T1090: Proxy
Adversaries may use a connection proxy to direct network traffic between systems or act as an intermediary for network communications to a command and control server to avoid direct connections to their infrastructure. Many tools exist that enable traffic redirection through proxies or port redirection, including HTRAN, ZXProxy, and ZXPortMap. [1] Adversaries use these types of proxies to manage command and control communications, reduce the number of simultaneous outbound network connections, provide resiliency in the face of connection loss, or to ride over existing trusted communications paths between victims to avoid suspicion. Adversaries may chain together multiple proxies to further disguise the source of malicious traffic.
Adversaries can also take advantage of routing schemes in Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) to proxy command and control traffic.
Analyst context for executives and security teams
Proxy use matters because it can hide command-and-control traffic behind intermediaries, trusted paths, chained hops, or CDN routing rather than obvious direct connections to adversary infrastructure. For leaders, the decision point is whether the organization can prove where outbound and lateral network traffic is going, especially across endpoints, network devices, ESXi, Linux, macOS, and Windows environments.
Executive priority
Treat T1090 as a resilience and visibility issue, not just a network-control issue. Proxying can reduce the value of simple blocklists and make incident scoping harder because defenders may only see the last intermediary. Executives should ask whether egress filtering, SSL/TLS inspection where appropriate, intrusion prevention, and network traffic filtering are deployed, governed, and evidenced well enough to support incident response and audit needs.
Technical view
SOC and IR teams should validate visibility into command-and-control paths that may traverse internal proxies, external proxies, multi-hop chains, or CDN/domain-fronting style routing. ATT&CK provides no official detection text for this parent technique, but the related detection strategy DET0445 focuses on proxy infrastructure setup and traffic bridging. Detection engineering should prioritize unusual traffic brokering patterns, unexpected systems acting as relays, abnormal egress concentration through a small number of hosts, and mismatches or anomalies in encrypted web traffic where inspection is legally and operationally permitted.
Likely telemetry
- Firewall, proxy, secure web gateway, and egress filtering logs
- Network intrusion detection/prevention alerts at boundaries
- NetFlow or equivalent network connection metadata
- DNS and CDN-related destination telemetry
- TLS/SSL inspection metadata and decrypted content where policy permits
Detection direction
- Validate whether DET0445-like analytics exist for proxy infrastructure setup and traffic bridging rather than relying only on known-bad IP or domain matching.
- Tune for hosts or network devices unexpectedly forwarding traffic, concentrating outbound sessions, or acting as intermediaries between internal systems and external destinations.
- Account for multi-hop proxy limitations: defenders may only observe the last-hop proxy, so investigation workflows should preserve connection chains and pivot across internal and boundary telemetry.
- For CDN or HTTPS-routed traffic, compare TLS, HTTP, DNS, and proxy evidence where available; note that encrypted traffic and privacy constraints can limit content inspection.
- Reduce false positives by baselining approved business proxies, remote access relays, CDN-heavy applications, and sanctioned network appliances before escalating deviations.
Mitigation priorities
- Start with network traffic filtering to restrict unnecessary ingress, egress, and lateral communications across endpoints, servers, network devices, and virtualized platforms.
- Use network intrusion prevention at boundaries to block traffic matching known malicious or policy-violating patterns.
- Apply SSL/TLS inspection selectively where legal, privacy, and operational requirements allow, with clear exception handling for sensitive traffic.
- Maintain an inventory of authorized proxies, relays, CDNs, and network paths so SOC teams can distinguish expected intermediaries from suspicious bridging behavior.
- Ensure incident response playbooks include proxy-chain scoping, last-hop analysis, and collection from network devices as well as endpoints.
Analyst notes and limits
ATT&CK links this technique to multiple sub-techniques: Internal Proxy, External Proxy, Multi-hop Proxy, and Domain Fronting. It is also associated through relationships with multiple campaigns and groups, which supports prioritizing durable detection and response coverage, but those relationships do not by themselves prove current activity in any specific environment.
The official ATT&CK object does not provide detection guidance for the parent technique. Recommendations here are derived from the supplied description, platforms, tactics, mitigations, DET0445 relationship, and sub-technique context. Local architecture, encryption policy, proxy inventory, and log availability are required to determine actual coverage.
