T1588: Obtain Capabilities
Adversaries may buy and/or steal capabilities that can be used during targeting. Rather than developing their own capabilities in-house, adversaries may purchase, freely download, or steal them. Activities may include the acquisition of malware, software (including licenses), exploits, certificates, and information relating to vulnerabilities. Adversaries may obtain capabilities to support their operations throughout numerous phases of the adversary lifecycle.
In addition to downloading free malware, software, and exploits from the internet, adversaries may purchase these capabilities from third-party entities. Third-party entities can include technology companies that specialize in malware and exploits, criminal marketplaces, or from individuals.[1][2]
In addition to purchasing capabilities, adversaries may steal capabilities from third-party entities (including other adversaries). This can include stealing software licenses, malware, SSL/TLS and code-signing certificates, or raiding closed databases of vulnerabilities or exploits.[3]
Analyst context for executives and security teams
Obtain Capabilities is pre-attack preparation: adversaries acquire malware, tools, certificates, exploits, vulnerability information, or AI capabilities instead of building everything themselves. For leaders, the practical issue is that a future incident may be enabled before the first visible intrusion attempt, especially when trusted software, certificates, or newly disclosed vulnerabilities reduce the defender’s warning time.
Executive priority
Treat this as a readiness and prioritization problem, not a single alerting problem. Executives should ask whether vulnerability management, certificate governance, threat intelligence, and pre-compromise monitoring can identify when acquired capabilities could make the organization easier to target. This technique supports business decisions around patch urgency, software trust, supplier and certificate risk, and incident response preparation.
Technical view
This is an ATT&CK PRE-platform, Resource Development technique with no official ATT&CK detection text supplied. SOC and detection teams should validate coverage across the related subtechnique areas: acquired malware, dual-use tools, code-signing certificates, SSL/TLS certificates, exploits, vulnerability information, and AI-enabled preparation. The relationship to DET0850 indicates a detection strategy exists, but local teams still need to map it to their telemetry and use cases. The M1056 Pre-compromise mitigation relationship points toward reducing attack surface and identifying adversarial preparation activity before intrusion.
Likely telemetry
- Threat intelligence reporting on malware, tools, exploit availability, certificate abuse, and vulnerability interest
- Vulnerability management data, exposure inventories, and patch status
- Certificate inventory, code-signing certificate records, and SSL/TLS certificate monitoring
- Network security telemetry that can surface suspicious infrastructure or certificate patterns
- Endpoint and software inventory data for unexpected tools or signed binaries
Detection direction
- Do not rely on a single direct detection; this behavior often occurs before victim-environment telemetry exists.
- Validate whether threat intelligence is operationalized into watchlists, vulnerability prioritization, certificate monitoring, and SOC hunt hypotheses.
- Tune detections around suspicious or unexpected use of signed code, unusual TLS/SSL certificate characteristics, known malicious or dual-use tools, and exploit-related exposure where supported by local telemetry.
- Separate legitimate security research, administrator tooling, and normal certificate issuance from adversary preparation indicators to reduce false positives.
- Use the related subtechniques to structure coverage reviews: malware, tools, code-signing certificates, digital certificates, exploits, vulnerabilities, and artificial intelligence.
Mitigation priorities
- Prioritize M1056-style pre-compromise controls: reduce exposed attack surface and improve visibility into adversarial preparation.
- Maintain current asset, software, vulnerability, and certificate inventories so newly relevant acquired capabilities can be assessed quickly.
- Tie vulnerability prioritization to exploit availability and exposure, not only severity scores.
- Govern code-signing and TLS certificate issuance, storage, renewal, and revocation processes.
- Prepare IR playbooks to investigate when trusted certificates, legitimate tools, or public exploits appear in malicious activity.
Analyst notes and limits
This technique is broad and decision-oriented. Its value is in forcing a coverage review across threat intelligence, vulnerability management, certificate governance, SOC detection engineering, and incident response readiness. The related subtechniques provide the practical decomposition for control testing.
The official ATT&CK object provides no detection text and only the PRE platform. Any claims about active exploitation, specific adversaries, affected products, or detection coverage require local evidence or additional intelligence not supplied here.
