Live Active security incident? Get immediate response
MITRE ATT&CK® Technique

T1110.001: Password Guessing

Adversaries with no prior knowledge of legitimate credentials within the system or environment may guess passwords to attempt access to accounts. Without knowledge of the password for an account, an adversary may opt to systematically guess the password using a repetitive or iterative mechanism. An adversary may guess login credentials without prior knowledge of system or environment passwords during an operation by using a list of common passwords. Password guessing may or may not take into account the target's policies on password complexity or use policies that may lock accounts out after a number of failed attempts.

Guessing passwords can be a risky option because it could cause numerous authentication failures and account lockouts, depending on the organization's login failure policies. [1]

Typically, management services over commonly used ports are used when guessing passwords. Commonly targeted services include the following:

* SSH (22/TCP) * Telnet (23/TCP) * FTP (21/TCP) * NetBIOS / SMB / Samba (139/TCP & 445/TCP) * LDAP (389/TCP) * Kerberos (88/TCP) * RDP / Terminal Services (3389/TCP) * HTTP/HTTP Management Services (80/TCP & 443/TCP) * MSSQL (1433/TCP) * Oracle (1521/TCP) * MySQL (3306/TCP) * VNC (5900/TCP) * SNMP (161/UDP and 162/TCP/UDP)

In addition to management services, adversaries may "target single sign-on (SSO) and cloud-based applications utilizing federated authentication protocols," as well as externally facing email applications, such as Office 365.[2]. Further, adversaries may abuse network device interfaces (such as `wlanAPI`) to brute force accessible wifi-router(s) via wireless authentication protocols.[3]

In default environments, LDAP and Kerberos connection attempts are less likely to trigger events over SMB, which creates Windows "logon failure" event ID 4625.

EnterpriseT1110.001Sub-techniqueObject v1.7 Modified
Discuss defensive coverage Back to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence High

Password Guessing matters because it turns weak or predictable passwords into a direct path to account access across many business-critical entry points: identity providers, SaaS and office platforms, cloud services, VPN-like management interfaces, servers, network devices, ESXi, containers, and traditional Windows/Linux/macOS services. For leaders, the practical issue is not only whether passwords are “strong,” but whether the organization can see repeated authentication failures across all major login surfaces before account lockouts, service disruption, or unauthorized access create an incident.

Executive priority

Treat this as an identity and access resilience issue, not just a password hygiene problem. The ATT&CK object spans enterprise platforms including Identity Provider, IaaS, SaaS, Office Suite, network devices, ESXi, containers, and operating systems, so ownership often crosses IAM, cloud, infrastructure, SOC, and compliance teams. Executives should ask: which externally reachable and privileged services still rely heavily on passwords; where MFA, password policy, and account-use policy are enforced; and whether audit evidence proves failed-login monitoring is complete across cloud, SSO, email, remote administration, and legacy protocols.

Technical view

This is a credential-access sub-technique of Brute Force focused on attempts to guess unknown passwords through repetitive or iterative logins. ATT&CK notes commonly targeted services such as SSH, Telnet, FTP, SMB/Samba, LDAP, Kerberos, RDP, HTTP/HTTPS management services, MSSQL, Oracle, MySQL, VNC, and SNMP, as well as SSO, federated cloud applications, externally facing email applications, and network device interfaces. Because no official detection text is provided, SOC teams should validate coverage using the related detection strategy DET0551: multi-source authentication failure correlation. A key ATT&CK-noted blind spot is that LDAP and Kerberos attempts may be less likely than SMB to produce Windows logon failure event ID 4625 in default environments, so Windows event monitoring alone may be insufficient.

Likely telemetry

  • Identity provider and SSO authentication success/failure logs
  • SaaS and office suite sign-in logs, including externally facing email applications
  • Cloud/IaaS control-plane authentication logs
  • Windows security logs, including logon failure events where generated
  • LDAP and Kerberos authentication telemetry

Detection direction

  • Validate multi-source correlation for repeated authentication failures by account, source, destination service, protocol, geography/network location, and time window.
  • Do not rely only on Windows event ID 4625; ATT&CK specifically notes LDAP and Kerberos attempts may be less visible than SMB in default environments.
  • Tune detections to distinguish password guessing from normal user error, password changes, expired credentials, service account misconfiguration, vulnerability scanning, and administrative testing.
  • Prioritize visibility for internet-facing authentication surfaces, SSO/federated authentication, office/email applications, remote management protocols, and privileged or high-value accounts.
  • Use relationship context from ATT&CK to inform threat modeling: multiple groups and software entries are associated with this technique, but local telemetry is required to determine relevance or exposure.

