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

T1203: Exploitation for Client Execution

Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code. Vulnerabilities can exist in software due to unsecure coding practices that can lead to unanticipated behavior. Adversaries can take advantage of certain vulnerabilities through targeted exploitation for the purpose of arbitrary code execution. Oftentimes the most valuable exploits to an offensive toolkit are those that can be used to obtain code execution on a remote system because they can be used to gain access to that system. Users will expect to see files related to the applications they commonly used to do work, so they are a useful target for exploit research and development because of their high utility.

Several types exist:

### Browser-based Exploitation

Web browsers are a common target through Drive-by Compromise and Spearphishing Link. Endpoint systems may be compromised through normal web browsing or from certain users being targeted by links in spearphishing emails to adversary controlled sites used to exploit the web browser. These often do not require an action by the user for the exploit to be executed.

### Office Applications

Common office and productivity applications such as Microsoft Office are also targeted through Phishing. Malicious files will be transmitted directly as attachments or through links to download them. These require the user to open the document or file for the exploit to run.

### Common Third-party Applications

Other applications that are commonly seen or are part of the software deployed in a target network may also be used for exploitation. Applications such as Adobe Reader and Flash, which are common in enterprise environments, have been routinely targeted by adversaries attempting to gain access to systems. Depending on the software and nature of the vulnerability, some may be exploited in the browser or require the user to open a file. For instance, some Flash exploits have been delivered as objects within Microsoft Office documents.

EnterpriseT1203TechniqueObject v1.5 Modified
Discuss defensive coverage Back to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence Medium

Exploitation for Client Execution is a high-value execution path because it turns normal user activity—opening a document, clicking a link, or browsing the web—into code execution on Windows, macOS, or Linux endpoints. For leaders, the practical issue is not only whether perimeter controls block phishing or malicious sites, but whether commonly used client software is patched, isolated, hardened, and monitored well enough to prevent a single vulnerable app from becoming an intrusion starting point.

Executive priority

Prioritize this technique where business-critical users rely heavily on browsers, office suites, PDF readers, or other third-party client applications. It affects operational resilience because compromise can begin through routine work activity and may bypass assumptions that users must intentionally run malware. Executive questions should focus on patch governance for client applications, exploit-protection baselines, sandboxing/isolation for high-risk workflows, and whether SOC and IR teams can reconstruct which application, file, link, and user action initiated execution.

Technical view

ATT&CK maps this technique to Execution across Linux, macOS, and Windows. The object describes browser-based exploitation through drive-by compromise and spearphishing links, office document exploitation through phishing attachments or downloads, and exploitation of common third-party applications. MITRE does not provide official detection text for T1203, but the related DET0287 detection strategy indicates a cross-platform behavior-chain approach for browser, Office, and third-party application activity. SOC and detection teams should validate visibility from the client application process outward: suspicious child processes, abnormal script or shell launches, unexpected file writes, exploit-mitigation events, crashes followed by execution, and network connections associated with opened documents or browsed sites.

Likely telemetry

  • Endpoint process creation and parent-child process relationships for browsers, office applications, PDF readers, and other common client software
  • Application crash, exploit-protection, and operating system security events
  • File creation and download/open events for email attachments, office documents, PDFs, browser cache, and temporary directories
  • Email and web gateway records for phishing links, attachments, and user navigation to adversary-controlled or suspicious sites
  • EDR telemetry showing memory protection alerts, blocked exploit behavior, or unusual module/script execution

Detection direction

  • Because MITRE provides no official detection procedure for this object, validate detections against behavior chains rather than single indicators: user receives or opens content, vulnerable client application handles it, then unexpected execution or network activity follows.
  • Tune for high-signal parent-child relationships from browsers, office tools, and document readers spawning command shells, scripting engines, installers, or unfamiliar binaries, while accounting for legitimate enterprise plugins and update mechanisms.
  • Correlate endpoint alerts with email and web telemetry to distinguish normal document handling from exploitation paths involving phishing attachments, downloaded files, or spearphishing links.
  • Check blind spots in macOS and Linux client telemetry, not only Windows office workflows, because the ATT&CK platforms include all three.
  • Use campaign and group relationships as threat-intelligence context showing broad historical relevance, but do not treat those relationships alone as evidence of local exposure or active targeting.