Proxy
Adversaries may use a connection proxy to direct network traffic between systems or act as an intermediary for network communications to a command and control server to avoid direct connections to their infrastructure. Many tools exist that enable traffic redirection through proxies or port redirection, including HTRAN, ZXProxy, and ZXPortMap. [1] Adversaries use these types of proxies to manage command and control communications, reduce the number of simultaneous outbound network connections, provide resiliency in the face of connection loss, or to ride over existing trusted communications paths between victims to avoid suspicion. Adversaries may chain together multiple proxies to further disguise the source of malicious traffic.
Adversaries can also take advantage of routing schemes in Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) to proxy command and control traffic.
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.
Related techniques
This mirrors the MITRE pattern of making group, software, campaign, and technique relationships scannable. Relationship notes come from mirrored ATT&CK relationship text when available.
| Domain | ID | Name | Relationship / procedure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | T1090.001 | Internal Proxy Sub-technique | Internal Proxy subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1090.003 | Multi-hop Proxy Sub-technique | Multi-hop Proxy subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1090.004 | Domain Fronting Sub-technique | Domain Fronting subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1090.002 | External Proxy Sub-technique | External Proxy subtechnique of this object. |
Groups, software, and campaigns
G1017: Volt Typhoon
Volt Typhoon is a People's Republic of China (PRC) state-sponsored actor that has been active since at least 2021, primarily targeting critical infrastructure organizations in the US and its territories including Guam. Volt Typhoon's targeting and pattern of behavior have been assessed as pre-positioning to enable lateral movement to operational technology (OT) assets for potential destructive or disruptive attacks. Volt Typhoon has emphasized stealth in operations using web shells, living-off-the-land (LOTL) binaries, hands on keyboard activities, and stolen credentials.[1][2][3][4]. The group has leveraged compromised SOHO routers to proxy command and control traffic and obscure its infrastructure, activity associated with the KV botnet.[5].
Reporting indicates a separate initial access cluster, SYLVANITE, has been observed exploiting internet-facing edge devices and transferring access to Volt Typhoon, also tracked as VOLTZITE, for follow-on operations. [6]
G0034: Sandworm Team
Sandworm Team is a destructive threat group that has been attributed to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455.[1][2] This group has been active since at least 2009.[3][4][5][6]
In October 2020, the US indicted six GRU Unit 74455 officers associated with Sandworm Team for the following cyber operations: the 2015 and 2016 attacks against Ukrainian electrical companies and government organizations, the 2017 worldwide NotPetya attack, targeting of the 2017 French presidential campaign, the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack against the Winter Olympic Games, the 2018 operation against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and attacks against the country of Georgia in 2018 and 2019.[1][2] Some of these were conducted with the assistance of GRU Unit 26165, which is also referred to as APT28.[7]
G0010: Turla
Turla is a cyber espionage threat group that has been attributed to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). They have compromised victims in over 50 countries since at least 2004, spanning a range of industries including government, embassies, military, education, research and pharmaceutical companies. Turla is known for conducting watering hole and spearphishing campaigns, and leveraging in-house tools and malware, such as Uroburos.[1][2][3][4][5]
G0052: CopyKittens
CopyKittens is an Iranian cyber espionage group that has been operating since at least 2013. It has targeted countries including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the U.S., Jordan, and Germany. The group is responsible for the campaign known as Operation Wilted Tulip.[1][2][3]
G1054: MirrorFace