Mitigation priorities

  • Enforce strong password policies as represented by M1027, including complexity, length, history, and reuse prevention where supported by the environment.
  • Apply MFA as represented by M1032, prioritizing privileged accounts, externally accessible services, SSO/cloud applications, and remote administration paths.
  • Use account use policies as represented by M1036, including lockout or throttling behavior, login restrictions, and inactivity controls, while balancing business continuity risks from excessive lockouts.
  • Keep exposed services, operating systems, applications, drivers, and firmware updated in line with M1051 to reduce the broader attack surface around authentication services and management interfaces.
  • Review which legacy or management protocols are exposed and whether monitoring, MFA, password policy, and account restrictions are consistently enforced across them.
Analyst notes and limits

ATT&CK provides no official detection narrative for this sub-technique, but the related DET0551 detection strategy supports a correlation-led approach across authentication sources. The relationship set includes several groups and software entries that use Password Guessing, which supports prioritizing this behavior in threat models, but it should not be interpreted as evidence of active targeting in any specific environment.

This take is based only on the supplied ATT&CK STIX fields, external references, and relationships. It does not establish that any organization is exposed, compromised, or covered by detection. Actual risk depends on local service exposure, authentication architecture, password and MFA enforcement, logging configuration, retention, and SOC correlation maturity.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Password Guessing

Adversaries with no prior knowledge of legitimate credentials within the system or environment may guess passwords to attempt access to accounts. Without knowledge of the password for an account, an adversary may opt to systematically guess the password using a repetitive or iterative mechanism. An adversary may guess login credentials without prior knowledge of system or environment passwords during an operation by using a list of common passwords. Password guessing may or may not take into account the target's policies on password complexity or use policies that may lock accounts out after a number of failed attempts.

Guessing passwords can be a risky option because it could cause numerous authentication failures and account lockouts, depending on the organization's login failure policies. [1]

Typically, management services over commonly used ports are used when guessing passwords. Commonly targeted services include the following:

* SSH (22/TCP) * Telnet (23/TCP) * FTP (21/TCP) * NetBIOS / SMB / Samba (139/TCP & 445/TCP) * LDAP (389/TCP) * Kerberos (88/TCP) * RDP / Terminal Services (3389/TCP) * HTTP/HTTP Management Services (80/TCP & 443/TCP) * MSSQL (1433/TCP) * Oracle (1521/TCP) * MySQL (3306/TCP) * VNC (5900/TCP) * SNMP (161/UDP and 162/TCP/UDP)

In addition to management services, adversaries may "target single sign-on (SSO) and cloud-based applications utilizing federated authentication protocols," as well as externally facing email applications, such as Office 365.[2]. Further, adversaries may abuse network device interfaces (such as `wlanAPI`) to brute force accessible wifi-router(s) via wireless authentication protocols.[3]

In default environments, LDAP and Kerberos connection attempts are less likely to trigger events over SMB, which creates Windows "logon failure" event ID 4625.

View the same entry on attack.mitre.org (MITRE-hosted reference; in-page links above use the Glexia ATT&CK library.)

Glexia analysis

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.

ATT&CK relationship table

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.

1 rows
Domain ID Name Relationship / procedure
Enterprise T1110 Brute Force This object subtechnique of Brute Force.
Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

Group Enterprise

G1055: VOID MANTICORE

VOID MANTICORE is a threat group assessed to operate on behalf of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS).[1] Active since at least mid-2022, VOID MANTICORE has targeted government entities, critical infrastructure, and private sector organizations across Albania, Israel, and the United States.[1][2] VOID MANTICORE conducts destructive cyber operations, combining wiper attacks with hack-and-leak campaigns. The group has operated under multiple public-facing personas, including HomeLand Justice in operations against Albania, Karma and Karma Below in campaigns targeting Israeli organizations, and Handala Hack, its current primary persona, which has claimed activity against Israeli and U.S. entities, including a March 2026 attack against Stryker Corporation.[1][3] VOID MANTICORE has been observed collaborating with Scarred Manticore, which has been linked to initial access operations preceding VOID MANTICORE’s activity.[4]

