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

T1539: Steal Web Session Cookie

An adversary may steal web application or service session cookies and use them to gain access to web applications or Internet services as an authenticated user without needing credentials. Web applications and services often use session cookies as an authentication token after a user has authenticated to a website.

Cookies are often valid for an extended period of time, even if the web application is not actively used. Cookies can be found on disk, in the process memory of the browser, and in network traffic to remote systems. Additionally, other applications on the targets machine might store sensitive authentication cookies in memory (e.g. apps which authenticate to cloud services). Session cookies can be used to bypasses some multi-factor authentication protocols.[1]

There are several examples of malware targeting cookies from web browsers on the local system.[2][3] Adversaries may also steal cookies by injecting malicious JavaScript content into websites or relying on User Execution by tricking victims into running malicious JavaScript in their browser.[4][5]

There are also open source frameworks such as `Evilginx2` and `Muraena` that can gather session cookies through a malicious proxy (e.g., Adversary-in-the-Middle) that can be set up by an adversary and used in phishing campaigns.[6][7]

After an adversary acquires a valid cookie, they can then perform a Web Session Cookie technique to login to the corresponding web application.

EnterpriseT1539TechniqueObject v1.5 Modified
Discuss defensive coverage Back to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence Medium

Stealing web session cookies matters because it can let an adversary access SaaS, office suite, and web applications as an already-authenticated user without knowing the password. This is especially important for executives and security leaders because cookies may remain valid for extended periods and can sometimes undermine the expected protection value of multi-factor authentication. The practical risk is not just credential theft; it is authenticated access to business services, cloud workflows, and sensitive applications using an existing user session.

Executive priority

Prioritize this technique where business-critical services depend on browser or app-based sessions across Windows, macOS, Linux, SaaS, and Office Suite environments. Leaders should ask whether the organization can prove it collects the evidence needed to investigate cookie theft from endpoints, browsers, memory, and network paths, and whether incident response playbooks include session revocation, account review, and re-authentication decisions. This technique also affects audit and compliance readiness because MFA alone may not be sufficient evidence of access control resilience if stolen sessions are not monitored or invalidated.

Technical view

ATT&CK places T1539 under Credential Access. The supplied object describes cookies being stolen from disk, browser process memory, network traffic, and other applications that authenticate to cloud services. It also notes paths involving malicious JavaScript, user execution, and malicious proxy activity associated with adversary-in-the-middle phishing frameworks. SOC and IR teams should validate coverage against endpoint file access to browser cookie stores, suspicious access to browser or application memory, anomalous web authentication/session reuse, and network indicators consistent with session interception. Because MITRE does not provide official detection text for this object, detection engineering should align with the related DET0509 strategy and test visibility across file, memory, and network artifacts.

Likely telemetry

  • Endpoint file access telemetry for browser profile directories and cookie stores
  • Process and memory access telemetry involving browsers and applications that authenticate to web or cloud services
  • Browser, script, and web activity logs where available, especially suspicious JavaScript or user-driven browser actions
  • Network traffic and proxy logs that may show unusual web session handling or access through suspicious intermediaries
  • SaaS and Office Suite authentication, session, and audit logs showing session use, location changes, device changes, or abnormal access patterns

Detection direction

  • Confirm whether DET0509-style coverage exists for file, memory, and network artifacts rather than relying only on failed login or password-based alerts.
  • Tune detections for suspicious access to browser cookie storage and browser process memory, while accounting for legitimate browser, backup, endpoint security, and administrative activity.
  • Correlate endpoint evidence with SaaS or Office Suite session activity, because the value of the stolen cookie is realized when it is reused against a web application or service.
  • Look for context from related techniques named in the object, including User Execution, Adversary-in-the-Middle, and Web Session Cookie use, without assuming they are always present.
  • Treat MFA success as insufficient by itself; the supplied description states stolen session cookies may bypass some MFA protocols.

Mitigation priorities

  • Start with auditing: ensure endpoint, browser-relevant, network, SaaS, and Office Suite logs are enabled and reviewable for investigation and compliance evidence.
  • Apply software configuration controls that reduce exposure of sensitive session material where supported by the relevant applications and services.
  • Use multi-factor authentication for critical services, while recognizing from the ATT&CK description that stolen session cookies may bypass some MFA protocols.
  • Restrict web-based content through policies such as URL filtering, download restrictions, script control, and browser behavior controls to reduce exposure to malicious JavaScript, unsafe sites, and phishing infrastructure.
  • Maintain software updates across operating systems, browsers, applications, and related components to reduce opportunities for malware or web-based compromise paths.
Analyst notes and limits

The relationship context shows use by multiple ATT&CK groups, a campaign, and several malware families across Windows and macOS examples, plus enterprise platforms that include Linux, macOS, Office Suite, SaaS, and Windows. This supports treating session-cookie theft as a cross-platform identity and cloud-access risk rather than a narrow endpoint issue. The defensive decision point is whether teams can connect endpoint acquisition evidence to authenticated web-session use and then revoke or contain affected sessions quickly.

