Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
A Community Resource for Identifying and Understanding Attacks
View customized information:
An adversary exploits a configuration management system so that malicious logic is inserted into a software products build, update or deployed environment. If an adversary can control the elements included in a product's configuration management for build they can potentially replace, modify or insert code files containing malicious logic. If an adversary can control elements of a product's ongoing operational configuration management baseline they can potentially force clients receiving updates from the system to install insecure software when receiving updates from the server.
Configuration management servers operate on the basis of a client pool, instructing each client on which software to install. In some cases the configuration management server will automate the software installation process. A malicious insider or an adversary who has compromised the server can alter the software baseline that clients must install, allowing the adversary to compromise a large number of satellite machines using the configuration management system. If an adversary can control elements of a product's configuration management for its deployed environment they can potentially alter fundamental security properties of the system based on assumptions that secure configurations are in place. It is also worth noting that this attack can occur during initial product development or throughout a product's sustainment.
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.
CWE leads to CAPEC: This entry highlights the rare case where a CAPEC creates an instance of a CWE, as opposed to the usual other way around. At this time, this field only includes mappings to weaknesses that cause the CAPEC, instead of CWEs that could arise due to the CAPEC.
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
More information is available — Please select a different filter.