MirrorFace is a People's Republic of China (PRC)-aligned cyberespionage actor believed to be a subgroup under the menuPass umbrella based on targeting, tools, and infrastructure overlaps. MirrorFace has been active since at least 2019, at first exclusively targeting Japanese organizations across the media, defense, diplomatic, financial, manufacturing, and academic sectors. Subsequent MirrorFace operations included targets in Central Europe and featured use of LODEINFO, HiddenFace, and UPPERCUT malware.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
G1004: LAPSUS$
LAPSUS$ is cyber criminal threat group that has been active since at least mid-2021. LAPSUS$ specializes in large-scale social engineering and extortion operations, including destructive attacks without the use of ransomware. The group has targeted organizations globally, including in the government, manufacturing, higher education, energy, healthcare, technology, telecommunications, and media sectors.[1][2][3]
G0108: Blue Mockingbird
Blue Mockingbird is a cluster of observed activity involving Monero cryptocurrency-mining payloads in dynamic-link library (DLL) form on Windows systems. The earliest observed Blue Mockingbird tools were created in December 2019.[1]
G1021: Cinnamon Tempest
Cinnamon Tempest is a China-based threat group that has been active since at least 2021 deploying multiple strains of ransomware based on the leaked Babuk source code. Cinnamon Tempest does not operate their ransomware on an affiliate model or purchase access but appears to act independently in all stages of the attack lifecycle. Based on victimology, the short lifespan of each ransomware variant, and use of malware attributed to government-sponsored threat groups, Cinnamon Tempest may be motivated by intellectual property theft or cyberespionage rather than financial gain.[1][2][3][4]
G1019: MoustachedBouncer
MoustachedBouncer is a cyberespionage group that has been active since at least 2014 targeting foreign embassies in Belarus.[1]
G0124: Windigo
G1005: POLONIUM
POLONIUM is a Lebanon-based group that has primarily targeted Israeli organizations, including critical manufacturing, information technology, and defense industry companies, since at least February 2022. Security researchers assess POLONIUM has coordinated their operations with multiple actors affiliated with Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), based on victim overlap as well as common techniques and tooling.[1]
G0117: Fox Kitten
Fox Kitten is threat actor with a suspected nexus to the Iranian government that has been active since at least 2017 against entities in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, Australia, and North America. Fox Kitten has targeted multiple industrial verticals including oil and gas, technology, government, defense, healthcare, manufacturing, and engineering.[1][2][3][4]
S1210: Sagerunex
Sagerunex is a malware family exclusively associated with Lotus Blossom operations, with variants existing since at least 2016. Variations of Sagerunex leverage non-traditional command and control mechanisms such as various web services.[1][2]
S0198: NETWIRE
S1114: ZIPLINE
ZIPLINE is a passive backdoor that was used during Cutting Edge on compromised Secure Connect VPNs for reverse shell and proxy functionality.[1]
S1212: RansomHub
RansomHub is a ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) offering with Windows, ESXi, Linux, and FreeBSD versions that has been in use since at least 2024 to target organizations in multiple sectors globally. RansomHub operators may have purchased and rebranded resources from Knight (formerly Cyclops) Ransomware which shares infrastructure, feature, and code overlaps with RansomHub.[1][2]
S0669: KOCTOPUS
S0461: SDBbot
S0615: SombRAT
S0040: HTRAN
S1144: FRP
FRP, which stands for Fast Reverse Proxy, is an openly available tool that is capable of exposing a server located behind a firewall or Network Address Translation (NAT) to the Internet. FRP can support multiple protocols including TCP, UDP, and HTTP(S) and has been abused by threat actors to proxy command and control communications.[1][2][3][4]
S1229: Havoc
Havoc is an open-source post-exploitation command and control (C2) framework first released on GitHub in October 2022 by C5pider (Paul Ungur), who continues to maintain and develop it with community contributors. Havoc provides a wide range of offensive security capabilities and has been adopted by multiple threat actors to establish and maintain control over compromised systems.