Official MITRE detection text is not provided for T1539 in the supplied object. The guidance above is therefore derived from the official description, platforms, tactic, external references, DET0509 relationship, and listed mitigations. Local validation is required to determine which browsers, SaaS services, audit logs, endpoint controls, and session-management capabilities are actually present in a given environment.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Steal Web Session Cookie

An adversary may steal web application or service session cookies and use them to gain access to web applications or Internet services as an authenticated user without needing credentials. Web applications and services often use session cookies as an authentication token after a user has authenticated to a website.

Cookies are often valid for an extended period of time, even if the web application is not actively used. Cookies can be found on disk, in the process memory of the browser, and in network traffic to remote systems. Additionally, other applications on the targets machine might store sensitive authentication cookies in memory (e.g. apps which authenticate to cloud services). Session cookies can be used to bypasses some multi-factor authentication protocols.[1]

There are several examples of malware targeting cookies from web browsers on the local system.[2][3] Adversaries may also steal cookies by injecting malicious JavaScript content into websites or relying on User Execution by tricking victims into running malicious JavaScript in their browser.[4][5]

There are also open source frameworks such as `Evilginx2` and `Muraena` that can gather session cookies through a malicious proxy (e.g., Adversary-in-the-Middle) that can be set up by an adversary and used in phishing campaigns.[6][7]

After an adversary acquires a valid cookie, they can then perform a Web Session Cookie technique to login to the corresponding web application.

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

G1014: LuminousMoth

LuminousMoth is a Chinese-speaking cyber espionage group that has been active since at least October 2020. LuminousMoth has targeted high-profile organizations, including government entities, in Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and other parts of Southeast Asia. Some security researchers have concluded there is a connection between LuminousMoth and Mustang Panda based on similar targeting and TTPs, as well as network infrastructure overlaps.[1][2]

Group Enterprise

G0094: Kimsuky

Kimsuky is a Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)-based cyber espionage group that has been active since at least 2012. The group initially targeted South Korean government agencies, think tanks, and subject-matter experts in various fields. Its operations expanded to include the United Nations and organizations in the government, education, business services, and manufacturing sectors across the United States, Japan, Russia, and Europe. Kimsuky has focused collection on foreign policy and national security issues tied to the Korean Peninsula, nuclear policy, and sanctions. Kimsuky operations have overlapped with those of other North Korean state-sponsored cyber espionage actors as a result of ad hoc collaborations or other limited resource sharing.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Kimsuky was assessed to be responsible for the 2014 Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. compromise; other notable campaigns include Operation STOLEN PENCIL (2018), Operation Kabar Cobra (2019), and Operation Smoke Screen (2019).[7][8][9] In 2023, Kimsuky was observed using commercial large language models (LLMs) to assist with vulnerability research, scripting, social engineering and reconnaissance.[10]

DPRK threat actor cluster boundaries overlap in open source reporting, with some security researchers consolidating all attributed North Korean state-sponsored cyber activity under Lazarus Group, rather than tracking operationally distinct subgroups.

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

G1015: Scattered Spider

Scattered Spider is a native English-speaking cybercriminal group active since at least 2022. [1] [2] The group initially targeted customer relationship management (CRM) providers, business process outsourcing (BPO) firms, and telecommunications and technology companies before expanding in 2023 to gaming, hospitality, retail, managed service provider (MSP), manufacturing, and financial sectors. [2] Scattered Spider relies heavily on social engineering, including impersonating IT and help-desk staff, to gain initial access, bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA), and compromise enterprise networks. The group has adapted its tooling to evade endpoint detection and response (EDR) defenses and used ransomware for financial gain. [3] [4] [5] Scattered Spider had expanded into hybrid cloud and identity environments, using help-desk impersonation and MFA bypass to obtain administrator access in Okta, AWS, and Office 365. [6]

Group Enterprise

G1033: Star Blizzard

Star Blizzard is a cyber espionage and influence group originating in Russia that has been active since at least 2019. Star Blizzard campaigns align closely with Russian state interests and have included persistent phishing and credential theft against academic, defense, government, NGO, and think tank organizations in NATO countries, particularly the US and the UK.[1][2][3][4]

Group Enterprise

G1044: APT42

APT42 is an Iranian-sponsored threat group that conducts cyber espionage and surveillance.[1] The group primarily focuses on targets in the Middle East region, but has targeted a variety of industries and countries since at least 2015.[1] APT42 starts cyber operations through spearphishing emails and/or the PINEFLOWER Android malware, then monitors and collects information from the compromised systems and devices.[1] Finally, APT42 exfiltrates data using native features and open-source tools.[2]

APT42 activities have been linked to Magic Hound by other commercial vendors. While there are behavior and software overlaps between Magic Hound and APT42, they appear to be distinct entities and are tracked as separate entities by their originating vendor.

