AN1856: Analytic 1856
Monitor and analyze traffic patterns and packet inspection associated to protocol(s) that do not follow the expected protocol standards and traffic flows (e.g., extraneous packets that do not belong to established flows, gratuitous or anomalous traffic patterns, anomalous syntax, or structure). Consider correlation with process monitoring and command line to detect anomalous processes execution and command line arguments associated to traffic patterns (e.g., monitor anomalies in use of files that do not normally initiate connections for respective protocol(s)). Monitor network data for uncommon data flows. Processes utilizing the network that do not normally have network communication or have never been seen before are suspicious. Monitor for application logging, messaging, and/or other artifacts that may result from Denial of Service (DoS) attacks which degrade or block the availability of services to users. In addition to network level detections, endpoint logging and instrumentation can be useful for detection. Monitor operational data for indicators of temporary data loss which may indicate a Denial of Service. This will not directly detect the technique’s execution, but instead may provide additional evidence that the technique has been used and may complement other detections.
Analyst context for executives and security teams
AN1856 is an ICS detection analytic focused on recognizing abnormal network behavior and service availability symptoms that may indicate denial-of-service activity. Its business value is in helping teams validate whether they can see unusual protocol traffic, uncommon data flows, unexpected network use by processes, and operational signs of temporary data loss before these conditions affect service continuity.
Executive priority
Prioritize this analytic where availability of industrial or operational services is a business-critical risk. Leaders should ask whether network monitoring, endpoint/process visibility, application logs, and operational data are collected and correlated well enough to support rapid incident triage, outage explanation, and compliance evidence. The key decision is not whether a single alert exists, but whether defenders can distinguish abnormal traffic and service degradation from normal operational variance.
Technical view
SOC, detection engineering, and IR teams should validate coverage for anomalous protocol behavior, extraneous packets outside expected flows, unusual traffic syntax or structure, uncommon data flows, and processes that unexpectedly initiate network communication. Because the object has no supplied platform or tactic fields and no separate official detection logic, teams should treat this as a detection strategy requiring local baselining, packet or flow inspection, process monitoring, command-line context, application logging, and operational indicators of temporary data loss.
Likely telemetry
- Network traffic metadata and flow records
- Packet inspection or protocol-analysis data
- Application logs and messaging artifacts related to service availability
- Endpoint process execution telemetry
- Command-line telemetry associated with network-using processes
Detection direction
- Baseline expected protocol standards, traffic flows, and normal communicating processes in the ICS environment.
- Tune for extraneous packets, gratuitous traffic, anomalous syntax or structure, and uncommon data flows.
- Correlate network anomalies with process execution and command-line evidence to reduce ambiguity.
- Use application and operational data as supporting evidence for denial-of-service conditions rather than as sole proof of technique execution.
- Account for false positives from maintenance, commissioning, testing, misconfiguration, or legitimate changes in operational traffic patterns.
Mitigation priorities
- Confirm visibility first: network, endpoint/process, application, and operational telemetry must be available for investigation.
- Define normal traffic patterns and process-to-network expectations for critical services.
- Establish triage playbooks that connect traffic anomalies to service degradation and temporary data-loss indicators.
- Review monitoring gaps that could prevent distinguishing malicious denial-of-service behavior from operational faults.
- Use findings to prioritize resilience planning, incident response readiness, and evidence collection for critical ICS services.
Analyst notes and limits
This object is a detection analytic in the ICS ATT&CK domain. It provides useful monitoring themes but no explicit platform, tactic, relationship context, or formal detection logic. The strongest defensive use is as a validation checklist for whether teams can correlate abnormal traffic behavior with endpoint and operational evidence.
No relationships, platforms, tactics, labels, or official detection implementation were supplied. Conclusions should be adapted to the local ICS architecture, normal operating patterns, logging maturity, and available sensor coverage.
Analytic 1856
Monitor and analyze traffic patterns and packet inspection associated to protocol(s) that do not follow the expected protocol standards and traffic flows (e.g., extraneous packets that do not belong to established flows, gratuitous or anomalous traffic patterns, anomalous syntax, or structure). Consider correlation with process monitoring and command line to detect anomalous processes execution and command line arguments associated to traffic patterns (e.g., monitor anomalies in use of files that do not normally initiate connections for respective protocol(s)). Monitor network data for uncommon data flows. Processes utilizing the network that do not normally have network communication or have never been seen before are suspicious. Monitor for application logging, messaging, and/or other artifacts that may result from Denial of Service (DoS) attacks which degrade or block the availability of services to users. In addition to network level detections, endpoint logging and instrumentation can be useful for detection. Monitor operational data for indicators of temporary data loss which may indicate a Denial of Service. This will not directly detect the technique’s execution, but instead may provide additional evidence that the technique has been used and may complement other detections.
How security teams should use this page
Treat this object as behavior context, not an attribution claim. Validate the related groups, software, data sources, and mitigations against official ATT&CK relationships and your own telemetry before making control-coverage decisions.
All related ATT&CK context
No relationships are available in the current normalized data for this object.
Object version and sync metadata
The fields below describe the current mirrored snapshot. When Glexia retains multiple ATT&CK source imports, you can open the table to compare the same object across releases (hashes and MITRE timestamps). For MITRE’s own release notes and roadmap, see ATT&CK resources — Updates .
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.1 | 1.0 | Current bundle | 297ee0862d08… |
Mirrored ATT&CK source object
The raw object is retained through the mirrored ATT&CK source bundle and object hash. The raw endpoint returns the exact object from the mirrored bundle when available.
External references and citations
MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.
-
[1]
mitre-attack AN1856Open source URL
Source: MITRE ATT&CK®. © 2026 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Glexia is not affiliated with or endorsed by MITRE.