Query: detection engineering for Social Engineering
Matching passage: T1684 Social Engineering. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may use social engineering techniques to influence users to take actions that result in unauthorized access, approval of changes, disclosure of sensitive information, or execution of adversary-supplied instructions (i.e., introduction of malicious payloads or software), while minimizing technical indicators. Adversaries may leverage trust-building methods across multiple channels (e.g., executive, vendor, or help desk scenarios, including AI-enabled voice interactions) to prompt user-authorized actions such as password resets, MFA changes, financial approvals, or the disclosure of sensitive information. Adversaries may also leverage common business communications and workflows such as email, collaboration platforms, voice communications, recruiting processes, help desk interactions, and SaaS consent mechanisms to make malicious requests appear routine and legitimate.(Citation: Proofpoint TA427 April 2024)(Citation: SE SentinelOne 2)(Citation: SE - Hackers Target Workday) Additionally, adversaries have persuaded victims to take actions through references of current events, harnessing relevant themes to the work role or the organizations mission. For example, adversaries may use scare tactics (i.e., threaten repercussions for non-compliance) or otherwise incite victims’ emotions in order to generate a sense of urgency to take action.(Citation: SE Proofpoint)(Citation: SE SentinelOne) This technique may include common social engineering patterns such as [Phishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566) and [Spearphishing Voice](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566/004), often supported by convincing and targeted narratives.(Citation: SE SentinelOne 2)(Citation: Fortinet Trends 25-26)
Near-miss passage: T1684.001 Impersonation. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may impersonate a trusted person or organization in order to persuade and trick a target into performing some action on their behalf. For example, adversaries may communicate with victims (via [Phishing for Information](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1598), [Phishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566), or [Internal Spearphishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1534)) while impersonating a known sender such as an executive, colleague, or third-party vendor. Established trust can then be leveraged to accomplish an adversary’s ultimate goals, possibly against multiple victims. In many cases of business email compromise or email fraud campaigns, adversaries use impersonation to defraud victims -- deceiving them into sending money or divulging information that ultimately enables [Financial Theft](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1657). Adversaries will often also use social engineering techniques such as manipulative and persuasive language in email subject lines and body text such as `payment`, `request`, or `urgent` to push the victim to act quickly before malicious activity is detected. These campaigns are often specifically targeted against people who, due to job roles and/or accesses, can carry out the adversary’s goal. Impersonation is typically preceded by reconnaissance techniques such as [Gather Victim Identity Information](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1589) and [Gather Victim Org Information](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1591) as well as acquiring infrastructure such as email domains (i.e. [Domains](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1583/001)) to substantiate their false identity.(Citation: Crowdstrike BEC) There is the potential for multiple victims in campaigns involving impersonation. For example, an adversary may Compromise Accounts targeting one organization which can then be used to support impersonation against other entities.(Citation: VEC)