alirezaaminzadeh/secembed-pairs huggingface dataset:
Query: patch priority for CVE-2015-6541
Matching passage: CVE-2015-6541. CWE: CWE-352. CVSS: 8.800000190734863. Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the Mail interface in Zimbra Collaboration Server (ZCS) before 8.5 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that change account preferences via a SOAP request to service/soap/BatchRequest.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-3355. CWE: CWE-352. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the Batch Jobs module before 7.x-1.2 for Drupal allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of certain users for requests that (1) delete a batch job record or (2) execute a task via unspecified vectors.
Query: describe CVE-2015-7813
Matching passage: CVE-2015-7813. CWE: CWE-399. CVSS: 2.0999999046325684. Xen 4.4.x, 4.5.x, and 4.6.x does not limit the number of printk console messages when reporting unimplemented hypercalls, which allows local guests to cause a denial of service via a sequence of (1) HYPERVISOR_physdev_op hypercalls, which are not properly handled in the do_physdev_op function in arch/arm/physdev.c, or (2) HYPERVISOR_hvm_op hypercalls, which are not properly handled in the do_hvm_op function in arch/arm/hvm.c.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-8858. CWE: CWE-399. CVSS: 7.5. The uglify-js package before 2.6.0 for Node.js allows attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via crafted input in a parse call, aka a "regular expression denial of service (ReDoS)."
Query: explain T1568.002 Domain Generation Algorithms
Matching passage: T1568.002 Domain Generation Algorithms. Tactics: command and control. Description: Adversaries may make use of Domain Generation Algorithms (DGAs) to dynamically identify a destination domain for command and control traffic rather than relying on a list of static IP addresses or domains. This has the advantage of making it much harder for defenders to block, track, or take over the command and control channel, as there potentially could be thousands of domains that malware can check for instructions.(Citation: Cybereason Dissecting DGAs)(Citation: Cisco Umbrella DGA)(Citation: Unit 42 DGA Feb 2019) DGAs can take the form of apparently random or “gibberish” strings (ex: istgmxdejdnxuyla.ru) when they construct domain names by generating each letter. Alternatively, some DGAs employ whole words as the unit by concatenating words together instead of letters (ex: cityjulydish.net). Many DGAs are time-based, generating a different domain for each time period (hourly, daily, monthly, etc). Others incorporate a seed value as well to make predicting future domains more difficult for defenders.(Citation: Cybereason Dissecting DGAs)(Citation: Cisco Umbrella DGA)(Citation: Talos CCleanup 2017)(Citation: Akamai DGA Mitigation) Adversaries may use DGAs for the purpose of [Fallback Channels](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1008). When contact is lost with the primary command and control server malware may employ a DGA as a means to reestablishing command and control.(Citation: Talos CCleanup 2017)(Citation: FireEye POSHSPY April 2017)(Citation: ESET Sednit 2017 Activity)
Near-miss passage: T1568.003 DNS Calculation. Tactics: command and control. Description: Adversaries may perform calculations on addresses returned in DNS results to determine which port and IP address to use for command and control, rather than relying on a predetermined port number or the actual returned IP address. A IP and/or port number calculation can be used to bypass egress filtering on a C2 channel.(Citation: Meyers Numbered Panda) One implementation of [DNS Calculation](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1568/003) is to take the first three octets of an IP address in a DNS response and use those values to calculate the port for command and control traffic.(Citation: Meyers Numbered Panda)(Citation: Moran 2014)(Citation: Rapid7G20Espionage)
Query: intelligence brief on T1218.008
Matching passage: T1218.008 Odbcconf. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may abuse odbcconf.exe to proxy execution of malicious payloads. Odbcconf.exe is a Windows utility that allows you to configure Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) drivers and data source names.(Citation: Microsoft odbcconf.exe) The Odbcconf.exe binary may be digitally signed by Microsoft. Adversaries may abuse odbcconf.exe to bypass application control solutions that do not account for its potential abuse. Similar to [Regsvr32](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1218/010), odbcconf.exe has a <code>REGSVR</code> flag that can be misused to execute DLLs (ex: <code>odbcconf.exe /S /A &lbrace;REGSVR "C:\Users\Public\file.dll"&rbrace;</code>). (Citation: LOLBAS Odbcconf)(Citation: TrendMicro Squiblydoo Aug 2017)(Citation: TrendMicro Cobalt Group Nov 2017)