Mitigation priorities

  • Maintain reliable update processes for operating systems, browsers, office applications, document readers, drivers, firmware, and common third-party client software, aligned with M1051 Update Software.
  • Enable and enforce exploit-protection capabilities where available, aligned with M1050 Exploit Protection, to harden applications against conditions associated with exploitation.
  • Use application isolation and sandboxing for high-risk client workflows, especially browsers and document-handling applications, aligned with M1048 Application Isolation and Sandboxing.
  • Reduce unnecessary client application exposure by managing approved software, removing unsupported or end-of-life applications where possible, and confirming third-party application inventory is complete.
  • Ensure incident response playbooks capture the originating application, opened file or link, user context, exploit-protection status, and patch state so containment decisions are evidence-based.
Analyst notes and limits

This technique is materially important because it sits at the intersection of vulnerability management, endpoint hardening, email/web security, and SOC investigation quality. The many supplied campaign and group relationships indicate that client-side exploitation has been used across diverse threat activity, but those relationships should be used for prioritization context rather than attribution. The most defensible assessment for an organization comes from comparing software inventory and patch posture with endpoint, email, and web telemetry coverage.

The supplied ATT&CK object does not include official detection guidance, specific vulnerabilities, procedures, or indicators. The related detection strategy name supports a behavior-chain framing, but local validation is required to determine actual coverage. No claim is made here about active exploitation, customer exposure, guaranteed detection, or attribution beyond the provided ATT&CK relationships.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Exploitation for Client Execution

Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code. Vulnerabilities can exist in software due to unsecure coding practices that can lead to unanticipated behavior. Adversaries can take advantage of certain vulnerabilities through targeted exploitation for the purpose of arbitrary code execution. Oftentimes the most valuable exploits to an offensive toolkit are those that can be used to obtain code execution on a remote system because they can be used to gain access to that system. Users will expect to see files related to the applications they commonly used to do work, so they are a useful target for exploit research and development because of their high utility.

Several types exist:

### Browser-based Exploitation

Web browsers are a common target through Drive-by Compromise and Spearphishing Link. Endpoint systems may be compromised through normal web browsing or from certain users being targeted by links in spearphishing emails to adversary controlled sites used to exploit the web browser. These often do not require an action by the user for the exploit to be executed.

### Office Applications

Common office and productivity applications such as Microsoft Office are also targeted through Phishing. Malicious files will be transmitted directly as attachments or through links to download them. These require the user to open the document or file for the exploit to run.

### Common Third-party Applications

Other applications that are commonly seen or are part of the software deployed in a target network may also be used for exploitation. Applications such as Adobe Reader and Flash, which are common in enterprise environments, have been routinely targeted by adversaries attempting to gain access to systems. Depending on the software and nature of the vulnerability, some may be exploited in the browser or require the user to open a file. For instance, some Flash exploits have been delivered as objects within Microsoft Office documents.

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.

Associated objects

Groups, software, and campaigns

Group Enterprise

G0121: Sidewinder

Sidewinder is a suspected Indian threat actor group that has been active since at least 2012. They have been observed targeting government, military, and business entities throughout Asia, primarily focusing on Pakistan, China, Nepal, and Afghanistan.[1][2][3]

Group Enterprise

G1031: Saint Bear

Saint Bear is a Russian-nexus threat actor active since early 2021, primarily targeting entities in Ukraine and Georgia. The group is notable for a specific remote access tool, Saint Bot, and information stealer, OutSteel in campaigns. Saint Bear typically relies on phishing or web staging of malicious documents and related file types for initial access, spoofing government or related entities.[1][2] Saint Bear has previously been confused with Ember Bear operations, but analysis of behaviors, tools, and targeting indicates these are distinct clusters.

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

G0027: Threat Group-3390

Threat Group-3390 is a Chinese threat group that has extensively used strategic Web compromises to target victims.[1] The group has been active since at least 2010 and has targeted organizations in the aerospace, government, defense, technology, energy, manufacturing and gambling/betting sectors.[2][3][4]

Group Enterprise

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]

Group Enterprise

G0035: Dragonfly

Dragonfly is a cyber espionage group that has been attributed to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16.[1][2] Active since at least 2010, Dragonfly has targeted defense and aviation companies, government entities, companies related to industrial control systems, and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide through supply chain, spearphishing, and drive-by compromise attacks.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Group Enterprise

G0138: Andariel

Andariel is a North Korean state-sponsored threat group that has been active since at least 2009. Andariel has primarily focused its operations--which have included destructive attacks--against South Korean government agencies, military organizations, and a variety of domestic companies; they have also conducted cyber financial operations against ATMs, banks, and cryptocurrency exchanges. Andariel's notable activity includes Operation Black Mine, Operation GoldenAxe, and Campaign Rifle.[1][2][3][4][5]

Andariel is considered a sub-set of Lazarus Group, and has been attributed to North Korea's Reconnaissance General Bureau.[6]

North Korean group definitions are known to have significant overlap, and some security researchers report all North Korean state-sponsored cyber activity under the name Lazarus Group instead of tracking clusters or subgroups.

