Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
A Community Resource for Identifying and Understanding Attacks
View customized information:
An adversary exploits incorrect chaining or granularity of hardware debug components in order to gain unauthorized access to debug functionality on a chip. This happens when authorization is not checked on a per function basis and is assumed for a chain or group of debug functionality.
Chip designers often include design elements in a chip for debugging and troubleshooting such as:
Because devices commonly have multiple chips and debug components, designers will connect debug components and expose them through a single external interface, which is referred to as “chaining”. Logic errors during design or synthesis could misconfigure the chaining of the debug components, which could allow unintended access. TAPs are also commonly referred to as JTAG interfaces.
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.
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 (see parent )
More information is available — Please select a different filter.