alirezaaminzadeh/secembed-pairs huggingface dataset:
Query: Encoded PowerShell / command-line abuse matching Credentials from Password Stores
Matching passage: T1555 Credentials from Password Stores. Tactics: credential access. Description: Adversaries may search for common password storage locations to obtain user credentials.(Citation: F-Secure The Dukes) Passwords are stored in several places on a system, depending on the operating system or application holding the credentials. There are also specific applications and services that store passwords to make them easier for users to manage and maintain, such as password managers and cloud secrets vaults. Once credentials are obtained, they can be used to perform lateral movement and access restricted information.
Near-miss passage: T1555.006 Cloud Secrets Management Stores. Tactics: credential access. Description: Adversaries may acquire credentials from cloud-native secret management solutions such as AWS Secrets Manager, GCP Secret Manager, Azure Key Vault, and Terraform Vault. Secrets managers support the secure centralized management of passwords, API keys, and other credential material. Where secrets managers are in use, cloud services can dynamically acquire credentials via API requests rather than accessing secrets insecurely stored in plain text files or environment variables. If an adversary is able to gain sufficient privileges in a cloud environment – for example, by obtaining the credentials of high-privileged [Cloud Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1078/004) or compromising a service that has permission to retrieve secrets – they may be able to request secrets from the secrets manager. This can be accomplished via commands such as `get-secret-value` in AWS, `gcloud secrets describe` in GCP, and `az key vault secret show` in Azure.(Citation: Permiso Scattered Spider 2023)(Citation: Sysdig ScarletEel 2.0 2023)(Citation: AWS Secrets Manager)(Citation: Google Cloud Secrets)(Citation: Microsoft Azure Key Vault) **Note:** this technique is distinct from [Cloud Instance Metadata API](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1552/005) in that the credentials are being directly requested from the cloud secrets manager, rather than through the medium of the instance metadata API.
Query: CVE similar to CVE-2015-8698
Matching passage: CVE-2015-8698. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 7.099999904632568. CA Release Automation (formerly LISA Release Automation) 5.0.2 before 5.0.2-227, 5.5.1 before 5.5.1-1616, 5.5.2 before 5.5.2-434, and 6.1.0 before 6.1.0-1026 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files or cause a denial of service via a request containing an XML external entity declaration in conjunction with an entity reference, related to an XML External Entity (XXE) issue.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-4866. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 4.0. Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle MySQL Server 5.6.23 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to affect availability via unknown vectors related to Server : InnoDB.
Query: explain T1543.001 Launch Agent
Matching passage: T1543.001 Launch Agent. Tactics: persistence, privilege escalation. Description: Adversaries may create or modify launch agents to repeatedly execute malicious payloads as part of persistence. When a user logs in, a per-user launchd process is started which loads the parameters for each launch-on-demand user agent from the property list (.plist) file found in <code>/System/Library/LaunchAgents</code>, <code>/Library/LaunchAgents</code>, and <code>~/Library/LaunchAgents</code>.(Citation: AppleDocs Launch Agent Daemons)(Citation: OSX Keydnap malware) (Citation: Antiquated Mac Malware) Property list files use the <code>Label</code>, <code>ProgramArguments </code>, and <code>RunAtLoad</code> keys to identify the Launch Agent's name, executable location, and execution time.(Citation: OSX.Dok Malware) Launch Agents are often installed to perform updates to programs, launch user specified programs at login, or to conduct other developer tasks. Launch Agents can also be executed using the [Launchctl](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1569/001) command. Adversaries may install a new Launch Agent that executes at login by placing a .plist file into the appropriate folders with the <code>RunAtLoad</code> or <code>KeepAlive</code> keys set to <code>true</code>.(Citation: Sofacy Komplex Trojan)(Citation: Methods of Mac Malware Persistence) The Launch Agent name may be disguised by using a name from the related operating system or benign software. Launch Agents are created with user level privileges and execute with user level permissions.(Citation: OSX Malware Detection)(Citation: OceanLotus for OS X)
Near-miss passage: T1543.005 Container Service. Tactics: persistence, privilege escalation. Description: Adversaries may create or modify container or container cluster management tools that run as daemons, agents, or services on individual hosts. These include software for creating and managing individual containers, such as Docker and Podman, as well as container cluster node-level agents such as kubelet. By modifying these services, an adversary may be able to achieve persistence or escalate their privileges on a host. For example, by using the `docker run` or `podman run` command with the `restart=always` directive, a container can be configured to persistently restart on the host.(Citation: AquaSec TeamTNT 2023) A user with access to the (rootful) docker command may also be able to escalate their privileges on the host.(Citation: GTFOBins Docker) In Kubernetes environments, DaemonSets allow an adversary to persistently [Deploy Container](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1610)s on all nodes, including ones added later to the cluster.(Citation: Aquasec Kubernetes Attack 2023)(Citation: Kubernetes DaemonSet) Pods can also be deployed to specific nodes using the `nodeSelector` or `nodeName` fields in the pod spec.(Citation: Kubernetes Assigning Pods to Nodes)(Citation: AppSecco Kubernetes Namespace Breakout 2020) Note that containers can also be configured to run as [Systemd Service](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1543/002)s.(Citation: Podman Systemd)(Citation: Docker Systemd)
Query: patch priority for CVE-2015-6355
Matching passage: CVE-2015-6355. CWE: CWE-200. CVSS: 5.0. The web interface in Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) 2.2(5b)A on blade servers allows remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive version information by visiting an unspecified URL, aka Bug ID CSCuw87226.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-7827. CWE: CWE-200. CVSS: 7.5. Botan before 1.10.13 and 1.11.x before 1.11.22 make it easier for remote attackers to conduct million-message attacks by measuring time differences, related to decoding of PKCS#1 padding.