Obtain Capabilities
Adversaries may buy and/or steal capabilities that can be used during targeting. Rather than developing their own capabilities in-house, adversaries may purchase, freely download, or steal them. Activities may include the acquisition of malware, software (including licenses), exploits, certificates, and information relating to vulnerabilities. Adversaries may obtain capabilities to support their operations throughout numerous phases of the adversary lifecycle.
In addition to downloading free malware, software, and exploits from the internet, adversaries may purchase these capabilities from third-party entities. Third-party entities can include technology companies that specialize in malware and exploits, criminal marketplaces, or from individuals.[1][2]
In addition to purchasing capabilities, adversaries may steal capabilities from third-party entities (including other adversaries). This can include stealing software licenses, malware, SSL/TLS and code-signing certificates, or raiding closed databases of vulnerabilities or exploits.[3]
How security teams should use this page
Treat this object as behavior context, not an attribution claim. Validate the related groups, software, data sources, and mitigations against official ATT&CK relationships and your own telemetry before making control-coverage decisions.
Related techniques
This mirrors the MITRE pattern of making group, software, campaign, and technique relationships scannable. Relationship notes come from mirrored ATT&CK relationship text when available.
| Domain | ID | Name | Relationship / procedure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | T1588.006 | Vulnerabilities Sub-technique | Vulnerabilities subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1588.005 | Exploits Sub-technique | Exploits subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1588.007 | Artificial Intelligence Sub-technique | Artificial Intelligence subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1588.004 | Digital Certificates Sub-technique | Digital Certificates subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1588.002 | Tool Sub-technique | Tool subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1588.003 | Code Signing Certificates Sub-technique | Code Signing Certificates subtechnique of this object. |
| Enterprise | T1588.001 | Malware Sub-technique | Malware subtechnique of this object. |
All related ATT&CK context
Mitigation direction
Object version and sync metadata
The fields below describe the current mirrored snapshot. When Glexia retains multiple ATT&CK source imports, you can open the table to compare the same object across releases (hashes and MITRE timestamps). For MITRE’s own release notes and roadmap, see ATT&CK resources — Updates .
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.1 | 1.1 | Current bundle | f89dbfee2b82… |
Mirrored ATT&CK source object
The raw object is retained through the mirrored ATT&CK source bundle and object hash. The raw endpoint returns the exact object from the mirrored bundle when available.
External references and citations
MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.
-
[1]
NationsBuying
Nicole Perlroth and David E. Sanger. (2013, July 12). Nations Buying as Hackers Sell Flaws in Computer Code. Retrieved March 9, 2017.
Open source URL -
[2]
PegasusCitizenLab
Bill Marczak and John Scott-Railton. (2016, August 24). The Million Dollar Dissident: NSO Group’s iPhone Zero-Days used against a UAE Human Rights Defender. Retrieved December 12, 2016.
Open source URL -
[3]
DiginotarCompromise
Fisher, D. (2012, October 31). Final Report on DigiNotar Hack Shows Total Compromise of CA Servers. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
Open source URL -
[4]
Analyzing CS Dec 2020
Maynier, E. (2020, December 20). Analyzing Cobalt Strike for Fun and Profit. Retrieved October 12, 2021.
Open source URL -
[5]
FireEyeSupplyChain
FireEye. (2014). SUPPLY CHAIN ANALYSIS: From Quartermaster to SunshopFireEye. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
Open source URL -
[6]
Recorded Future Beacon Certificates
Insikt Group. (2019, June 18). A Multi-Method Approach to Identifying Rogue Cobalt Strike Servers. Retrieved September 16, 2024.
Open source URL -
[7]
Splunk Kovar Certificates 2017
Kovar, R. (2017, December 11). Tall Tales of Hunting with TLS/SSL Certificates. Retrieved October 16, 2020.
Open source URL -
[8]
mitre-attack T1588Open source URL
Source: MITRE ATT&CK®. © 2026 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Glexia is not affiliated with or endorsed by MITRE.