alirezaaminzadeh/secembed-pairs huggingface dataset:
Query: Sigma rule for Detects GitHub self-hosted runners executing workflows on local infrastructure that could be abused for persistence and
Matching passage: Sigma rule: Detects GitHub self-hosted runners executing workflows on local infrastructure that could be abused for persistence and. Logsource: windows / process_creation. Rule: title: Github Self-Hosted Runner Execution id: 5bac7a56-da88-4c27-922e-c81e113b20cb status: test description: 'Detects GitHub self-hosted runners executing workflows on local infrastructure that could be abused for persistence and code execution. Shai-Hulud is an npm supply chain worm targeting CI/CD environments. It installs runners on compromised systems to maintain access after credential theft, leveraging their access to secrets and internal networks. ' references: - https://about.gitlab.com/blog/gitlab-discovers-widespread-npm-supply-chain-attack/ - https://securitylabs.datadoghq.com/articles/shai-hulud-2.0-npm-worm/ author: Daniel Koifman (KoifSec) date: 2025-11-29 tags: - attack.command-and-control - attack.t1102.002 - attack.t1071 logsource: category: process_creation product: windows detection: selection_worker_img: - Image|endswith: \Runner.Worker.exe - OriginalFileName: Runner.Worker.dll selection_worker_cli: CommandLine|contains: spawnclient selection_listener_img: - Image|endswith: \Runner.Listener.exe - OriginalFileName: Runner.Listener.dll selection_listener_cli: CommandLine|contains: - run - configure condition: all of selection_worker_* or all of selection_listener_* falsepositives: - Legitimate GitHub self-hosted runner installations on designated CI/CD infrastructure - Authorized runner deployments by DevOps/Platform teams following change management - Scheduled runner updates or reconfigurations on existing build agents - Self-hosted runners that follow expected/known naming patterns - Installation via expected/known configuration management tools (reflected mostly as parent process name) level: medium regression_tests_path: regression_data/rules/windows/process_creation/proc_creation_win_github_self_hosted_runner/info.yml
Near-miss passage: Sigma rule: Detects logons using NTLM to hosts that are potentially not part of the domain.. Logsource: windows / ntlm. Rule: title: Potential Remote Desktop Connection to Non-Domain Host id: ce5678bb-b9aa-4fb5-be4b-e57f686256ad status: test description: Detects logons using NTLM to hosts that are potentially not part of the domain. references: - n/a author: James Pemberton date: 2020-05-22 modified: 2021-11-27 tags: - attack.command-and-control - attack.t1219.002 logsource: product: windows service: ntlm definition: Requires events from Microsoft-Windows-NTLM/Operational detection: selection: EventID: 8001 TargetName|startswith: TERMSRV condition: selection falsepositives: - Host connections to valid domains, exclude these. - Host connections not using host FQDN. - Host connections to external legitimate domains. level: medium
Query: Multiple failed authentications followed by Windows Remote Management
Matching passage: T1021.006 Windows Remote Management. Tactics: lateral movement. Description: Adversaries may use [Valid Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1078) to interact with remote systems using Windows Remote Management (WinRM). The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user. WinRM is the name of both a Windows service and a protocol that allows a user to interact with a remote system (e.g., run an executable, modify the Registry, modify services).(Citation: Microsoft WinRM) It may be called with the `winrm` command or by any number of programs such as PowerShell.(Citation: Jacobsen 2014) WinRM can be used as a method of remotely interacting with [Windows Management Instrumentation](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1047).(Citation: MSDN WMI)
Near-miss passage: T1021.003 Distributed Component Object Model. Tactics: lateral movement. Description: Adversaries may use [Valid Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1078) to interact with remote machines by taking advantage of Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM). The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user. The Windows Component Object Model (COM) is a component of the native Windows application programming interface (API) that enables interaction between software objects, or executable code that implements one or more interfaces. Through COM, a client object can call methods of server objects, which are typically Dynamic Link Libraries (DLL) or executables (EXE). Distributed COM (DCOM) is transparent middleware that extends the functionality of COM beyond a local computer using remote procedure call (RPC) technology.(Citation: Fireeye Hunting COM June 2019)(Citation: Microsoft COM) Permissions to interact with local and remote server COM objects are specified by access control lists (ACL) in the Registry.(Citation: Microsoft Process Wide Com Keys) By default, only Administrators may remotely activate and launch COM objects through DCOM.(Citation: Microsoft COM ACL) Through DCOM, adversaries operating in the context of an appropriately privileged user can remotely obtain arbitrary and even direct shellcode execution through Office applications(Citation: Enigma Outlook DCOM Lateral Movement Nov 2017) as well as other Windows objects that contain insecure methods.(Citation: Enigma MMC20 COM Jan 2017)(Citation: Enigma DCOM Lateral Movement Jan 2017) DCOM can also execute macros in existing documents(Citation: Enigma Excel DCOM Sept 2017) and may also invoke [Dynamic Data Exchange](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1559/002) (DDE) execution directly through a COM created instance of a Microsoft Office application(Citation: Cyberreason DCOM DDE Lateral Movement Nov 2017), bypassing the need for a malicious document. DCOM can be used as a method of remotely interacting with [Windows Management Instrumentation](https://attack.mitre.org/