Query: risk of The grant.xsfunc application in testApps/grantAccess/ in the XS Engine in SAP HANA DB 1.00.73.00.389160 (NewDB100_REL) allows remote authenticated users to spoof log entries via a 
Matching passage: CVE-2015-3994. CWE: CWE-20. CVSS: 4.0. The grant.xsfunc application in testApps/grantAccess/ in the XS Engine in SAP HANA DB 1.00.73.00.389160 (NewDB100_REL) allows remote authenticated users to spoof log entries via a crafted request, aka SAP Security Note 2109818.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-8219. CWE: CWE-20. CVSS: 7.5. The init_tile function in libavcodec/jpeg2000dec.c in FFmpeg before 2.8.2 does not enforce minimum-value and maximum-value constraints on tile coordinates, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds array access) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted JPEG 2000 data.
Query: Encoded PowerShell / command-line abuse matching Bind Mounts
Matching passage: T1564.013 Bind Mounts. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may abuse bind mounts on file structures to hide their activity and artifacts from native utilities. A bind mount maps a directory or file from one location on the filesystem to another, similar to a shortcut on Windows. It’s commonly used to provide access to specific files or directories across different environments, such as inside containers or chroot environments, and requires sudo access. Adversaries may use bind mounts to map either an empty directory or a benign `/proc` directory to a malicious process’s `/proc` directory. Using the commands `mount –o bind /proc/benign-process /proc/malicious-process` (or `mount –B`), the malicious process's `/proc` directory is overlayed with the contents of a benign process's `/proc` directory. When system utilities query process activity, such as `ps` and `top`, the kernel follows the bind mount and presents the benign directory’s contents instead of the malicious process's actual `/proc` directory. As a result, these utilities display information that appears to come from the benign process, effectively hiding the malicious process's metadata, executable, or other artifacts from detection.(Citation: Cado Security Commando Cat 2024)(Citation: Ahn Lab CoinMiner 2023)
Near-miss passage: T1564.009 Resource Forking. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may abuse resource forks to hide malicious code or executables to evade detection and bypass security applications. A resource fork provides applications a structured way to store resources such as thumbnail images, menu definitions, icons, dialog boxes, and code.(Citation: macOS Hierarchical File System Overview) Usage of a resource fork is identifiable when displaying a file’s extended attributes, using <code>ls -l@</code> or <code>xattr -l</code> commands. Resource forks have been deprecated and replaced with the application bundle structure. Non-localized resources are placed at the top level directory of an application bundle, while localized resources are placed in the <code>/Resources</code> folder.(Citation: Resource and Data Forks)(Citation: ELC Extended Attributes) Adversaries can use resource forks to hide malicious data that may otherwise be stored directly in files. Adversaries can execute content with an attached resource fork, at a specified offset, that is moved to an executable location then invoked. Resource fork content may also be obfuscated/encrypted until execution.(Citation: sentinellabs resource named fork 2020)(Citation: tau bundlore erika noerenberg 2020)
Query: CVE similar to CVE-2015-9314
Matching passage: CVE-2015-9314. CWE: CWE-79. CVSS: 6.099999904632568. The newstatpress plugin before 1.0.4 for WordPress has XSS related to the Referer header.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-8936. CWE: CWE-79. CVSS: 6.099999904632568. Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in squidGuard.cgi in squidGuard before 1.5 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a blocked site link.
Query: describe CVE-2015-0583
Matching passage: CVE-2015-0583. CWE: CWE-200. CVSS: 5.0. Cisco WebEx Meeting Center does not properly restrict the content of URLs, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via vectors related to file: URIs, aka Bug ID CSCus18281.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-1828. CWE: CWE-200. CVSS: 5.900000095367432. The Ruby http gem before 0.7.3 does not verify hostnames in SSL connections, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a man-in-the-middle-attack.
