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

T1572: Protocol Tunneling

Adversaries may tunnel network communications to and from a victim system within a separate protocol to avoid detection/network filtering and/or enable access to otherwise unreachable systems. Tunneling involves explicitly encapsulating a protocol within another. This behavior may conceal malicious traffic by blending in with existing traffic and/or provide an outer layer of encryption (similar to a VPN). Tunneling could also enable routing of network packets that would otherwise not reach their intended destination, such as SMB, RDP, or other traffic that would be filtered by network appliances or not routed over the Internet.

There are various means to encapsulate a protocol within another protocol. For example, adversaries may perform SSH tunneling (also known as SSH port forwarding), which involves forwarding arbitrary data over an encrypted SSH tunnel.[1][2]

Protocol Tunneling may also be abused by adversaries during Dynamic Resolution. Known as DNS over HTTPS (DoH), queries to resolve C2 infrastructure may be encapsulated within encrypted HTTPS packets.[3]

Adversaries may also leverage Protocol Tunneling in conjunction with Proxy and/or Protocol or Service Impersonation to further conceal C2 communications and infrastructure.

EnterpriseT1572TechniqueObject v1.1 Modified
Glexia's Take

Analyst context for executives and security teams

Analyst confidence High

Protocol Tunneling is a command-and-control behavior where adversaries wrap one network protocol inside another, often encrypted or commonly allowed protocol, so traffic can blend in or reach systems that should not be directly reachable. For leaders, the practical issue is not the tunnel itself; it is whether the organization can prove that egress filtering, network monitoring, and incident response processes can identify suspicious use of allowed channels such as SSH, HTTPS, or DNS over HTTPS across Windows, Linux, macOS, and ESXi environments.

Executive priority

Treat this as a resilience and visibility question: can critical business systems communicate only through approved paths, and can the SOC explain unusual encrypted or tunneled traffic during an incident? This technique is associated in ATT&CK with multiple campaigns and groups, including financially motivated, espionage, telecommunications, and critical-infrastructure-related contexts. That makes it relevant to budget decisions around network intrusion prevention, egress control, segmentation, and compliance evidence for monitoring and boundary defense. For environments with operational technology or cyber-physical dependencies, the 2022 Ukraine Electric Power Attack relationship reinforces the need to validate IT-to-OT routing controls and monitoring assumptions.

Technical view

ATT&CK lists Protocol Tunneling under command-and-control for ESXi, Linux, macOS, and Windows. MITRE does not provide official detection text for this technique, so defenders should validate coverage through local telemetry and the related DET0538 detection strategy rather than assuming generic network monitoring is sufficient. SOC and IR teams should look for protocol encapsulation patterns, unexpected SSH tunneling or port forwarding, DoH use where not approved, unusual outbound encrypted sessions, and traffic that appears to carry SMB, RDP, or other internal-service behavior through an allowed external channel. Relationship context also points to Proxy and Protocol or Service Impersonation as relevant adjacent behaviors to consider during triage.

Likely telemetry

  • Firewall, proxy, and secure web gateway logs showing outbound destination, port, protocol, volume, and allow/block decisions
  • Network flow metadata and packet-derived protocol identification where available
  • DNS resolver logs and evidence of DNS over HTTPS use or bypass of approved resolvers
  • SSH server/client logs and endpoint process telemetry indicating port forwarding or unusual SSH usage
  • Endpoint network connection telemetry from Windows, Linux, macOS, and ESXi hosts

Detection direction

  • Start with an inventory of approved tunneling use cases, including administrative SSH forwarding, VPN-like services, DoH, and application-specific encrypted channels; detections need this baseline to reduce false positives.
  • Validate whether network tools can distinguish expected HTTPS or SSH from encapsulated or anomalous traffic; encrypted outer protocols can create major blind spots if only port-based rules are used.
  • Tune for unexpected outbound tunnels from servers, ESXi hosts, and user workstations, especially where the source normally should not initiate external SSH, DoH, or long-lived encrypted sessions.
  • Correlate network anomalies with endpoint process lineage and user/account context so legitimate administration is not treated the same as unexplained command-and-control behavior.
  • During investigations, pivot to adjacent ATT&CK context such as Proxy, Dynamic Resolution, and Protocol or Service Impersonation when tunneled traffic appears designed to conceal infrastructure or routing.