Query: describe CVE-2015-5952
Matching passage: CVE-2015-5952. CWE: CWE-22. CVSS: 9.800000190734863. Directory traversal vulnerability in Thomson Reuters for FATCA before 5.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary files via the item parameter.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-1503. CWE: CWE-22. CVSS: 7.5. Multiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in IceWarp Mail Server before 11.2 allow remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a (1) .. (dot dot) in the file parameter to a webmail/client/skins/default/css/css.php page or .../. (dot dot dot slash dot) in the (2) script or (3) style parameter to webmail/old/calendar/minimizer/index.php.
Query: common weakness: Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments
Matching passage: CWE-685 Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments. The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies too many arguments, or too few arguments, which may lead to undefined behavior and resultant weaknesses.
Near-miss passage: CWE-219 Storage of File with Sensitive Data Under Web Root. The product stores sensitive data under the web document root with insufficient access control, which might make it accessible to untrusted parties.
Query: actor TTPs: Execution Guardrails
Matching passage: T1480 Execution Guardrails. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may use execution guardrails to constrain execution or actions based on adversary supplied and environment specific conditions that are expected to be present on the target. Guardrails ensure that a payload only executes against an intended target and reduces collateral damage from an adversary’s campaign.(Citation: FireEye Kevin Mandia Guardrails) Values an adversary can provide about a target system or environment to use as guardrails may include specific network share names, attached physical devices, files, joined Active Directory (AD) domains, and local/external IP addresses.(Citation: FireEye Outlook Dec 2019) Guardrails can be used to prevent exposure of capabilities in environments that are not intended to be compromised or operated within. This use of guardrails is distinct from typical [Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1497). While use of [Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1497) may involve checking for known sandbox values and continuing with execution only if there is no match, the use of guardrails will involve checking for an expected target-specific value and only continuing with execution if there is such a match. Adversaries may identify and block certain user-agents to evade defenses and narrow the scope of their attack to victims and platforms on which it will be most effective. A user-agent self-identifies data such as a user's software application, operating system, vendor, and version. Adversaries may check user-agents for operating system identification and then only serve malware for the exploitable software while ignoring all other operating systems.(Citation: Trellix-Qakbot)
Near-miss passage: T1480.002 Mutual Exclusion. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may constrain execution or actions based on the presence of a mutex associated with malware. A mutex is a locking mechanism used to synchronize access to a resource. Only one thread or process can acquire a mutex at a given time.(Citation: Microsoft Mutexes) While local mutexes only exist within a given process, allowing multiple threads to synchronize access to a resource, system mutexes can be used to synchronize the activities of multiple processes.(Citation: Microsoft Mutexes) By creating a unique system mutex associated with a particular malware, adversaries can verify whether or not a system has already been compromised.(Citation: Sans Mutexes 2012) In Linux environments, malware may instead attempt to acquire a lock on a mutex file. If the malware is able to acquire the lock, it continues to execute; if it fails, it exits to avoid creating a second instance of itself.(Citation: Intezer RedXOR 2021)(Citation: Deep Instinct BPFDoor 2023) Mutex names may be hard-coded or dynamically generated using a predictable algorithm.(Citation: ICS Mutexes 2015)
Query: SOC runbook when seeing SIEM correlation: persistence activity consistent with Implant Internal Image
Matching passage: Playbook for T1525 Implant Internal Image. 1) Validate alert telemetry against T1525. 2) Scope affected hosts and accounts. 3) Contain by isolating endpoint / disabling account if confirmed. 4) Hunt for related tactics: persistence. 5) Eradicate persistence and recover. Reference detection notes: Adversaries may implant cloud or container images with malicious code to establish persistence after gaining access to an environment. Amazon Web Services (AWS) Amazon Machine Images (AMIs), Google Cloud Platform (GCP) Images, and Azure Images as well as popular container runtimes such as Docker can be implanted or backdoored. Unlike [Upload Malware](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1608/001),
Near-miss passage: Playbook for T1078.002 Domain Accounts. Different response path focused on stealth, persistence, privilege escalation, initial access.