Near-miss passage: T1218.009 Regsvcs/Regasm. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may abuse Regsvcs and Regasm to proxy execution of code through a trusted Windows utility. Regsvcs and Regasm are Windows command-line utilities that are used to register .NET [Component Object Model](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1559/001) (COM) assemblies. Both are binaries that may be digitally signed by Microsoft. (Citation: MSDN Regsvcs) (Citation: MSDN Regasm) Both utilities may be used to bypass application control through use of attributes within the binary to specify code that should be run before registration or unregistration: <code>[ComRegisterFunction]</code> or <code>[ComUnregisterFunction]</code> respectively. The code with the registration and unregistration attributes will be executed even if the process is run under insufficient privileges and fails to execute. (Citation: LOLBAS Regsvcs)(Citation: LOLBAS Regasm)
Query: mitigate Endpoint Denial of Service
Matching passage: T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service. Tactics: impact. Description: Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users. Endpoint DoS can be performed by exhausting the system resources those services are hosted on or exploiting the system to cause a persistent crash condition. Example services include websites, email services, DNS, and web-based applications. Adversaries have been observed conducting DoS attacks for political purposes(Citation: FireEye OpPoisonedHandover February 2016) and to support other malicious activities, including distraction(Citation: FSISAC FraudNetDoS September 2012), hacktivism, and extortion.(Citation: Symantec DDoS October 2014) An Endpoint DoS denies the availability of a service without saturating the network used to provide access to the service. Adversaries can target various layers of the application stack that is hosted on the system used to provide the service. These layers include the Operating Systems (OS), server applications such as web servers, DNS servers, databases, and the (typically web-based) applications that sit on top of them. Attacking each layer requires different techniques that take advantage of bottlenecks that are unique to the respective components. A DoS attack may be generated by a single system or multiple systems spread across the internet, which is commonly referred to as a distributed DoS (DDoS). To perform DoS attacks against endpoint resources, several aspects apply to multiple methods, including IP address spoofing and botnets. Adversaries may use the original IP address of an attacking system, or spoof the source IP address to make the attack traffic more difficult to trace back to the attacking system or to enable reflection. This can increase the difficulty defenders have in defending against the attack by reducing or eliminating the effectiveness of filtering by the source address on network defense devices. Botnets are commonly used to conduct DDoS attacks against networks and services. Large
Near-miss passage: T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood. Tactics: impact. Description: Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications. For example, specific features in web applications may be highly resource intensive. Repeated requests to those features may be able to exhaust system resources and deny access to the application or the server itself.(Citation: Arbor AnnualDoSreport Jan 2018)
Query: risk of CoreText in Apple OS X before 10.11.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted font file.
Matching passage: CVE-2015-5944. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. CoreText in Apple OS X before 10.11.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted font file.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-4485. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 10.0. Heap-based buffer overflow in the resize_context_buffers function in libvpx in Mozilla Firefox before 40.0 and Firefox ESR 38.x before 38.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via malformed WebM video data.
Query: exploit 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 bypass intended restrictions on JavaScript API execution via unspecified
Matching passage: CVE-2015-3062. CWE: CWE-284. 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 bypass intended restrictions on JavaScript API execution via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-3060, CVE-2015-3061, CVE-2015-3063, CVE-2015-3064, CVE-2015-3065, CVE-2015-3066, CVE-2015-3067, CVE-2015-3068, CVE-2015-3069, CVE-2015-3071, CVE-2015-3072, CVE-2015-3073, and CVE-2015-3074.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-6984. CWE: CWE-284. CVSS: 8.800000190734863. libarchive in Apple OS X before 10.11.1 allows attackers to write to arbitrary files via a crafted app that conducts an unspecified symlink attack.
Query: risk of rsyslog uses weak permissions for generating log files, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading files in /var/log/cron.
Matching passage: CVE-2015-3243. CWE: CWE-532. CVSS: 5.5. rsyslog uses weak permissions for generating log files, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading files in /var/log/cron.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-8977. CWE: CWE-532. CVSS: 7.5. MyBB (aka MyBulletinBoard) before 1.6.18 and 1.8.x before 1.8.6 and MyBB Merge System before 1.8.6 allow remote attackers to obtain the installation path via vectors involving error log files.
