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

T1187: Forced Authentication

Adversaries may gather credential material by invoking or forcing a user to automatically provide authentication information through a mechanism in which they can intercept.

The Server Message Block (SMB) protocol is commonly used in Windows networks for authentication and communication between systems for access to resources and file sharing. When a Windows system attempts to connect to an SMB resource it will automatically attempt to authenticate and send credential information for the current user to the remote system.[1] This behavior is typical in enterprise environments so that users do not need to enter credentials to access network resources.

Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) is also typically used by Windows systems as a backup protocol when SMB is blocked or fails. WebDAV is an extension of HTTP and will typically operate over TCP ports 80 and 443.[2][3]

Adversaries may take advantage of this behavior to gain access to user account hashes through forced SMB/WebDAV authentication. An adversary can send an attachment to a user through spearphishing that contains a resource link to an external server controlled by the adversary (i.e. Template Injection), or place a specially crafted file on navigation path for privileged accounts (e.g. .SCF file placed on desktop) or on a publicly accessible share to be accessed by victim(s). When the user's system accesses the untrusted resource, it will attempt authentication and send information, including the user's hashed credentials, over SMB to the adversary-controlled server.[4] With access to the credential hash, an adversary can perform off-line Brute Force cracking to gain access to plaintext credentials.[5]

There are several different ways this can occur.[6] Some specifics from in-the-wild use include:

* A spearphishing attachment containing a document with a resource that is automatically loaded when the document is opened (i.e. Template Injection). The document can include, for example, a request similar to file[:]//[remote address]/Normal.dotm to trigger the SMB request.[7] * A modified .LNK or .SCF file with the icon filename pointing to an external reference such as \\[remote address]\pic.png that will force the system to load the resource when the icon is rendered to repeatedly gather credentials.[7]

Alternatively, by leveraging the EfsRpcOpenFileRaw function, an adversary can send SMB requests to a remote system's MS-EFSRPC interface and force the victim computer to initiate an authentication procedure and share its authentication details. The Encrypting File System Remote Protocol (EFSRPC) is a protocol used in Windows networks for maintenance and management operations on encrypted data that is stored remotely to be accessed over a network. Utilization of EfsRpcOpenFileRaw function in EFSRPC is used to open an encrypted object on the server for backup or restore. Adversaries can collect this data and abuse it as part of a NTLM relay attack to gain access to remote systems on the same internal network.[8][9]

EnterpriseT1187TechniqueObject v1.4Modified
Discuss defensive coverageBack to ATT&CK
Glexia's Take · Automated analysis

Security context for executives and security teams

Automation confidenceMedium

T1187: Forced Authentication describes Adversaries may gather credential material by invoking or forcing a user to automatically provide authentication information through a mechanism in which they can intercept. The Server Message Block (SMB) protocol is commonly used in Windows networks for authentication and communication between systems for access to resources and file sharing. When a Windows system attempts to connect to an SMB resource it will automatically attempt to authenticate and send credential information for the current user to the remote ...

Executive priority

T1187: Forced Authentication is an official MITRE ATT&CK technique. 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 T1187: Forced Authentication by reviewing the official ATT&CK relationships, mapped tactics (credential-access), supported platforms (Windows), and available local telemetry before making detection or mitigation decisions.

Likely telemetry

  • Official ATT&CK relationships and object metadata
  • Identity, privilege, and authentication events
  • Network, endpoint, and security-tool telemetry

Detection direction

  • Validate whether T1187: Forced Authentication 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.

Official MITRE ATT&CK definition

Forced Authentication

Adversaries may gather credential material by invoking or forcing a user to automatically provide authentication information through a mechanism in which they can intercept.

The Server Message Block (SMB) protocol is commonly used in Windows networks for authentication and communication between systems for access to resources and file sharing. When a Windows system attempts to connect to an SMB resource it will automatically attempt to authenticate and send credential information for the current user to the remote system.[1] This behavior is typical in enterprise environments so that users do not need to enter credentials to access network resources.

Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) is also typically used by Windows systems as a backup protocol when SMB is blocked or fails. WebDAV is an extension of HTTP and will typically operate over TCP ports 80 and 443.[2][3]

Adversaries may take advantage of this behavior to gain access to user account hashes through forced SMB/WebDAV authentication. An adversary can send an attachment to a user through spearphishing that contains a resource link to an external server controlled by the adversary (i.e. Template Injection), or place a specially crafted file on navigation path for privileged accounts (e.g. .SCF file placed on desktop) or on a publicly accessible share to be accessed by victim(s). When the user's system accesses the untrusted resource, it will attempt authentication and send information, including the user's hashed credentials, over SMB to the adversary-controlled server.[4] With access to the credential hash, an adversary can perform off-line Brute Force cracking to gain access to plaintext credentials.[5]

There are several different ways this can occur.[6] Some specifics from in-the-wild use include:

* A spearphishing attachment containing a document with a resource that is automatically loaded when the document is opened (i.e. Template Injection). The document can include, for example, a request similar to file[:]//[remote address]/Normal.dotm to trigger the SMB request.[7] * A modified .LNK or .SCF file with the icon filename pointing to an external reference such as \\[remote address]\pic.png that will force the system to load the resource when the icon is rendered to repeatedly gather credentials.[7]

Alternatively, by leveraging the EfsRpcOpenFileRaw function, an adversary can send SMB requests to a remote system's MS-EFSRPC interface and force the victim computer to initiate an authentication procedure and share its authentication details. The Encrypting File System Remote Protocol (EFSRPC) is a protocol used in Windows networks for maintenance and management operations on encrypted data that is stored remotely to be accessed over a network. Utilization of EfsRpcOpenFileRaw function in EFSRPC is used to open an encrypted object on the server for backup or restore. Adversaries can collect this data and abuse it as part of a NTLM relay attack to gain access to remote systems on the same internal network.[8][9]

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

GroupEnterprise

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]

GroupEnterprise

G0079: DarkHydrus

DarkHydrus is a threat group that has targeted government agencies and educational institutions in the Middle East since at least 2016. The group heavily leverages open-source tools and custom payloads for carrying out attacks. [1] [2]

Relationship explorer

All related ATT&CK context

mitigates · MitigationM1037: Filter Network TrafficEnterprisemitigates · MitigationM1027: Password PoliciesEnterpriseuses · GroupG0035: DragonflyEnterpriseuses · GroupG0079: DarkHydrusEnterpriseuses · MalwareS0634: EnvyScoutEnterprisedetects · Detection StrategyDET0022: Detect Forced SMB/WebDAV Authentication via lure files and outbound NTLMEnterprise
Mitigations

Mitigation direction

MitigationEnterprise

M1037: Filter Network Traffic

Employ network appliances and endpoint software to filter ingress, egress, and lateral network traffic. This includes protocol-based filtering, enforcing firewall rules, and blocking or restricting traffic based on predefined conditions to limit adversary movement and data exfiltration. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Ingress Traffic Filtering:

- Use Case: Configure network firewalls to allow traffic only from authorized IP addresses to public-facing servers. - Implementation: Limit SSH (port 22) and RDP (port 3389) traffic to specific IP ranges.

Egress Traffic Filtering:

- Use Case: Use firewalls or endpoint security software to block unauthorized outbound traffic to prevent data exfiltration and command-and-control (C2) communications. - Implementation: Block outbound traffic to known malicious IPs or regions where communication is unexpected.

Protocol-Based Filtering:

- Use Case: Restrict the use of specific protocols that are commonly abused by adversaries, such as SMB, RPC, or Telnet, based on business needs. - Implementation: Disable SMBv1 on endpoints to prevent exploits like EternalBlue.

Network Segmentation:

- Use Case: Create network segments for critical systems and restrict communication between segments unless explicitly authorized. - Implementation: Implement VLANs to isolate IoT devices or guest networks from core business systems.