Mitigation priorities

  • Prioritize M1037 Filter Network Traffic: enforce ingress, egress, and lateral traffic rules so systems can only communicate over required protocols to approved destinations.
  • Apply M1031 Network Intrusion Prevention at network boundaries using signatures and policy controls where they can block or alert on known tunneling patterns.
  • Restrict or monitor high-risk but legitimate tunneling features such as SSH port forwarding and unapproved DoH, while documenting approved business exceptions.
  • Strengthen segmentation so tunneled traffic cannot easily reach internal services such as SMB, RDP, management interfaces, or OT-connected systems without passing through controlled paths.
  • Use audit-ready evidence: retain firewall, proxy, DNS, IDS/IPS, and endpoint connection logs long enough to support incident response, control validation, and compliance reporting.
Analyst notes and limits

The supplied ATT&CK object is broad and does not define a single protocol, tool, or indicator. Its business value is in testing whether allowed encrypted or encapsulated channels can bypass monitoring and filtering. The many campaign and group relationships show this is a reusable command-and-control pattern, not a niche behavior, but they should not be interpreted as proof of current activity in any specific environment.

MITRE provides no official detection text in the supplied object, and the related detection strategy details are not included beyond its name. Local baselines, approved remote administration practices, network architecture, and available telemetry are required to determine actual detection and prevention coverage. No claim is made that any organization is currently targeted or that controls will guarantee detection.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Protocol Tunneling

Adversaries may tunnel network communications to and from a victim system within a separate protocol to avoid detection/network filtering and/or enable access to otherwise unreachable systems. Tunneling involves explicitly encapsulating a protocol within another. This behavior may conceal malicious traffic by blending in with existing traffic and/or provide an outer layer of encryption (similar to a VPN). Tunneling could also enable routing of network packets that would otherwise not reach their intended destination, such as SMB, RDP, or other traffic that would be filtered by network appliances or not routed over the Internet.

There are various means to encapsulate a protocol within another protocol. For example, adversaries may perform SSH tunneling (also known as SSH port forwarding), which involves forwarding arbitrary data over an encrypted SSH tunnel.[1][2]

Protocol Tunneling may also be abused by adversaries during Dynamic Resolution. Known as DNS over HTTPS (DoH), queries to resolve C2 infrastructure may be encapsulated within encrypted HTTPS packets.[3]

Adversaries may also leverage Protocol Tunneling in conjunction with Proxy and/or Protocol or Service Impersonation to further conceal C2 communications and infrastructure.

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

G1016: FIN13

FIN13 is a financially motivated cyber threat group that has targeted the financial, retail, and hospitality industries in Mexico and Latin America, as early as 2016. FIN13 achieves its objectives by stealing intellectual property, financial data, mergers and acquisition information, or PII.[1][2]

Group Enterprise

G0059: Magic Hound

Magic Hound is an Iranian-sponsored threat group that conducts long term, resource-intensive cyber espionage operations, likely on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They have targeted European, U.S., and Middle Eastern government and military personnel, academics, journalists, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), via complex social engineering campaigns since at least 2014.[1][2][3][4][5]

Group Enterprise

G0037: FIN6

FIN6 is a cyber crime group that has stolen payment card data and sold it for profit on underground marketplaces. This group has aggressively targeted and compromised point of sale (PoS) systems in the hospitality and retail sectors.[1][2]

Group Enterprise

G1045: Salt Typhoon

Salt Typhoon is a People's Republic of China (PRC) state-backed actor that has been active since at least 2019 and responsible for numerous compromises of network infrastructure at major U.S. telecommunication and internet service providers (ISP).[1][2]

Group Enterprise

G0046: FIN7

FIN7 is a financially-motivated threat group that has been active since 2013. FIN7 has targeted the retail, restaurant, hospitality, software, consulting, financial services, medical equipment, cloud services, media, food and beverage, transportation, pharmaceutical, and utilities industries in the United States. A portion of FIN7 was operated out of a front company called Combi Security and often used point-of-sale malware for targeting efforts. Since 2020, FIN7 shifted operations to big game hunting (BGH), including use of REvil ransomware and their own Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), Darkside. FIN7 may be linked to the Carbanak Group, but multiple threat groups have been observed using Carbanak, leading these groups to be tracked separately.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Group Enterprise

