How does Endpoint Detection use the MITRE ATT&CK Framework?
Apurva Virkud, Muhammad Adil Inam, Andy Riddle, Jason Liu, Gang Wang, Adam Bates
摘要
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.
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了最后一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
引用它的顶会 Paper1
问问它们各自怎么用它它引用的顶会 Paper8
- NoDoze: Combatting Threat Alert Fatigue with Automated Provenance TriageWajih Ul Hassan, Shengjian Guo, Ding Li, Zhengzhang Chen 等NDSS 2019 · 被引用 411 次
- Tactical Provenance Analysis for Endpoint Detection and Response SystemsWajih Ul Hassan, Adam Bates, Daniel MarinoS&P 2020 · 被引用 317 次
- Matched and Mismatched SOCs: A Qualitative Study on Security Operations Center IssuesFaris Bugra Kokulu, Ananta Soneji, Tiffany Bao, Yan Shoshitaishvili 等CCS 2019 · 被引用 134 次
- Reading the Tea leaves: A Comparative Analysis of Threat IntelligenceVector Guo Li, Matthew Dunn, Paul Pearce, Damon McCoy 等USENIX Security 2019 · 被引用 123 次
- Are we there yet? An Industrial Viewpoint on Provenance-based Endpoint Detection and Response ToolsFeng Dong, Shaofei Li, Peng Jiang, Ding Li 等CCS 2023 · 被引用 24 次
相关 Paper
- A different cup of TI? The added value of commercial threat intelligenceXander Bouwman, Harm Griffioen, Jelle Egbers, Christian Doerr 等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 · 被引用 2 次
- You Cannot Escape Me: Detecting Evasions of SIEM Rules in Enterprise NetworksRafael Uetz, Marco Herzog, Louis Hackländer, Simon Schwarz 等USENIX Security 2024 · 被引用 23 次
- Combating Dependence Explosion in Forensic Analysis Using Alternative Tag Propagation SemanticsMd Nahid Hossain, Sanaz Sheikhi, R. SekarS&P 2020 · 被引用 179 次
- WATSON: Abstracting Behaviors from Audit Logs via Aggregation of Contextual SemanticsJun Zeng, Zheng Leong Chua, Yinfang Chen, Kaihang Ji 等NDSS 2021