Query: risk of Double free vulnerability in the opj_j2k_copy_default_tcp_and_create_tcd function in j2k.c in OpenJPEG before r3002, as used in PDFium in Google Chrome before 45.0.2454.85, allows 
Matching passage: CVE-2015-6581. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 7.5. Double free vulnerability in the opj_j2k_copy_default_tcp_and_create_tcd function in j2k.c in OpenJPEG before r3002, as used in PDFium in Google Chrome before 45.0.2454.85, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (heap memory corruption) by triggering a memory-allocation failure.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-4755. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 5.0. Unspecified vulnerability in the RDBMS Security component in Oracle Database Server 12.1.0.2 allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality via unknown vectors.
Query: CVE similar to CVE-2015-8124
Matching passage: CVE-2015-8124. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. Session fixation vulnerability in the "Remember Me" login feature in Symfony 2.3.x before 2.3.35, 2.6.x before 2.6.12, and 2.7.x before 2.7.7 allows remote attackers to hijack web sessions via a session id.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-3118. CWE: UNKNOWN. CVSS: 10.0. Use-after-free vulnerability in Adobe Flash Player before 13.0.0.302 and 14.x through 18.x before 18.0.0.203 on Windows and OS X and before 11.2.202.481 on Linux, Adobe AIR before 18.0.0.180, Adobe AIR SDK before 18.0.0.180, and Adobe AIR SDK & Compiler before 18.0.0.180 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-3124, CVE-2015-3127, CVE-2015-3128, CVE-2015-3129, CVE-2015-3131, CVE-2015-3132, CVE-2015-3136, CVE-2015-3137, CVE-2015-4428, CVE-2015-4430, and CVE-2015-5117.
Query: SOC alert related to Code Signing Certificates
Matching passage: T1587.002 Code Signing Certificates. Tactics: resource development. Description: Adversaries may create self-signed code signing certificates that can be used during targeting. Code signing is the process of digitally signing executables and scripts to confirm the software author and guarantee that the code has not been altered or corrupted. Code signing provides a level of authenticity for a program from the developer and a guarantee that the program has not been tampered with.(Citation: Wikipedia Code Signing) Users and/or security tools may trust a signed piece of code more than an unsigned piece of code even if they don't know who issued the certificate or who the author is. Prior to [Code Signing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1553/002), adversaries may develop self-signed code signing certificates for use in operations.
Near-miss passage: T1587.001 Malware. Tactics: resource development. Description: Adversaries may develop malware and malware components that can be used during targeting. Building malicious software can include the development of payloads, droppers, post-compromise tools, backdoors (including backdoored images), packers, C2 protocols, and the creation of infected removable media. Adversaries may develop malware to support their operations, creating a means for maintaining control of remote machines, evading defenses, and executing post-compromise behaviors.(Citation: Mandiant APT1)(Citation: Kaspersky Sofacy)(Citation: ActiveMalwareEnergy)(Citation: FBI Flash FIN7 USB) During malware development, adversaries may intentionally include indicators aligned with other known actors in order to mislead attribution by defenders.(Citation: Olympic Destroyer)(Citation: Risky Bulletin Threat actor impersonates FSB APT)(Citation: GamaCopy organization) As with legitimate development efforts, different skill sets may be required for developing malware. The skills needed may be located in-house, or may need to be contracted out. Use of a contractor may be considered an extension of that adversary's malware development capabilities, provided the adversary plays a role in shaping requirements and maintains a degree of exclusivity to the malware. Some aspects of malware development, such as C2 protocol development, may require adversaries to obtain additional infrastructure. For example, malware developed that will communicate with Twitter for C2, may require use of [Web Services](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1583/006).(Citation: FireEye APT29)
Query: how to detect Search Open Websites/Domains
Matching passage: T1593 Search Open Websites/Domains. Tactics: reconnaissance. Description: Adversaries may search freely available websites and/or domains for information about victims that can be used during targeting. Information about victims may be available in various online sites, such as social media, new sites, or those hosting information about business operations such as hiring or requested/rewarded contracts.(Citation: Cyware Social Media)(Citation: SecurityTrails Google Hacking)(Citation: ExploitDB GoogleHacking) Adversaries may search in different online sites depending on what information they seek to gather. Information from these sources may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1598) or [Search Open Technical Databases](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1596)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Establish Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1585) or [Compromise Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1586)), and/or initial access (ex: [External Remote Services](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1133) or [Phishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566)).
