhi, R. SekarS&P 2020 · 179 citations
- WATSON: Abstracting Behaviors from Audit Logs via Aggregation of Contextual SemanticsJun Zeng, Zheng Leong Chua, Yinfang Chen, Kaihang Ji et al.NDSS 2021