Group Enterprise

G0089: The White Company

The White Company is a likely state-sponsored threat actor with advanced capabilities. From 2017 through 2018, the group led an espionage campaign called Operation Shaheen targeting government and military organizations in Pakistan.[1]

Group Enterprise

G1011: EXOTIC LILY

EXOTIC LILY is a financially motivated group that has been closely linked with Wizard Spider and the deployment of ransomware including Conti and Diavol. EXOTIC LILY may be acting as an initial access broker for other malicious actors, and has targeted a wide range of industries including IT, cybersecurity, and healthcare since at least September 2021.[1]

Group Enterprise

G0032: Lazarus Group

Lazarus Group is a North Korean state-sponsored cyber threat group attributed to the Reconnaissance General Bureau (RGB). [1] [2] Lazarus Group has been active since at least 2009 and is reportedly responsible for the November 2014 destructive wiper attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, identified by Novetta as part of Operation Blockbuster. Malware used by Lazarus Group correlates to other reported campaigns, including Operation Flame, Operation 1Mission, Operation Troy, DarkSeoul, and Ten Days of Rain.[3]

North Korea’s cyber operations have shown a consistent pattern of adaptation, forming and reorganizing units as national priorities shift. These units frequently share personnel, infrastructure, malware, and tradecraft, making it difficult to attribute specific operations with high confidence. Public reporting often uses “Lazarus Group” as an umbrella term for multiple North Korean cyber operators conducting espionage, destructive attacks, and financially motivated campaigns.[4][5][6]

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]

Group Enterprise

G0098: BlackTech

BlackTech is a suspected Chinese cyber espionage group that has primarily targeted organizations in East Asia--particularly Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong--and the US since at least 2013. BlackTech has used a combination of custom malware, dual-use tools, and living off the land tactics to compromise media, construction, engineering, electronics, and financial company networks.[1][2][3]

Malware Enterprise

S0239: Bankshot

Bankshot is a remote access tool (RAT) that was first reported by the Department of Homeland Security in December of 2017. In 2018, Lazarus Group used the Bankshot implant in attacks against the Turkish financial sector. [1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S1207: XLoader

XLoader is an infostealer malware in use since at least 2016. Previously known and sometimes still referred to as Formbook, XLoader is a Malware as a Service (MaaS) known for stealing data from web browsers, email clients and File Transfer Protocol (FTP) applications.[1][2][3][4][5]

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
Malware Enterprise

S0578: SUPERNOVA

SUPERNOVA is an in-memory web shell written in .NET C#. It was discovered in November 2020 during the investigation of APT29's SolarWinds cyber operation but determined to be unrelated. Subsequent analysis suggests SUPERNOVA may have been used by the China-based threat group SPIRAL.[1][2][3][4][5]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0458: Ramsay

Ramsay is an information stealing malware framework designed to collect and exfiltrate sensitive documents, including from air-gapped systems. Researchers have identified overlaps between Ramsay and the Darkhotel-associated Retro malware.[1][2]

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
Campaign Enterprise

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]

Campaign Enterprise

C0001: Frankenstein

Frankenstein was described by security researchers as a highly-targeted campaign conducted by moderately sophisticated and highly resourceful threat actors in early 2019. The unidentified actors primarily relied on open source tools, including Empire. The campaign name refers to the actors' ability to piece together several unrelated open-source tool components.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0016: Operation Dust Storm

Operation Dust Storm was a long-standing persistent cyber espionage campaign that targeted multiple industries in Japan, South Korea, the United States, Europe, and several Southeast Asian countries. By 2015, the Operation Dust Storm threat actors shifted from government and defense-related intelligence targets to Japanese companies or Japanese subdivisions of larger foreign organizations supporting Japan's critical infrastructure, including electricity generation, oil and natural gas, finance, transportation, and construction.[1]

Operation Dust Storm threat actors also began to use Android backdoors in their operations by 2015, with all identified victims at the time residing in Japan or South Korea.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0057: 3CX Supply Chain Attack