G1003: Ember Bear

Ember Bear is a Russian state-sponsored cyber espionage group that has been active since at least 2020, linked to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) 161st Specialist Training Center (Unit 29155).[1] Ember Bear has primarily focused operations against Ukrainian government and telecommunication entities, but has also operated against critical infrastructure entities in Europe and the Americas.[2] Ember Bear conducted the WhisperGate destructive wiper attacks against Ukraine in early 2022.[3][4][1] There is some confusion as to whether Ember Bear overlaps with another Russian-linked entity referred to as Saint Bear. At present available evidence strongly suggests these are distinct activities with different behavioral profiles.[2][5]

Group Enterprise

G0114: Chimera

Chimera is a suspected China-based threat group that has been active since at least 2018 targeting the semiconductor industry in Taiwan as well as data from the airline industry.[1][2]

Group Enterprise

G0049: OilRig

OilRig is a suspected Iranian threat group that has targeted Middle Eastern and international victims since at least 2014. The group has targeted a variety of sectors, including financial, government, energy, chemical, and telecommunications. It appears the group carries out supply chain attacks, leveraging the trust relationship between organizations to attack their primary targets. The group works on behalf of the Iranian government based on infrastructure details that contain references to Iran, use of Iranian infrastructure, and targeting that aligns with nation-state interests.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Group Enterprise

G0117: Fox Kitten

Fox Kitten is threat actor with a suspected nexus to the Iranian government that has been active since at least 2017 against entities in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, Australia, and North America. Fox Kitten has targeted multiple industrial verticals including oil and gas, technology, government, defense, healthcare, manufacturing, and engineering.[1][2][3][4]

Group Enterprise

G0080: Cobalt Group

Cobalt Group is a financially motivated threat group that has primarily targeted financial institutions since at least 2016. The group has conducted intrusions to steal money via targeting ATM systems, card processing, payment systems and SWIFT systems. Cobalt Group has mainly targeted banks in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. One of the alleged leaders was arrested in Spain in early 2018, but the group still appears to be active. The group has been known to target organizations in order to use their access to then compromise additional victims.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Reporting indicates there may be links between Cobalt Group and both the malware Carbanak and the group Carbanak.[8]

Group Enterprise

G1021: Cinnamon Tempest

Cinnamon Tempest is a China-based threat group that has been active since at least 2021 deploying multiple strains of ransomware based on the leaked Babuk source code. Cinnamon Tempest does not operate their ransomware on an affiliate model or purchase access but appears to act independently in all stages of the attack lifecycle. Based on victimology, the short lifespan of each ransomware variant, and use of malware attributed to government-sponsored threat groups, Cinnamon Tempest may be motivated by intellectual property theft or cyberespionage rather than financial gain.[1][2][3][4]

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]

Malware Enterprise

S1187: reGeorg

reGeorg is an open-source web shell written in Python that can be used as a proxy to bypass firewall rules and tunnel data in and out of targeted networks.[1][2]

Network DevicesWindowsmacOS
Malware Enterprise

S0038: Duqu

Duqu is a malware platform that uses a modular approach to extend functionality after deployment within a target network. [1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S9024: SPAWNCHIMERA

SPAWNCHIMERA is a backdoor that supports command and control and can inject malicious components into native processes.[1][2][3] SPAWNCHIMERA It incorporates capabilities from multiple tools within the SPAWN malware family, including SPAWNANT, SPAWNMOLE, and SPAWNSNAIL.[4][2][3] SPAWNCHIMERA was first reported in April 2024.[2] SPAWNCHIMERA has been observed in activity attributed to People's Republic of China (PRC) state-sponsored threat actors, including UNC5221..[4][5][2][6]

LinuxNetwork Devices
Malware Enterprise

S1020: Kevin

Kevin is a backdoor implant written in C++ that has been used by HEXANE since at least June 2020, including in operations against organizations in Tunisia.[1]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S0604: Industroyer

Industroyer is a sophisticated malware framework designed to cause an impact to the working processes of Industrial Control Systems (ICS), specifically components used in electrical substations.[1] Industroyer was used in the attacks on the Ukrainian power grid in December 2016.[2] This is the first publicly known malware specifically designed to target and impact operations in the electric grid.[3]

Windows
Tool Enterprise

S1144: FRP

FRP, which stands for Fast Reverse Proxy, is an openly available tool that is capable of exposing a server located behind a firewall or Network Address Translation (NAT) to the Internet. FRP can support multiple protocols including TCP, UDP, and HTTP(S) and has been abused by threat actors to proxy command and control communications.[1][2][3][4]

