ATT&CK Technique
Dylib Hijacking
T1157 · persistence, privilege-escalation
▤ Generate a SIEM detection for T1157
◈ Deployable detections for T1157
⚠ CVEs mapped to T1157
♛ Hunt package for T1157
macOS and OS X use a common method to look for required dynamic libraries (dylib) to load into a program based on search paths. Adversaries can take advantage of ambiguous paths to plant dylibs to gain privilege escalation or persistence. A common method is to see what dylibs an application uses, then plant a malicious version with the same name higher up in the search path.
This typically results in the dylib being in the same folder as the application itself. If the program is configured to run at a higher privilege level than the current user, then when the dylib is loaded into the application, the dylib will also run at that elevated level. This can be used by adversaries as a privilege escalation technique.
macOS
▸
How to use this page - the detection-engineering loop
Attackers have goals (tactics - “get credentials”, “move laterally”) and techniques are the concrete methods they use to reach them. This page is one method - T1157 - broken into everything you need to catch it.
The loop this page is built for (this is the job):
- Understand the behaviour - read the description and the Atomic Tests to see exactly what the attacker does on a host or network.
- Find the telemetry - what data source would reveal it (process creation, registry, network flow, auth logs). Detection Coverage shows which surfaces already have a rule and which are blind.
- Get or write the detection - adapt ready logic (CAR Analytics, SIEM Detections, Falco, or Sigma via Generate a SIEM detection), or author your own.
- Test it - run an Atomic Test in a lab and confirm your rule actually fires. A detection you have not tested is a hope, not coverage.
- Deploy and tune - push it, then watch for false positives and adjust.
What each panel is for:
Atomic Testssafely reproduce the technique in a lab to validate that a detection fires.
Detection Coveragewhich detection surfaces have a rule for this technique; none is a blind spot to close, or simply not applicable (YARA matches files, not network behaviour).
CAR / SIEM / Falcoready-made detection logic (Splunk SPL, Elastic EQL, Sentinel KQL, Falco) you adapt to your own SIEM.
Mitigationsreduce exposure so the technique is harder to use at all - prevent, not just detect.
Actors / Attributionwho actually uses this, so you prioritise by your own threat model.
Attack Path / LOTLwhat attackers do before and after this step, and the legitimate tools they abuse to do it.
Where this fits: you usually arrive here from a CVE (“which techniques does it enable”) and leave with a tested detection deployed. The buttons above jump straight to building one, the deployable rules, the CVEs that use T1157, and a hunt package.
◈
Detection Coverage
0/9 layersCoverage across standard detection surfaces. Rows marked none have no rule of that type mapped. Some are real blind spots worth closing; others are simply not applicable to this technique (e.g. YARA matches malware files, not network behaviour).
Behavioral / log (Sigma)
none
Analytics (MITRE CAR)
none
Runtime / container (Falco)
none
File / malware (YARA)
none
Network (Suricata/Snort)
none
Vuln scan (Nuclei)
none
SIEM (Splunk ESCU)
none
SIEM (Elastic)
none
SIEM (Azure Sentinel)
none
External lookups - second-class, for what we don’t hold ourselves