The 3CX Supply Chain Attack was the first publicly reported case of one supply chain compromise triggering another, leading to a cascading, two-stage intrusion. The initial supply chain attack began when a 3CX employee downloaded and executed a trojanized, end-of-life version of the X_Trader trading software from Trading Technologies. This provided UNC4736, a threat cluster associated with AppleJeus, access to the 3CX environment. From there UNC4736 compromised the Windows and macOS build environments used to distribute the 3CX desktop application to their customers.[1] While 3CX serves more than 600,000 customers and 12 million users, only a subset of systems were affected. Subsequent targeting focused on victims in the defense and cryptocurrency sectors, where attackers deployed secondary payloads such as Gopuram for credential theft and persistence.[2] The campaign began in late 2022 and was disrupted after security vendors publicly reported the compromise in March 2023.[3][4]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

uses · Group G0121: Sidewinder Enterprise uses · Group G1031: Saint Bear Enterprise uses · Group G0007: APT28 Enterprise uses · Group G0027: Threat Group-3390 Enterprise uses · Malware S0331: Agent Tesla Enterprise uses · Group G0034: Sandworm Team Enterprise uses · Group G0035: Dragonfly Enterprise uses · Group G0138: Andariel Enterprise uses · Malware S0239: Bankshot Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1050: Exploit Protection Enterprise uses · Malware S1154: VersaMem Enterprise uses · Group G0089: The White Company Enterprise uses · Group G1011: EXOTIC LILY Enterprise uses · Group G0032: Lazarus Group Enterprise uses · Group G0016: APT29 Enterprise uses · Malware S1207: XLoader Enterprise uses · Group G0098: BlackTech Enterprise uses · Malware S0396: EvilBunny Enterprise uses · Malware S0341: Xbash Enterprise uses · Malware S0578: SUPERNOVA Enterprise uses · Group G0142: Confucius Enterprise uses · Group G0040: Patchwork Enterprise uses · Group G0005: APT12 Enterprise uses · Campaign C0056: RedPenguin Enterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

Mitigation Enterprise

M1050: Exploit Protection

Deploy capabilities that detect, block, and mitigate conditions indicative of software exploits. These capabilities aim to prevent exploitation by addressing vulnerabilities, monitoring anomalous behaviors, and applying exploit-mitigation techniques to harden systems and software.

Operating System Exploit Protections:

- Use Case: Enable built-in exploit protection features provided by modern operating systems, such as Microsoft's Exploit Protection, which includes techniques like Data Execution Prevention (DEP), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), and Control Flow Guard (CFG). - Implementation: Enforce DEP for all programs and enable ASLR to randomize memory addresses used by system and application processes. Windows: Configure Exploit Protection through the Windows Security app or deploy settings via Group Policy. `ExploitProtectionExportSettings.exe -path "exploit_settings.xml"` Linux: Use Kernel-level hardening features like SELinux, AppArmor, or GRSEC to enforce memory protections and prevent exploits.

Third-Party Endpoint Security:

- Use Case: Use endpoint protection tools with built-in exploit protection, such as enhanced memory protection, behavior monitoring, and real-time exploit detection. - Implementation: Deploy tools to detect and block exploitation attempts targeting unpatched software.

Virtual Patching: - Use Case: Use tools to implement virtual patches that mitigate vulnerabilities in applications or operating systems until official patches are applied. - Implementation: Use Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) to block exploitation attempts on known vulnerabilities in outdated applications.

Hardening Application Configurations:

- Use Case: Disable risky application features that can be exploited, such as macros in Microsoft Office or JScript in Internet Explorer. - Implementation: Configure Microsoft Office Group Policies to disable execution of macros in downloaded files.

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

M1048: Application Isolation and Sandboxing

Application Isolation and Sandboxing refers to the technique of restricting the execution of code to a controlled and isolated environment (e.g., a virtual environment, container, or sandbox). This method prevents potentially malicious code from affecting the rest of the system or network by limiting access to sensitive resources and critical operations. The goal is to contain threats and minimize their impact. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Browser Sandboxing:

- Use Case: Implement browser sandboxing to isolate untrusted web content and prevent malicious web pages or scripts from accessing sensitive system resources or initiating unauthorized downloads. - Implementation: Use browsers with built-in sandboxing features (e.g., Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge) or deploy enhanced browser security frameworks that limit the execution scope of active content. Consider controls that monitor or restrict script-based file generation and downloads commonly abused in evasion techniques like HTML smuggling.

Application Virtualization:

- Use Case: Deploy critical or high-risk applications in a virtualized environment to ensure any compromise does not affect the host system. - Implementation: Use application virtualization platforms to run applications in isolated environments.

Email Attachment Sandboxing:

- Use Case: Route email attachments to a sandbox environment to detect and block malware before delivering emails to end-users. - Implementation: Integrate security solutions with sandbox capabilities to analyze email attachments.

Endpoint Sandboxing:

- Use Case: Run all downloaded files and applications in a restricted environment to monitor their behavior for malicious activity. - Implementation: Use endpoint protection tools for sandboxing at the endpoint level.

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
1.5
Created
Modified
Raw hash
792c290f2e6c913b...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 1.5 Current bundle 792c290f2e6c…
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]
    mitre-attack T1203
    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