Group Enterprise

G0007: APT28

APT28 is a threat group that has been attributed to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) 85th Main Special Service Center (GTsSS) military unit 26165.[1][2] This group has been active since at least 2004.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

APT28 reportedly compromised the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2016 in an attempt to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.[5] In 2018, the US indicted five GRU Unit 26165 officers associated with APT28 for cyber operations (including close-access operations) conducted between 2014 and 2018 against the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the US Anti-Doping Agency, a US nuclear facility, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Spiez Swiss Chemicals Laboratory, and other organizations.[14] Some of these were conducted with the assistance of GRU Unit 74455, which is also referred to as Sandworm Team.

Group Enterprise

G0016: APT29

APT29 is threat group that has been attributed to Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).[1][2] They have operated since at least 2008, often targeting government networks in Europe and NATO member countries, research institutes, and think tanks. APT29 reportedly compromised the Democratic National Committee starting in the summer of 2015.[3][4][5][6]

In April 2021, the US and UK governments attributed the SolarWinds Compromise to the SVR; public statements included citations to APT29, Cozy Bear, and The Dukes.[7][8] Industry reporting also referred to the actors involved in this campaign as UNC2452, NOBELIUM, StellarParticle, Dark Halo, and SolarStorm.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Malware Enterprise

S0367: Emotet

Emotet is a modular malware variant which is primarily used as a downloader for other malware variants such as TrickBot and IcedID. Emotet first emerged in June 2014, initially targeting the financial sector, and has expanded to multiple verticals over time.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0374: SpeakUp

SpeakUp is a Trojan backdoor that targets both Linux and OSX devices. It was first observed in January 2019. [1]

LinuxmacOS
Tool Enterprise

S0488: CrackMapExec

CrackMapExec, or CME, is a post-exploitation tool developed in Python and designed for penetration testing against networks. CrackMapExec collects Active Directory information to conduct lateral movement through targeted networks.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0532: Lucifer

Lucifer is a crypto miner and DDoS hybrid malware that leverages well-known exploits to spread laterally on Windows platforms.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0453: Pony

Pony is a credential stealing malware, though has also been used among adversaries for its downloader capabilities. The source code for Pony Loader 1.0 and 2.0 were leaked online, leading to their use by various threat actors.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0341: Xbash

Xbash is a malware family that has targeted Linux and Microsoft Windows servers. The malware has been tied to the Iron Group, a threat actor group known for previous ransomware attacks. Xbash was developed in Python and then converted into a self-contained Linux ELF executable by using PyInstaller.[1]

WindowsLinux
Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

uses · Malware S0020: China Chopper Enterprise uses · Group G1055: VOID MANTICORE Enterprise uses · Malware S0367: Emotet Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1051: Update Software Enterprise uses · Malware S0374: SpeakUp Enterprise detects · Detection Strategy DET0551: Password Guessing via Multi-Source Authentication Failure Correlation Enterprise uses · Group G0007: APT28 Enterprise uses · Tool S0488: CrackMapExec Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1032: Multi-factor Authentication Enterprise uses · Malware S0698: HermeticWizard Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1027: Password Policies Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1036: Account Use Policies Enterprise subtechnique of · Technique T1110: Brute Force Enterprise uses · Group G0016: APT29 Enterprise uses · Malware S0532: Lucifer Enterprise uses · Malware S0453: Pony Enterprise uses · Malware S0341: Xbash Enterprise uses · Malware S0598: P.A.S. Webshell Enterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

Mitigation Enterprise

M1051: Update Software

Software updates ensure systems are protected against known vulnerabilities by applying patches and upgrades provided by vendors. Regular updates reduce the attack surface and prevent adversaries from exploiting known security gaps. This includes patching operating systems, applications, drivers, and firmware. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Regular Operating System Updates

- Implementation: Apply the latest Windows security updates monthly using WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) or a similar patch management solution. Configure systems to check for updates automatically and schedule reboots during maintenance windows. - Use Case: Prevents exploitation of OS vulnerabilities such as privilege escalation or remote code execution.