Near-miss passage: T1593.003 Code Repositories. Tactics: reconnaissance. Description: Adversaries may search public code repositories for information about victims that can be used during targeting. Victims may store code in repositories on various third-party websites such as GitHub, GitLab, SourceForge, and BitBucket. Users typically interact with code repositories through a web application or command-line utilities such as git. Adversaries may search various public code repositories for various information about a victim. Public code repositories can often be a source of various general information about victims, such as commonly used programming languages and libraries as well as the names of employees. Adversaries may also identify more sensitive data, including accidentally leaked credentials or API keys.(Citation: GitHub Cloud Service Credentials) Information from these sources may reveal opportunities for other forms of reconnaissance (ex: [Phishing for Information](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1598)), establishing operational resources (ex: [Compromise Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1586) or [Compromise Infrastructure](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1584)), and/or initial access (ex: [Valid Accounts](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1078) or [Phishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566)). **Note:** This is distinct from [Code Repositories](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1213/003), which focuses on [Collection](https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0009) from private and internally hosted code repositories.
Query: detect Hidden File System
Matching passage: T1564.005 Hidden File System. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may use a hidden file system to conceal malicious activity from users and security tools. File systems provide a structure to store and access data from physical storage. Typically, a user engages with a file system through applications that allow them to access files and directories, which are an abstraction from their physical location (ex: disk sector). Standard file systems include FAT, NTFS, ext4, and APFS. File systems can also contain other structures, such as the Volume Boot Record (VBR) and Master File Table (MFT) in NTFS.(Citation: MalwareTech VFS Nov 2014) Adversaries may use their own abstracted file system, separate from the standard file system present on the infected system. In doing so, adversaries can hide the presence of malicious components and file input/output from security tools. Hidden file systems, sometimes referred to as virtual file systems, can be implemented in numerous ways. One implementation would be to store a file system in reserved disk space unused by disk structures or standard file system partitions.(Citation: MalwareTech VFS Nov 2014)(Citation: FireEye Bootkits) Another implementation could be for an adversary to drop their own portable partition image as a file on top of the standard file system.(Citation: ESET ComRAT May 2020) Adversaries may also fragment files across the existing file system structure in non-standard ways.(Citation: Kaspersky Equation QA)
Near-miss passage: T1564.007 VBA Stomping. Tactics: stealth. Description: Adversaries may hide malicious Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) payloads embedded within MS Office documents by replacing the VBA source code with benign data.(Citation: FireEye VBA stomp Feb 2020) MS Office documents with embedded VBA content store source code inside of module streams. Each module stream has a <code>PerformanceCache</code> that stores a separate compiled version of the VBA source code known as p-code. The p-code is executed when the MS Office version specified in the <code>_VBA_PROJECT</code> stream (which contains the version-dependent description of the VBA project) matches the version of the host MS Office application.(Citation: Evil Clippy May 2019)(Citation: Microsoft _VBA_PROJECT Stream) An adversary may hide malicious VBA code by overwriting the VBA source code location with zero’s, benign code, or random bytes while leaving the previously compiled malicious p-code. Tools that scan for malicious VBA source code may be bypassed as the unwanted code is hidden in the compiled p-code. If the VBA source code is removed, some tools might even think that there are no macros present. If there is a version match between the <code>_VBA_PROJECT</code> stream and host MS Office application, the p-code will be executed, otherwise the benign VBA source code will be decompressed and recompiled to p-code, thus removing malicious p-code and potentially bypassing dynamic analysis.(Citation: Walmart Roberts Oct 2018)(Citation: FireEye VBA stomp Feb 2020)(Citation: pcodedmp Bontchev)
Query: exploit CoreMedia Playback in Apple iOS before 8.4.1 and OS X before 10.10.5 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and applicati
Matching passage: CVE-2015-5777. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. CoreMedia Playback in Apple iOS before 8.4.1 and OS X before 10.10.5 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted movie file, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-5778.
Near-miss passage: CVE-2015-3794. CWE: CWE-119. CVSS: 6.800000190734863. The Speech UI in Apple OS X before 10.10.5, when speech alerts are enabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted Unicode string.