Query: vulnerability: Apache Cordova iOS before 4.0.0 might allow attackers to bypass a URL whitelist protection mechanism in an app and load arbitrary resources by leveraging unspecified methods.
Matching passage: CVE-2015-5207. CWE: CWE-254. CVSS: 5.300000190734863. Apache Cordova iOS before 4.0.0 might allow attackers to bypass a URL whitelist protection mechanism in an app and load arbitrary resources by leveraging unspecified methods.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-3973. CWE: CWE-254. CVSS: 5.0. Janitza UMG 508, 509, 511, 604, and 605 devices improperly generate session tokens, which makes it easier for remote attackers to determine a PIN value via unspecified computations on session-token values.
Query: risk of Adobe Reader and Acrobat 10.x before 10.1.14 and 11.x before 11.0.11 on Windows and OS X allow attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) 
Matching passage: CVE-2015-3046. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 10.0. Adobe Reader and Acrobat 10.x before 10.1.14 and 11.x before 11.0.11 on Windows and OS X allow attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-9161, CVE-2015-3049, CVE-2015-3050, CVE-2015-3051, CVE-2015-3052, CVE-2015-3056, CVE-2015-3057, CVE-2015-3070, and CVE-2015-3076.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-5689. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. ghostexp.exe in Ghost Explorer Utility in Symantec Ghost Solutions Suite (GSS) before 3.0 HF2 12.0.0.8010 and Symantec Deployment Solution (DS) before 7.6 HF4 12.0.0.7045 performs improper sign-extend operations before array-element accesses, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code, cause a denial of service (application crash), or possibly obtain sensitive information via a crafted Ghost image.
Query: Lateral movement indicators for Break Process Trees
Matching passage: T1036.009 Break Process Trees. Tactics: stealth. Description: An adversary may attempt to evade process tree-based analysis by modifying executed malware's parent process ID (PPID). If endpoint protection software leverages the “parent-child" relationship for detection, breaking this relationship could result in the adversary’s behavior not being associated with previous process tree activity. On Unix-based systems breaking this process tree is common practice for administrators to execute software using scripts and programs.(Citation: 3OHA double-fork 2022) On Linux systems, adversaries may execute a series of [Native API](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1106) calls to alter malware's process tree. For example, adversaries can execute their payload without any arguments, call the `fork()` API call twice, then have the parent process exit. This creates a grandchild process with no parent process that is immediately adopted by the `init` system process (PID 1), which successfully disconnects the execution of the adversary's payload from its previous process tree. Another example is using the “daemon” syscall to detach from the current parent process and run in the background.(Citation: Sandfly BPFDoor 2022)(Citation: Microsoft XorDdos Linux Stealth 2022)
Near-miss passage: T1036.007 Double File Extension. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may abuse a double extension in the filename as a means of masquerading the true file type. A file name may include a secondary file type extension that may cause only the first extension to be displayed (ex: <code>File.txt.exe</code> may render in some views as just <code>File.txt</code>). However, the second extension is the true file type that determines how the file is opened and executed. The real file extension may be hidden by the operating system in the file browser (ex: explorer.exe), as well as in any software configured using or similar to the system’s policies.(Citation: PCMag DoubleExtension)(Citation: SOCPrime DoubleExtension) Adversaries may abuse double extensions to attempt to conceal dangerous file types of payloads. A very common usage involves tricking a user into opening what they think is a benign file type but is actually executable code. Such files often pose as email attachments and allow an adversary to gain [Initial Access](https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0001) into a user’s system via [Spearphishing Attachment](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566/001) then [User Execution](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1204). For example, an executable file attachment named <code>Evil.txt.exe</code> may display as <code>Evil.txt</code> to a user. The user may then view it as a benign text file and open it, inadvertently executing the hidden malware.(Citation: SOCPrime DoubleExtension) Common file types, such as text files (.txt, .doc, etc.) and image files (.jpg, .gif, etc.) are typically used as the first extension to appear benign. Executable extensions commonly regarded as dangerous, such as .exe, .lnk, .hta, and .scr, often appear as the second extension and true file type.
Query: patch priority for CVE-2015-8868
Matching passage: CVE-2015-8868. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 7.800000190734863. Heap-based buffer overflow in the ExponentialFunction::ExponentialFunction function in Poppler before 0.40.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption and crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via an invalid blend mode in the ExtGState dictionary in a crafted PDF document.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-7048. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. WebKit in Apple iOS before 9.2, Safari before 9.0.2, and tvOS before 9.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted web site, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-7095, CVE-2015-7096, CVE-2015-7097, CVE-2015-7098, CVE-2015-7099, CVE-2015-7100, CVE-2015-7101, CVE-2015-7102, and CVE-2015-7103.