Application Patching

- Implementation: Monitor Apache's update release notes for security patches addressing vulnerabilities. Schedule updates for off-peak hours to avoid downtime while maintaining security compliance. - Use Case: Prevents exploitation of web application vulnerabilities, such as those leading to unauthorized access or data breaches.

Firmware Updates

- Implementation: Regularly check the vendor’s website for firmware updates addressing vulnerabilities. Plan for update deployment during scheduled maintenance to minimize business disruption. - Use Case: Protects against vulnerabilities that adversaries could exploit to gain access to network devices or inject malicious traffic.

Emergency Patch Deployment

- Implementation: Use the emergency patch deployment feature of the organization's patch management tool to apply updates to all affected Exchange servers within 24 hours. - Use Case: Reduces the risk of exploitation by rapidly addressing critical vulnerabilities.

Centralized Patch Management

- Implementation: Implement a centralized patch management system, such as SCCM or ManageEngine, to automate and track patch deployment across all environments. Generate regular compliance reports to ensure all systems are updated. - Use Case: Streamlines patching processes and ensures no critical systems are missed.

*Tools for Implementation*

Patch Management Tools:

- WSUS: Manage and deploy Microsoft updates across the organization. - ManageEngine Patch Manager Plus: Automate patch deployment for OS and third-party apps. - Ansible: Automate updates across multiple platforms, including Linux and Windows.

Vulnerability Scanning Tools:

- OpenVAS: Open-source vulnerability scanning to identify missing patches.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1032: Multi-factor Authentication

Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) enhances security by requiring users to provide at least two forms of verification to prove their identity before granting access. These factors typically include:

- *Something you know*: Passwords, PINs. - *Something you have*: Physical tokens, smartphone authenticator apps. - *Something you are*: Biometric data such as fingerprints, facial recognition, or retinal scans.

Implementing MFA across all critical systems and services ensures robust protection against account takeover and unauthorized access. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Identity and Access Management (IAM):

- Use IAM solutions like Azure Active Directory, Okta, or AWS IAM to enforce MFA policies for all user logins, especially for privileged roles. - Enable conditional access policies to enforce MFA for risky sign-ins (e.g., unfamiliar devices, geolocations). - Enable Conditional Access policies to only allow logins from trusted devices, such as those enrolled in Intune or joined via Hybrid/Entra.

Authentication Tools and Methods:

- Use authenticator applications such as Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, or Authy for time-based one-time passwords (TOTP). - Deploy hardware-based tokens like YubiKey, RSA SecurID, or smart cards for additional security. - Enforce biometric authentication for compatible devices and applications.

Secure Legacy Systems:

- Integrate MFA solutions with older systems using third-party tools like Duo Security or Thales SafeNet. - Enable RADIUS/NPS servers to facilitate MFA for VPNs, RDP, and other network logins.

Monitoring and Alerting:

- Use SIEM tools to monitor failed MFA attempts, login anomalies, or brute-force attempts against MFA systems. - Implement alerts for suspicious MFA activities, such as repeated failed codes or new device registrations.

Training and Policy Enforcement:

- Educate employees on the importance of MFA and secure authenticator usage. - Enforce policies that require MFA on all critical systems, especially for remote access, privileged accounts, and cloud applications.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1027: Password Policies

Set and enforce secure password policies for accounts to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access. Strong password policies include enforcing password complexity, requiring regular password changes, and preventing password reuse. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Windows Systems:

- Use Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) to configure: - Minimum password length (e.g., 12+ characters). - Password complexity requirements. - Password history (e.g., disallow last 24 passwords). - Account lockout duration and thresholds.

Linux Systems:

- Configure Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM): - Use `pam_pwquality` to enforce complexity and length requirements. - Implement `pam_tally2` or `pam_faillock` for account lockouts. - Use `pwunconv` to disable password reuse.

Password Managers:

- Enforce usage of enterprise password managers (e.g., Bitwarden, 1Password, LastPass) to generate and store strong passwords.

Password Blacklisting:

- Use tools like Have I Been Pwned password checks or NIST-based blacklist solutions to prevent users from setting compromised passwords.

Regular Auditing:

- Periodically audit password policies and account configurations to ensure compliance using tools like LAPS (Local Admin Password Solution) and vulnerability scanners.