Application Layer Filtering:

- Use Case: Use proxy servers or Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to inspect and block malicious HTTP/S traffic. - Implementation: Configure a WAF to block SQL injection attempts or other web application exploitation techniques.

MitigationEnterprise

M1027: Password Policies

Set and enforce secure password policies for accounts to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access. Strong password policies include enforcing password complexity, requiring regular password changes, and preventing password reuse. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures:

Windows Systems:

- Use Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) to configure: - Minimum password length (e.g., 12+ characters). - Password complexity requirements. - Password history (e.g., disallow last 24 passwords). - Account lockout duration and thresholds.

Linux Systems:

- Configure Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM): - Use `pam_pwquality` to enforce complexity and length requirements. - Implement `pam_tally2` or `pam_faillock` for account lockouts. - Use `pwunconv` to disable password reuse.

Password Managers:

- Enforce usage of enterprise password managers (e.g., Bitwarden, 1Password, LastPass) to generate and store strong passwords.

Password Blacklisting:

- Use tools like Have I Been Pwned password checks or NIST-based blacklist solutions to prevent users from setting compromised passwords.

Regular Auditing:

- Periodically audit password policies and account configurations to ensure compliance using tools like LAPS (Local Admin Password Solution) and vulnerability scanners.

*Tools for Implementation*

Windows:

- Group Policy Management Console (GPMC): Enforce password policies. - Microsoft Local Administrator Password Solution (LAPS): Enforce random, unique admin passwords.

Linux/macOS:

- PAM Modules (pam_pwquality, pam_tally2, pam_faillock): Enforce password rules. - Lynis: Audit password policies and system configurations.

Cross-Platform:

- Password Managers (Bitwarden, 1Password, KeePass): Manage and enforce strong passwords. - Have I Been Pwned API: Prevent the use of breached passwords. - NIST SP 800-63B compliant tools: Enforce password guidelines and blacklisting.

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
19.2
Object version
1.4
Created
Modified
Raw hash
c23568f2a2db421f...
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases(2)
ReleaseBundle importedObject versionModifiedStatusRaw hash
19.21.4Current bundlec23568f2a2db…
19.11.4Older bundlec23568f2a2db…
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 JSONOpen 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]
    Wikipedia Server Message Block

    Wikipedia. (2017, December 16). Server Message Block. Retrieved December 21, 2017.

    Open source URL
  2. [2]
    Didier Stevens WebDAV Traffic

    Stevens, D. (2017, November 13). WebDAV Traffic To Malicious Sites. Retrieved December 21, 2017.

    Open source URL
  3. [3]
    Microsoft Managing WebDAV Security

    Microsoft. (n.d.). Managing WebDAV Security (IIS 6.0). Retrieved November 17, 2024.

    Open source URL
  4. [4]
    GitHub Hashjacking

    Dunning, J. (2016, August 1). Hashjacking. Retrieved December 21, 2017.

    Open source URL
  5. [5]
    Cylance Redirect to SMB

    Cylance. (2015, April 13). Redirect to SMB. Retrieved December 21, 2017.

    Open source URL
  6. [6]
    Osanda Stealing NetNTLM Hashes

    Osanda Malith Jayathissa. (2017, March 24). Places of Interest in Stealing NetNTLM Hashes. Retrieved January 26, 2018.

    Open source URL
  7. [7]
    US-CERT APT Energy Oct 2017

    US-CERT. (2017, October 20). Alert (TA17-293A): Advanced Persistent Threat Activity Targeting Energy and Other Critical Infrastructure Sectors. Retrieved November 2, 2017.

    Open source URL
  8. [8]
    Rapid7

    Condon, Caitlin. (2022, April 24). PetitPotam: Novel Attack Chain Can Fully Compromise Windows Domains. Retrieved May 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  9. [9]
    GitHub

    topotam. (2021, July 18). PetitPotam. PoC tool to coerce Windows hosts to authenticate to other machines. Retrieved May 30, 2025.

    Open source URL
  10. [10]
    mitre-attackT1187
    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 siteOfficial STIX data repositoryMITRE ATT&CK terms of use