Query: vulnerability: The developer portal in IBM API Management 3.0 before 3.0.4.1 does not properly restrict access to the public and private APIs, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain se
Matching passage: CVE-2015-0149. CWE: CWE-264. CVSS: 5.5. The developer portal in IBM API Management 3.0 before 3.0.4.1 does not properly restrict access to the public and private APIs, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information or modify data via unspecified API calls.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-2517. CWE: CWE-264. CVSS: 6.900000095367432. The kernel-mode driver in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT Gold and 8.1, and Windows 10 allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka "Win32k Memory Corruption Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-2511, CVE-2015-2518, and CVE-2015-2546.
Query: secure coding against Use of Less Trusted Source
Matching passage: CWE-348 Use of Less Trusted Source. The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
Near-miss passage: CWE-683 Function Call With Incorrect Order of Arguments. The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies the arguments in an incorrect order, leading to resultant weaknesses.
Query: patch priority for CVE-2015-2649
Matching passage: CVE-2015-2649. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 3.5. Unspecified vulnerability in the Siebel UI Framework component in Oracle Siebel CRM 8.1.1, 8.22, and 15.0 allows remote authenticated users to affect confidentiality via vectors related to UIF Open UI.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-8059. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 10.0. Use-after-free vulnerability in Adobe Flash Player before 18.0.0.268 and 19.x and 20.x before 20.0.0.228 on Windows and OS X and before 11.2.202.554 on Linux, Adobe AIR before 20.0.0.204, Adobe AIR SDK before 20.0.0.204, and Adobe AIR SDK & Compiler before 20.0.0.204 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-8048, CVE-2015-8049, CVE-2015-8050, CVE-2015-8055, CVE-2015-8056, CVE-2015-8057, CVE-2015-8058, CVE-2015-8061, CVE-2015-8062, CVE-2015-8063, CVE-2015-8064, CVE-2015-8065, CVE-2015-8066, CVE-2015-8067, CVE-2015-8068, CVE-2015-8069, CVE-2015-8070, CVE-2015-8071, CVE-2015-8401, CVE-2015-8402, CVE-2015-8403, CVE-2015-8404, CVE-2015-8405, CVE-2015-8406, CVE-2015-8410, CVE-2015-8411, CVE-2015-8412, CVE-2015-8413, CVE-2015-8414, CVE-2015-8420, CVE-2015-8421, CVE-2015-8422, CVE-2015-8423, CVE-2015-8424, CVE-2015-8425, CVE-2015-8426, CVE-2015-8427, CVE-2015-8428, CVE-2015-8429, CVE-2015-8430, CVE-2015-8431, CVE-2015-8432, CVE-2015-8433, CVE-2015-8434, CVE-2015-8435, CVE-2015-8436, CVE-2015-8437, CVE-2015-8441, CVE-2015-8442, CVE-2015-8447, CVE-2015-8448, CVE-2015-8449, CVE-2015-8450, CVE-2015-8452, and CVE-2015-8454.