Malware Enterprise

S0531: Grandoreiro

Grandoreiro is a banking trojan written in Delphi that was first observed in 2016 and uses a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) business model. Grandoreiro has confirmed victims in Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain.[1][2]

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

S9010: GlassWorm

GlassWorm is a worm that propagated through supply chain attacks by compromising repository credentials from victim environments and having malicious payloads added to those compromised accounts for distribution to victims across the various development ecosystems.[1][2][3] GlassWorm has numerous variants, including Rust binaries, encrypted JavaScript and a variant leveraging invisible Unicode characters that made reverse engineering difficult.[4][1][5] GlassWorm has employed a unique command and control (C2) methodology using Solana blockchain.[6][1] GlassWorm was first reported in October 2025.[6][1][3]

macOSWindows
Malware Enterprise

S0492: CookieMiner

CookieMiner is mac-based malware that targets information associated with cryptocurrency exchanges as well as enabling cryptocurrency mining on the victim system itself. It was first discovered in the wild in 2019.[1]

macOS
Tool Enterprise

S9003: evilginx2

evilginx2 is an open-source adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) attack framework based on the open-source nginx web server. evilginx2 can be used as a reverse proxy between victims and legitimate web services to intercept and capture credentials, authentication tokens, and session cookies.[1][2][3]

IaaSIdentity ProviderOffice Suite
Malware Enterprise

S0650: QakBot

QakBot is a modular banking trojan that has been used primarily by financially-motivated actors since at least 2007. QakBot is continuously maintained and developed and has evolved from an information stealer into a delivery agent for ransomware, most notably ProLock and Egregor.[1][2][3][4]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S1201: TRANSLATEXT

TRANSLATEXT is malware that is believed to be used by Kimsuky.[1] TRANSLATEXT masqueraded as a Google Translate extension for Google Chrome, but is actually a collection of four malicious Javascript files that perform defense evasion, information collection and exfiltration.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0631: Chaes

Chaes is a multistage information stealer written in several programming languages that collects login credentials, credit card numbers, and other financial information. Chaes was first observed in 2020, and appears to primarily target victims in Brazil as well as other e-commerce customers in Latin America.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S1240: RedLine Stealer

RedLine Stealer is an information-stealer malware variant first identified in 2020.[1][2][3] RedLine Stealer is a Malware as a Service (MaaS) and was reportedly sold as either a one-time purchase or a monthly subscription service.[1][4] Information obtained from RedLine Stealer has been known to be sold on the deep and dark web to Initial Access Brokers (IABs), who use or resell the stolen credentials for further intrusions.[5][4]

Windows
Campaign Enterprise

C0024: SolarWinds Compromise

The SolarWinds Compromise was a sophisticated supply chain cyber operation conducted by APT29 that was discovered in mid-December 2020. APT29 used customized malware to inject malicious code into the SolarWinds Orion software build process that was later distributed through a normal software update; they also used password spraying, token theft, API abuse, spear phishing, and other supply chain attacks to compromise user accounts and leverage their associated access. Victims of this campaign included government, consulting, technology, telecom, and other organizations in North America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This activity has been labled the StellarParticle campaign in industry reporting.[1] Industry reporting also initially referred to the actors involved in this campaign as UNC2452, NOBELIUM, Dark Halo, and SolarStorm.[2][3][4][5][1][6][7][8]

In April 2021, the US and UK governments attributed the SolarWinds Compromise to Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR); public statements included citations to APT29, Cozy Bear, and The Dukes.[9][10][11] The US government assessed that of the approximately 18,000 affected public and private sector customers of Solar Winds’ Orion product, a much smaller number were compromised by follow-on APT29 activity on their systems.[12]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

uses · Group G1014: LuminousMoth Enterprise uses · Group G0094: Kimsuky Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1047: Audit Enterprise uses · Group G0034: Sandworm Team Enterprise uses · Malware S0531: Grandoreiro Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1054: Software Configuration Enterprise uses · Malware S1207: XLoader Enterprise uses · Group G1015: Scattered Spider Enterprise uses · Group G0120: Evilnum Enterprise uses · Malware S9010: GlassWorm Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1021: Restrict Web-Based Content Enterprise uses · Malware S0492: CookieMiner Enterprise uses · Tool S9003: evilginx2 Enterprise uses · Group G1033: Star Blizzard Enterprise uses · Group G0030: Lotus Blossom Enterprise uses · Malware S1140: Spica Enterprise mitigates · Mitigation M1032: Multi-factor Authentication Enterprise uses · Malware S0650: QakBot Enterprise uses · Malware S0568: EVILNUM Enterprise uses · Malware S1201: TRANSLATEXT Enterprise uses · Malware S0631: Chaes Enterprise uses · Malware S0657: BLUELIGHT Enterprise uses · Campaign C0024: SolarWinds Compromise Enterprise uses · Malware S1240: RedLine Stealer Enterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

Mitigation Enterprise

M1047: Audit

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.This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

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.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1054: Software Configuration

Software configuration refers to making security-focused adjustments to the settings of applications, middleware, databases, or other software to mitigate potential threats. These changes help reduce the attack surface, enforce best practices, and protect sensitive data. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Conduct a Security Review of Application Settings:

- Review the software documentation to identify recommended security configurations. - Compare default settings against organizational policies and compliance requirements.

