CAPEC-481: Contradictory Destinations in Traffic Routing Schemes
Attack Pattern ID: 481
View customized information:
Adversaries can provide contradictory destinations when sending messages. Traffic is routed in networks using the domain names in various headers available at different levels of the OSI model. In a Content Delivery Network (CDN) multiple domains might be available, and if there are contradictory domain names provided it is possible to route traffic to an inappropriate destination. The technique, called Domain Fronting, involves using different domain names in the SNI field of the TLS header and the Host field of the HTTP header. An alternative technique, called Domainless Fronting, is similar, but the SNI field is left blank.
Likelihood Of Attack
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.
Meta Attack Pattern - A meta level attack pattern in CAPEC is a decidedly abstract characterization of a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. A meta attack pattern is often void of a specific technology or implementation and is meant to provide an understanding of a high level approach. A meta level attack pattern is a generalization of related group of standard level attack patterns. Meta level attack patterns are particularly useful for architecture and design level threat modeling exercises.
An adversary must be aware that their message will be routed using a CDN, and that both of the contradictory domains are served from that CDN.
If the purpose of the Domain Fronting is to hide redirected C2 traffic, the C2 server must have been created in the CDN.
The adversary must have some knowledge of how messages are routed.
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.
Monitor connections, checking headers in traffic for contradictory domain names, or empty domain names.
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.
Improper Restriction of Communication Channel to Intended Endpoints
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.