Query: common weakness: Improper Control of Dynamically-Identified Variables
Matching passage: CWE-914 Improper Control of Dynamically-Identified Variables. The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-identified variables.
Near-miss passage: CWE-1058 Invokable Control Element in Multi-Thread Context with non-Final Static Storable or Member Element. The code contains a function or method that operates in a multi-threaded environment but owns an unsafe non-final static storable or member data element.
Query: risk of Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Sun Solaris 10 and 11.2 allows local users to affect availability via unknown vectors related to Kernel.
Matching passage: CVE-2015-4869. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 4.900000095367432. Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Sun Solaris 10 and 11.2 allows local users to affect availability via unknown vectors related to Kernel.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-4745. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 7.5. Unspecified vulnerability in the Oracle Endeca Information Discovery Studio component in Oracle Fusion Middleware 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.0, and 3.1 allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to Integrator, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-2602, CVE-2015-2603, CVE-2015-2604, CVE-2015-2605, and CVE-2015-2606.
Query: rule covering detects execution of psexec or paexec with renamed service name, this rule helps to filter out the noise if psexec is us
Matching passage: Sigma rule: detects execution of psexec or paexec with renamed service name, this rule helps to filter out the noise if psexec is us. Logsource: windows / security. Rule: title: Suspicious PsExec Execution id: c462f537-a1e3-41a6-b5fc-b2c2cef9bf82 status: test description: detects execution of psexec or paexec with renamed service name, this rule helps to filter out the noise if psexec is used for legit purposes or if attacker uses a different psexec client other than sysinternal one references: - https://web.archive.org/web/20230329171218/https://blog.menasec.net/2019/02/threat-hunting-3-detecting-psexec.html author: Samir Bousseaden date: 2019-04-03 modified: 2022-08-11 tags: - attack.lateral-movement - attack.t1021.002 logsource: product: windows service: security definition: The advanced audit policy setting "Object Access > Audit Detailed File Share" must be configured for Success/Failure detection: selection1: EventID: 5145 ShareName: \\\\\*\\IPC$ RelativeTargetName|endswith: - -stdin - -stdout - -stderr filter: RelativeTargetName|startswith: PSEXESVC condition: selection1 and not filter falsepositives: - Unknown level: high
Near-miss passage: Sigma rule: Detects execution of JavaScript or JSC files using NodeJs binary node.exe, that could be potentially suspicious. Node.js. Logsource: windows / process_creation. Rule: title: NodeJS Execution of JavaScript File id: ba3874b9-0fae-465f-836c-eb5d071a1789 status: experimental description: 'Detects execution of JavaScript or JSC files using NodeJs binary node.exe, that could be potentially suspicious. Node.js is a popular open-source JavaScript runtime that runs code outside browsers and is widely used for both frontend and backend development. Adversaries have been observed abusing Node.js to disguise malware as legitimate processes, evade security defenses, and maintain persistence within target systems. Because Node.js is commonly used, this rule may generate false positives in some environments. However, if such activity is unusual in your environment, it is highly suspicious and warrants immediate investigation. ' references: - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/04/15/threat-actors-misuse-node-js-to-deliver-malware-and-other-malicious-payloads/ author: Swachchhanda Shrawan Poudel (Nextron Systems) date: 2025-04-21 tags: - attack.execution - attack.t1059.007 logsource: category: process_creation product: windows detection: selection_img: - Image|endswith: \node.exe - OriginalFileName: node.exe - Product: Node.js selection_cmd: CommandLine|contains: .js condition: all of selection_* falsepositives: - Legitimate use of node.exe to execute JavaScript or JSC files on your environment level: low
Query: describe CVE-2015-1288
Matching passage: CVE-2015-1288. CWE: CWE-17. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. The Spellcheck API implementation in Google Chrome before 44.0.2403.89 does not use an HTTPS session for downloading a Hunspell dictionary, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to deliver incorrect spelling suggestions or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted file, a related issue to CVE-2015-1263.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-5605. CWE: CWE-17. CVSS: 5.0. The regular-expression implementation in Google V8, as used in Google Chrome before 44.0.2403.89, mishandles interrupts, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via crafted JavaScript code, as demonstrated by an error in garbage collection during allocation of a stack-overflow exception message.