*Tools for Implementation*

Windows:

- Group Policy Management Console (GPMC): Enforce password policies. - Microsoft Local Administrator Password Solution (LAPS): Enforce random, unique admin passwords.

Linux/macOS:

- PAM Modules (pam_pwquality, pam_tally2, pam_faillock): Enforce password rules. - Lynis: Audit password policies and system configurations.

Cross-Platform:

- Password Managers (Bitwarden, 1Password, KeePass): Manage and enforce strong passwords. - Have I Been Pwned API: Prevent the use of breached passwords. - NIST SP 800-63B compliant tools: Enforce password guidelines and blacklisting.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1036: Account Use Policies

Account Use Policies help mitigate unauthorized access by configuring and enforcing rules that govern how and when accounts can be used. These policies include enforcing account lockout mechanisms, restricting login times, and setting inactivity timeouts. Proper configuration of these policies reduces the risk of brute-force attacks, credential theft, and unauthorized access by limiting the opportunities for malicious actors to exploit accounts. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Account Lockout Policies:

- Implementation: Configure account lockout settings so that after a defined number of failed login attempts (e.g., 3-5 attempts), the account is locked for a specific time period (e.g., 15 minutes) or requires an administrator to unlock it. - Use Case: This prevents brute-force attacks by limiting how many incorrect password attempts can be made before the account is temporarily disabled, reducing the likelihood of an attacker successfully guessing a password.

Login Time Restrictions:

- Implementation: Set up login time policies to restrict when users or groups can log into systems. For example, only allowing login during standard business hours (e.g., 8 AM to 6 PM) for non-administrative accounts. - Use Case: This prevents unauthorized access outside of approved working hours, where login attempts might be more suspicious or harder to monitor. For example, if an account that is only supposed to be active during the day logs in at 2 AM, it should raise an alert or be blocked.

Inactivity Timeout and Session Termination:

- Implementation: Enforce session timeouts after a period of inactivity (e.g., 10-15 minutes) and require users to re-authenticate if they wish to resume the session. - Use Case: This policy prevents attackers from hijacking active sessions left unattended. For example, if an employee walks away from their computer without locking it, an attacker with physical access to the system would be unable to exploit the session.

Password Aging Policies:

- Implementation: Enforce password aging rules, requiring users to change their passwords after a defined period (e.g., 90 days) and ensure passwords are not reused by maintaining a password history. - Use Case: This limits the risk of compromised passwords being used indefinitely. Regular password changes make it more difficult for attackers to reuse stolen credentials.

Account Expiration and Deactivation:

- Implementation: Configure user accounts, especially for temporary or contract workers, to automatically expire after a set date or event. Accounts that remain unused for a specific period should be deactivated automatically. - Use Case: This prevents dormant accounts from becoming an attack vector. For example, an attacker can exploit unused accounts if they are not properly monitored or deactivated.

**Tools for Implementation**:

- Group Policy Objects (GPOs) in Windows: To enforce account lockout thresholds, login time restrictions, session timeouts, and password policies. - Identity and Access Management (IAM) solutions: For centralized management of user accounts, session policies, and automated deactivation of accounts. - Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platforms: To monitor and alert on unusual login activity, such as failed logins or out-of-hours access attempts. - Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Tools: To further enforce secure login attempts, preventing brute-force or credential stuffing attacks.

Change history

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 .

ATT&CK release
19.1
Object version
1.7
Created
Modified
Raw hash
6b30f9682b42b911...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 1.7 Current bundle 6b30f9682b42…
Raw source

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.

Open mirrored raw JSON Open MITRE-hosted copy
Source references

External references and citations

MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.

  1. [1]
    Cylance Cleaver

    Cylance. (2014, December). Operation Cleaver. Retrieved September 14, 2017.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    US-CERT TA18-068A 2018

    US-CERT. (2018, March 27). TA18-068A Brute Force Attacks Conducted by Cyber Actors. Retrieved October 2, 2019.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    Trend Micro Emotet 2020

    Cybercrime & Digital Threat Team. (2020, February 13). Emotet Now Spreads via Wi-Fi. Retrieved February 16, 2022.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    mitre-attack T1110.001
    Open source URL
Source and licensing

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.

Official MITRE ATT&CK site Official STIX data repository MITRE ATT&CK terms of use