Implement Access Controls and Permissions:

- Restrict access to sensitive features or data within the software. - Enforce least privilege principles for all roles and accounts interacting with the software.

Enable Logging and Monitoring:

- Configure detailed logging for key application events such as authentication failures, configuration changes, or unusual activity. - Integrate logs with a centralized monitoring solution, such as a SIEM.

Update and Patch Software Regularly:

- Ensure the software is kept up-to-date with the latest security patches to address known vulnerabilities. - Use automated patch management tools to streamline the update process.

Disable Unnecessary Features or Services:

- Turn off unused functionality or components that could introduce vulnerabilities, such as debugging interfaces or deprecated APIs.

Test Configuration Changes:

- Perform configuration changes in a staging environment before applying them in production. - Conduct regular audits to ensure that settings remain aligned with security policies.

*Tools for Implementation*

Configuration Management Tools:

- Ansible: Automates configuration changes across multiple applications and environments. - Chef: Ensures consistent application settings through code-based configuration management. - Puppet: Automates software configurations and audits changes for compliance.

Security Benchmarking Tools:

- CIS-CAT: Provides benchmarks and audits for secure software configurations. - Aqua Security Trivy: Scans containerized applications for configuration issues.

Vulnerability Management Solutions:

- Nessus: Identifies misconfigurations and suggests corrective actions.

Logging and Monitoring Tools:

- Splunk: Aggregates and analyzes application logs to detect suspicious activity.

Mitigation Enterprise

M1021: Restrict Web-Based Content

Restricting web-based content involves enforcing policies and technologies that limit access to potentially malicious websites, unsafe downloads, and unauthorized browser behaviors. This can include URL filtering, download restrictions, script blocking, and extension control to protect against exploitation, phishing, and malware delivery. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Deploy Web Proxy Filtering:

- Use solutions to filter web traffic based on categories, reputation, and content types. - Enforce policies that block unsafe websites or file types at the gateway level.

Enable DNS-Based Filtering:

- Implement tools to restrict access to domains associated with malware or phishing campaigns. - Use public DNS filtering services to enhance protection.

Enforce Content Security Policies (CSP):

- Configure CSP headers on internal and external web applications to restrict script execution, iframe embedding, and cross-origin requests.

Control Browser Features:

- Disable unapproved browser features like automatic downloads, developer tools, or unsafe scripting. - Enforce policies through tools like Group Policy Management to control browser settings.

Monitor and Alert on Web-Based Threats:

- Use SIEM tools to collect and analyze web proxy logs for signs of anomalous or malicious activity. - Configure alerts for access attempts to blocked domains or repeated file download failures.

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

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

M1017: User 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. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

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.

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
46590843583f53de...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 1.5 Current bundle 46590843583f…
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]
    Pass The Cookie

    Rehberger, J. (2018, December). Pivot to the Cloud using Pass the Cookie. Retrieved April 5, 2019.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    Kaspersky TajMahal April 2019

    GReAT. (2019, April 10). Project TajMahal – a sophisticated new APT framework. Retrieved October 14, 2019.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    Unit 42 Mac Crypto Cookies January 2019

    Chen, Y., Hu, W., Xu, Z., et. al. (2019, January 31). Mac Malware Steals Cryptocurrency Exchanges’ Cookies. Retrieved October 14, 2019.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    Talos Roblox Scam 2023

    Tiago Pereira. (2023, November 2). Attackers use JavaScript URLs, API forms and more to scam users in popular online game “Roblox”. Retrieved January 2, 2024.

    Open source URL
  5. [5]
    Krebs Discord Bookmarks 2023

    Brian Krebs. (2023, May 30). Discord Admins Hacked by Malicious Bookmarks. Retrieved January 2, 2024.

    Open source URL
  6. [6]
    Github evilginx2

    Gretzky, Kuba. (2019, April 10). Retrieved October 8, 2019.

    Open source URL
  7. [7]
    GitHub Mauraena

    Orrù, M., Trotta, G.. (2019, September 11). Muraena. Retrieved October 14, 2019.

    Open source URL
  8. [8]
    mitre-attack T1539
    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