Adversaries may exploit a system or application vulnerability to bypass security features. Exploitation of a vulnerability occurs when an adversary takes advantage of a programming error in a program, service, or within the operating system software or kernel itself to execute adversary-controlled code. Vulnerabilities may exist in defensive security software that can be used to disable or circumvent them.
Adversaries may have prior knowledge through reconnaissance that security software exists within an environment or they may perform checks during or shortly after the system is compromised for Security Software Discovery. The security software will likely be targeted directly for exploitation. There are examples of antivirus software being targeted by persistent threat groups to avoid detection.
There have also been examples of vulnerabilities in public cloud infrastructure of SaaS applications that may bypass defense boundaries [1], evade security logs [2], or deploy hidden infrastructure.[3]
| ID | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| G0007 | APT28 |
APT28 has used CVE-2015-4902 to bypass security features.[4][5] |
| G1047 | Velvet Ant |
Velvet Ant exploited CVE-2024-20399 in Cisco Switches to which the threat actor was already able to authenticate in order to escape the NX-OS command line interface and gain access to the underlying operating system for arbitrary command execution.[6] |
| ID | Mitigation | Description |
|---|---|---|
| M1048 | Application Isolation and Sandboxing |
Make it difficult for adversaries to advance their operation through exploitation of undiscovered or unpatched vulnerabilities by using sandboxing. Other types of virtualization and application microsegmentation may also mitigate the impact of some types of exploitation. Risks of additional exploits and weaknesses in these systems may still exist. [7] |
| M1050 | Exploit Protection |
Security applications that look for behavior used during exploitation such as Windows Defender Exploit Guard (WDEG) and the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET) can be used to mitigate some exploitation behavior. [8] Control flow integrity checking is another way to potentially identify and stop a software exploit from occurring. [9] Many of these protections depend on the architecture and target application binary for compatibility and may not work for software targeted for defense evasion. |
| M1019 | Threat Intelligence Program |
Develop a robust cyber threat intelligence capability to determine what types and levels of threat may use software exploits and 0-days against a particular organization. |
| M1051 | Update Software |
Update software regularly by employing patch management for internal enterprise endpoints and servers. |
| ID | Name | Analytic ID | Analytic Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| DET0595 | Detection Strategy for Exploitation for Defense Evasion | AN1633 |
Detects exploitation attempts targeting defensive security software or OS services. Defender observation includes abnormal process behavior (e.g., AV or EDR crashing unexpectedly), unsigned/untrusted modules loaded into defensive processes, or privilege escalation from security agent services. Multi-event correlation ties exploitation attempts to subsequent evasive behavior like service termination or missing logs. |
| AN1634 |
Detects kernel- or user-space exploitation attempts targeting auditd, AV daemons, or security monitoring agents. Defender observation includes unexpected segfaults, privilege escalation attempts from low-privileged processes, or modifications to security binaries. Correlates exploitation attempts with subsequent gaps in logging or terminated processes. |
||
| AN1635 |
Detects exploitation of macOS security and integrity services, such as Gatekeeper, XProtect, or EDR agents. Defender observations include unsigned processes attempting privileged operations, abnormal termination of security daemons, or modification of system integrity logs. |
||
| AN1636 |
Detects exploitation of IaaS cloud security boundaries to evade defense controls. Defender perspective includes anomalous API calls that bypass audit logging, disable monitoring, or manipulate guardrails (e.g., CloudTrail tampering). Correlation highlights when exploitation attempts precede sudden absence of expected telemetry. |
||
| AN1637 |
Detects adversary abuse of SaaS platform vulnerabilities to bypass logging, monitoring, or consent boundaries. Defender perspective focuses on abnormal application integration events, missing audit logs, or API calls from unauthorized service principals that align with exploitation attempts. |