TA0037: Command and Control
The adversary is trying to communicate with compromised devices to control them.
The command and control tactic represents how adversaries communicate with systems under their control within a target network. There are many ways an adversary can establish command and control with various levels of covertness, depending on system configuration and network topology. Due to the wide degree of variation available to the adversary at the network level, only the most common factors were used to describe the differences in command and control. There are still a great many specific techniques within the documented methods, largely due to how easy it is to define new protocols and use existing, legitimate protocols and network services for communication.
The resulting breakdown should help convey the concept that detecting intrusion through command and control protocols without prior knowledge is a difficult proposition over the long term. Adversaries' main constraints in network-level defense avoidance are testing and deployment of tools to rapidly change their protocols, awareness of existing defensive technologies, and access to legitimate Web services that, when used appropriately, make their tools difficult to distinguish from benign traffic.
Additionally, in the mobile environment, mobile devices are frequently connected to networks outside enterprise control such as cellular networks or public Wi-Fi networks. Adversaries could attempt to evade detection by communicating on these networks, and potentially even by using non-Internet Protocol mechanisms such as Short Message Service (SMS). However, cellular networks often have data caps and/or extra data charges that could increase the potential for adversarial communication to be detected.
Security context for executives and security teams
TA0037: Command and Control describes The adversary is trying to communicate with compromised devices to control them. The command and control tactic represents how adversaries communicate with systems under their control within a target network. There are many ways an adversary can establish command and control with various levels of covertness, depending on system configuration and network topology. Due to the wide degree of variation available to the adversary at the network level, only the most common factors were used to describe the differences i...
Executive priority
TA0037: Command and Control is an official MITRE ATT&CK tactic. Glexia treats it as defensive behavior context for prioritizing monitoring, control validation, and response planning without using the object by itself as an attribution claim.
Technical view
Security teams should validate TA0037: Command and Control by reviewing the official ATT&CK relationships, mapped tactics (the mapped ATT&CK tactic context), supported platforms (the platforms named in the official object), and available local telemetry before making detection or mitigation decisions.
Likely telemetry
- Official ATT&CK relationships and object metadata
Detection direction
- Validate whether TA0037: Command and Control appears in your detection coverage and tabletop scenarios.
- Use the object to align executive risk language with SOC, incident response, and detection engineering work.
- Do not treat ATT&CK relationship context as attribution without corroborating evidence.
Mitigation priorities
- Map the object to existing controls and identify missing telemetry or response ownership.
- Prioritize mitigations that reduce exposure on the listed platforms and tactics.
- Review adjacent ATT&CK relationships before changing policy, detections, or reporting language.
Additional notes and limits
Baseline Glexia take generated from the official MITRE ATT&CK STIX object, source hash, tactics, platforms, and detection fields. It is safe to replace with a richer model-generated take for the same source hash later.
This baseline take is source-grounded and schema-validated, but it does not include environment-specific telemetry, incident evidence, or threat-intelligence corroboration.
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Command and Control
The adversary is trying to communicate with compromised devices to control them.
The command and control tactic represents how adversaries communicate with systems under their control within a target network. There are many ways an adversary can establish command and control with various levels of covertness, depending on system configuration and network topology. Due to the wide degree of variation available to the adversary at the network level, only the most common factors were used to describe the differences in command and control. There are still a great many specific techniques within the documented methods, largely due to how easy it is to define new protocols and use existing, legitimate protocols and network services for communication.
The resulting breakdown should help convey the concept that detecting intrusion through command and control protocols without prior knowledge is a difficult proposition over the long term. Adversaries' main constraints in network-level defense avoidance are testing and deployment of tools to rapidly change their protocols, awareness of existing defensive technologies, and access to legitimate Web services that, when used appropriately, make their tools difficult to distinguish from benign traffic.
Additionally, in the mobile environment, mobile devices are frequently connected to networks outside enterprise control such as cellular networks or public Wi-Fi networks. Adversaries could attempt to evade detection by communicating on these networks, and potentially even by using non-Internet Protocol mechanisms such as Short Message Service (SMS). However, cellular networks often have data caps and/or extra data charges that could increase the potential for adversarial communication to be detected.
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.
All related ATT&CK context
No relationships are available in the current normalized data for this object.
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(2)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.2 | 1.0 | Current bundle | 5520b0e187c9… | ||
| 19.1 | 1.0 | Older bundle | 5520b0e187c9… |
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]mitre-attackTA0037Open 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.