Query: rule covering Detects Obfuscated use of Clip.exe to execute PowerShell
Matching passage: Sigma rule: Detects Obfuscated use of Clip.exe to execute PowerShell. Logsource: windows / ps_module. Rule: title: Invoke-Obfuscation CLIP+ Launcher - PowerShell Module id: a136cde0-61ad-4a61-9b82-8dc490e60dd2 related: - id: 73e67340-0d25-11eb-adc1-0242ac120002 type: derived status: test description: Detects Obfuscated use of Clip.exe to execute PowerShell references: - https://github.com/SigmaHQ/sigma/issues/1009 author: Jonathan Cheong, oscd.community date: 2020-10-13 modified: 2024-04-05 tags: - attack.stealth - attack.t1027 - attack.execution - attack.t1059.001 logsource: product: windows category: ps_module definition: 0ad03ef1-f21b-4a79-8ce8-e6900c54b65b detection: selection_4103: Payload|re: cmd.{0,5}(?:/c|/r).+clip(?:\.exe)?.{0,4}&&.+clipboard]::\(\s\\"\{\d\}.+-f.+" condition: selection_4103 falsepositives: - Unknown level: high
Near-miss passage: Sigma rule: Extract data from cab file and hide it in an alternate data stream. Logsource: windows / process_creation. Rule: title: Suspicious Extrac32 Alternate Data Stream Execution id: 4b13db67-0c45-40f1-aba8-66a1a7198a1e status: test description: Extract data from cab file and hide it in an alternate data stream references: - https://lolbas-project.github.io/lolbas/Binaries/Extrac32/ author: frack113 date: 2021-11-26 modified: 2022-12-30 tags: - attack.stealth - attack.t1564.004 logsource: category: process_creation product: windows detection: selection: CommandLine|contains|all: - extrac32.exe - .cab CommandLine|re: :[^\\] condition: selection falsepositives: - Unknown level: medium
Query: Suspicious MSBuild execution detected on endpoint
Matching passage: T1127.001 MSBuild. Tactics: stealth, execution. Description: Adversaries may use MSBuild to proxy execution of code through a trusted Windows utility. MSBuild.exe (Microsoft Build Engine) is a software build platform used by Visual Studio. It handles XML formatted project files that define requirements for loading and building various platforms and configurations.(Citation: MSDN MSBuild) Adversaries can abuse MSBuild to proxy execution of malicious code. The inline task capability of MSBuild that was introduced in .NET version 4 allows for C# or Visual Basic code to be inserted into an XML project file.(Citation: MSDN MSBuild)(Citation: Microsoft MSBuild Inline Tasks 2017) MSBuild will compile and execute the inline task. MSBuild.exe is a signed Microsoft binary, so when it is used this way it can execute arbitrary code and bypass application control defenses that are configured to allow MSBuild.exe execution.(Citation: LOLBAS Msbuild)
Near-miss passage: T1127 Trusted Developer Utilities Proxy Execution. Tactics: stealth, execution. Description: Adversaries may take advantage of trusted developer utilities to proxy execution of malicious payloads. There are many utilities used for software development related tasks that can be used to execute code in various forms to assist in development, debugging, and reverse engineering.(Citation: engima0x3 DNX Bypass)(Citation: engima0x3 RCSI Bypass)(Citation: Exploit Monday WinDbg)(Citation: LOLBAS Tracker) These utilities may often be signed with legitimate certificates that allow them to execute on a system and proxy execution of malicious code through a trusted process that effectively bypasses application control solutions. Smart App Control is a feature of Windows that blocks applications it considers potentially malicious from running by verifying unsigned applications against a known safe list from a Microsoft cloud service before executing them.(Citation: Microsoft Smart App Control) However, adversaries may leverage "reputation hijacking" to abuse an operating system’s trust of safe, signed applications that support the execution of arbitrary code. By leveraging [Trusted Developer Utilities Proxy Execution](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1127) to run their malicious code, adversaries may bypass Smart App Control protections.(Citation: Elastic Security Labs)
Query: risk of Apple iOS before 8.4.1 and OS X before 10.10.5 allow local users to bypass a code-signing protection mechanism via a crafted Mach-O file, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-38
Matching passage: CVE-2015-3802. CWE: CWE-20. CVSS: 7.199999809265137. Apple iOS before 8.4.1 and OS X before 10.10.5 allow local users to bypass a code-signing protection mechanism via a crafted Mach-O file, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-3805.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-6164. CWE: CWE-20. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 through 11 improperly implements a cross-site scripting (XSS) protection mechanism, which allows remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy via a crafted web site, aka "Internet Explorer XSS Filter Bypass Vulnerability."