S0347: AuditCred
AuditCred is a malicious DLL that has been used by Lazarus Group during their 2018 attacks.[1]
S0412: ZxShell
C0047: RedDelta Modified PlugX Infection Chain Operations
RedDelta Modified PlugX Infection Chain Operations was executed by Mustang Panda from mid-2023 through the end of 2024 against multiple entities in East and Southeast Asia. RedDelta Modified PlugX Infection Chain Operations involved phishing to deliver malicious files or links to users prompting follow-on installer downloads to load PlugX on victim machines in a persistent state.[1]
C0048: Operation MidnightEclipse
Operation MidnightEclipse was a campaign conducted in March and April 2024 that involved initial exploit of zero-day vulnerability CVE-2024-3400, a critical command injection vulnerability in the GlobalProtect feature of Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS.[1][2]
C0063: 2025 Poland Wiper Attacks
2025 Poland Wiper Attacks is a Russian state-sponsored campaign that conducted destructive cyberattacks against Polish energy infrastructure in December 2025. Targets included more than 30 wind and photovoltaic farms, a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, and a manufacturing sector company. The attacks on the distributed energy resources (DER) disrupted communications between affected facilities and the distribution system operator, but did not impact electricity generation or heat supply. Across the campaign, threat actors deployed two previously undocumented wiper tools, DynoWiper, a Windows-based wiper and LazyWiper, a PowerShell wiper, distributed via malicious Group Policy Objects. At the CHP plant, threat actors had maintained access since at least March 2025, using that foothold to obtain credentials and move laterally before attempting wiper deployment. Some reporting has assessed the activity to be consistent with Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) threat activity group Dragonfly, also tracked as STATIC TUNDRA, while other reporting attributes the destructive wiper activities to the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) threat activity group ELECTRUM, also tracked as Sandworm Team.[1][2][3][4]
C0059: Salesforce Data Exfiltration
The Salesforce Data Exfiltration campaign began in October 2024 with financially-motivated threat actor UNC6040 using Spearphishing Voice (vishing) to compromise corporate Salesforce instances for large-scale data theft and extortion. Following the initial data theft, victim organizations received extortion demands from a separate threat actor, UNC6240, who claimed to be the “ShinyHunters” group. The observed infrastructure and TTPs used during the Salesforce Data Exfiltration campaign overlap with those used by threat groups with suspected ties to the broader collective known as "The Com.” These overlaps could plausibly be the result of associated actors operating within the same communities and are not necessarily an indication of a direct operational relationship.[1][2]
C0017: C0017
C0017 was an APT41 campaign conducted between May 2021 and February 2022 that successfully compromised at least six U.S. state government networks through the exploitation of vulnerable Internet facing web applications. During C0017, APT41 was quick to adapt and use publicly-disclosed as well as zero-day vulnerabilities for initial access, and in at least two cases re-compromised victims following remediation efforts. The goals of C0017 are unknown, however APT41 was observed exfiltrating Personal Identifiable Information (PII).[1]
C0056: RedPenguin
The RedPenguin project was launched by Juniper in July 2024 to investigate reported malware infections of Juniper MX Series routers. RedPenguin activity was separately attributed to UNC3886 and included the deployment of multiple custom versions of the publicly-available TINYSHELL backdoor on Juniper routers.[1][2]
C0014: Operation Wocao
Operation Wocao was a cyber espionage campaign that targeted organizations around the world, including in Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The suspected China-based actors compromised government organizations and managed service providers, as well as aviation, construction, energy, finance, health care, insurance, offshore engineering, software development, and transportation companies.[1]
Security researchers assessed the Operation Wocao actors used similar TTPs and tools as APT20, suggesting a possible overlap. Operation Wocao was named after an observed command line entry by one of the threat actors, possibly out of frustration from losing webshell access.[1]
C0058: SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation
The SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation campaign was conducted in July 2025 and encompassed the first waves of exploitation against incompletely patched spoofing (CVE-2025-49706) and remote code execution (CVE-2025-49704) vulnerabilities affecting on-premises Microsoft SharePoint servers. Later patched and updated as CVE-2025-53770 and CVE-2025-53771, the ToolShell vulnerabilities were widely exploited including by China-based ransomware actor Storm-2603 and espionage actors Threat Group-3390 and ZIRCONIUM. SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation targeted multiple regions and industries including finance, education, energy, and healthcare across Asia, Europe, and the United States.[1][2][3][4][5]
All related ATT&CK context
Mitigation direction
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 | 3.2 | Current bundle | 793148620802… |
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]
Trend Micro APT Attack Tools
Wilhoit, K. (2013, March 4). In-Depth Look: APT Attack Tools of the Trade. Retrieved December 2, 2015.
Open source URL -
[2]
University of Birmingham C2
Gardiner, J., Cova, M., Nagaraja, S. (2014, February). Command & Control Understanding, Denying and Detecting. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
Open source URL -
[3]
mitre-attack T1090Open 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.