Query: secure coding against Exposure of Version-Control Repository to an Unauthorized Control Sphere
Matching passage: CWE-527 Exposure of Version-Control Repository to an Unauthorized Control Sphere. The product stores a CVS, git, or other repository in a directory, archive, or other resource that is stored, transferred, or otherwise made accessible to unauthorized actors.
Near-miss passage: CWE-427 Uncontrolled Search Path Element. The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
Query: CVE similar to CVE-2015-0659
Matching passage: CVE-2015-0659. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 5.0. The Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI) implementation in Cisco IOS allows remote attackers to trigger self-referential adjacencies via a crafted Autonomic Networking (AN) message, aka Bug ID CSCup62157.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-4892. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 3.5. Unspecified vulnerability in the Oracle Agile PLM component in Oracle Supply Chain Products Suite 9.3.4 allows remote authenticated users to affect integrity via unknown vectors related to Security, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-4917.
Query: mitigate Server
Matching passage: T1583.004 Server. Tactics: resource development. Description: Adversaries may buy, lease, rent, or obtain physical servers that can be used during targeting. Use of servers allows an adversary to stage, launch, and execute an operation. During post-compromise activity, adversaries may utilize servers for various tasks, such as watering hole operations in [Drive-by Compromise](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1189), enabling [Phishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566) operations, or facilitating [Command and Control](https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0011). Instead of compromising a third-party [Server](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1584/004) or renting a [Virtual Private Server](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1583/003), adversaries may opt to configure and run their own servers in support of operations. Free trial periods of cloud servers may also be abused.(Citation: Free Trial PurpleUrchin)(Citation: Freejacked) Adversaries may only need a lightweight setup if most of their activities will take place using online infrastructure. Or, they may need to build extensive infrastructure if they want to test, communicate, and control other aspects of their activities on their own systems.(Citation: NYTStuxnet)
Near-miss passage: T1583.002 DNS Server. Tactics: resource development. Description: Adversaries may set up their own Domain Name System (DNS) servers that can be used during targeting. During post-compromise activity, adversaries may utilize DNS traffic for various tasks, including for Command and Control (ex: [Application Layer Protocol](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1071)). Instead of hijacking existing DNS servers, adversaries may opt to configure and run their own DNS servers in support of operations. By running their own DNS servers, adversaries can have more control over how they administer server-side DNS C2 traffic ([DNS](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1071/004)). With control over a DNS server, adversaries can configure DNS applications to provide conditional responses to malware and, generally, have more flexibility in the structure of the DNS-based C2 channel.(Citation: Unit42 DNS Mar 2019)
Query: risk of Tor before 0.2.4.26 and 0.2.5.x before 0.2.5.11 does not properly handle pending-connection resolve states during periods of high DNS load, which allows remote attackers to cause a
Matching passage: CVE-2015-2689. CWE: CWE-20. CVSS: 7.5. Tor before 0.2.4.26 and 0.2.5.x before 0.2.5.11 does not properly handle pending-connection resolve states during periods of high DNS load, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via crafted packets.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-8738. CWE: CWE-20. CVSS: 5.5. The s7comm_decode_ud_cpu_szl_subfunc function in epan/dissectors/packet-s7comm_szl_ids.c in the S7COMM dissector in Wireshark 2.0.x before 2.0.1 does not validate the list count in an SZL response, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero error and application crash) via a crafted packet.
Query: patch priority for CVE-2015-0553
Matching passage: CVE-2015-0553. CWE: CWE-79. CVSS: 4.300000190734863. Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in admin/pages/modify.php in WebsiteBaker 2.8.3 SP3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the page_id parameter.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-1981. CWE: CWE-79. CVSS: 2.0999999046325684. Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the web server in IBM Domino 8.5.x before 8.5.3 FP6 IF8 and 9.x before 9.0.1 FP4, when Webmail is enabled, allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL, aka SPR KLYH9WYPR5.