Query: Multiple failed authentications followed by 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: T1684.002 Email Spoofing. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may fake, or spoof, a sender’s identity by modifying the value of relevant email headers in order to establish contact with victims under false pretenses.(Citation: Proofpoint TA427 April 2024) In addition to actual email content, email headers (such as the FROM header, which contains the email address of the sender) may also be modified. Email clients display these headers when emails appear in a victim's inbox, which may cause modified emails to appear as if they were from the spoofed entity. Enterprise environments can use Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) as an email authentication protocol that references results of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) configurations. SPF and DKIM are configured separately in DNS: SPF verifies that the sending server is authorized for the domain, while DKIM uses a digital signature to verify email integrity and domain authentication. Together, they validate email authenticity and specify how receiving servers should handle authentication failures. Without enforced identity authentication, adversaries may compromise the integrity of an authentication check with altered headers that would not have otherwise passed.(Citation: Cloudflare DMARC, DKIM, and SPF)(Citation: DMARC-overview)(Citation: Proofpoint-DMARC) An example of a weak or absent DMARC policy is `v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1;`. The `p=none`. The `p=none` indicates no action should be taken, and therefore no filtering action will take place, even if an email fails authentication checks (i.e., SPF and/or DKIM fail). When a DMARC policy indicates no action, the email will still be delivered to the victim’s inbox.(Citation: ic3-dprk) Adversaries have abused weak or absent DMARC policies to circumvent authentication checks and conceal social engineering attempts. Adversaries can alter email headers to include legitimate domain names with fake usernames or impersonate legitimate users via [Imperso