LinuxmacOSWindows
Tool Enterprise

S1063: Brute Ratel C4

Brute Ratel C4 is a commercial red-teaming and adversarial attack simulation tool that first appeared in December 2020. Brute Ratel C4 was specifically designed to avoid detection by endpoint detection and response (EDR) and antivirus (AV) capabilities, and deploys agents called badgers to enable arbitrary command execution for lateral movement, privilege escalation, and persistence. In September 2022, a cracked version of Brute Ratel C4 was leaked in the cybercriminal underground, leading to its use by threat actors.[1][2][3][4][5]

Windows
Malware Enterprise

S9015: BRICKSTORM

BRICKSTORM is a cross-platform backdoor with variants written in Go and Rust that facilitates command and control, the ingress transfer of other malware, and the exfiltration of data.[1][2][3][4] BRICKSTORM has also been created from a .NET application using ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation to blend in within victim environments.[1] BRICKSTORM was first observed in April 2024.[5] BRICKSTORM has previously been leveraged by People's Republic of China (PRC) state-nexus actors identified as UNC6201, UNC5221, WARP PANDA, PunyToad, and SYLVANITE.[6][7][1][8][9][10][3][4]

ESXiLinuxNetwork Devices
Campaign Enterprise

C0027: C0027

C0027 was a financially-motivated campaign linked to Scattered Spider that targeted telecommunications and business process outsourcing (BPO) companies from at least June through December of 2022. During C0027 Scattered Spider used various forms of social engineering, performed SIM swapping, and attempted to leverage access from victim environments to mobile carrier networks.[1]

Campaign Enterprise

C0058: SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation

The SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation campaign was conducted in July 2025 and encompassed the first waves of exploitation against incompletely patched spoofing (CVE-2025-49706) and remote code execution (CVE-2025-49704) vulnerabilities affecting on-premises Microsoft SharePoint servers. Later patched and updated as CVE-2025-53770 and CVE-2025-53771, the ToolShell vulnerabilities were widely exploited including by China-based ransomware actor Storm-2603 and espionage actors Threat Group-3390 and ZIRCONIUM. SharePoint ToolShell Exploitation targeted multiple regions and industries including finance, education, energy, and healthcare across Asia, Europe, and the United States.[1][2][3][4][5]

Campaign Enterprise

C0029: Cutting Edge

Cutting Edge was a campaign conducted by suspected China-nexus espionage actors, variously identified as UNC5221/UTA0178 and UNC5325, that began as early as December 2023 with the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure (previously Pulse Secure) VPN appliances. Cutting Edge targeted the U.S. defense industrial base and multiple sectors globally including telecommunications, financial, aerospace, and technology. Cutting Edge featured the use of defense evasion and living-off-the-land (LoTL) techniques along with the deployment of web shells and other custom malware.[1][2][3][4][5]

Campaign Enterprise

C0004: CostaRicto

CostaRicto was a suspected hacker-for-hire cyber espionage campaign that targeted multiple industries worldwide, with a large number being financial institutions. CostaRicto actors targeted organizations in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Africa, with a large concentration in South Asia (especially India, Bangladesh, and Singapore), using custom malware, open source tools, and a complex network of proxies and SSH tunnels.[1]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

Mitigations

Mitigation direction

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
1.1
Created
Modified
Raw hash
035bf9a3d8eae309...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
Release Bundle imported Object version Modified Status Raw hash
19.1 1.1 Current bundle 035bf9a3d8ea…
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.

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]
    SSH Tunneling

    SSH.COM. (n.d.). SSH tunnel. Retrieved March 15, 2020.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    Sygnia Abyss Locker 2025

    Abigail See, Zhongyuan (Aaron) Hau, Ren Jie Yow, Yoav Mazor, Omer Kidron, and Oren Biderman. (2025, February 4). The Anatomy of Abyss Locker Ransomware Attack. Retrieved April 4, 2025.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    BleepingComp Godlua JUL19

    Gatlan, S. (2019, July 3). New Godlua Malware Evades Traffic Monitoring via DNS over HTTPS. Retrieved March 15, 2020.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    University of Birmingham C2

    Gardiner, J., Cova, M., Nagaraja, S. (2014, February). Command & Control Understanding, Denying and Detecting. Retrieved April 20, 2016.

    Open source URL
  5. [5]
    mitre-attack T1572
    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.