What is the MITRE ATTACK framework?

When the non-profit MITRE organization began compiling its compendium knowledge base called ATT&CK (Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, & Common Knowledge, pronounced ‘attack’) in 2013, it made cyber security attacks and vocabulary accessible free to government, enterprises, and the public looking to understand known behaviors — from the standpoint of adversarial behaviors. In this article we will dive into whether having this knowledge base has changed how teams view cybersecurity and how teams can best leverage this knowledge.

What is the MITRE ATT&CK Framework?

MITRE emerged from work done at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Lincoln Laboratory, which in the 1950s was dedicated to developing radar systems and national defense technologies, evolving to incorporate cyber defense strategies needed to secure these critical systems and to share knowledge within the growing cybersecurity community.

ATT&CK is structured as a matrix covering the following 11 categories:

1. Reconnaissance
2. Resource Development
3. Initial Access
4. Execution
5. Persistence
6. Privilege Escalation
7. Defense Evasion
8. Credential Access
9. Discovery
10. Lateral movement
11. Collection

Categories comprise 9-44 techniques named for the objectives of attackers. They are further broken down into sub-techniques, making a formidable grid for organizations to get a quick sense of the landscape of threats around any given risk. 

For example, in the “reconnaissance” category, a “gather victim identity information” technique describes the data gathered, methods used, and how those actions lead to success in further techniques seeking access to accounts and systems, listing incidents and references. 

While the project was born of an internal project to document how adversaries operated in a Windows enterprise environment, it has since expanded to include MacOS, Linux, and cloud environments and to address techniques including social media accounts, email accounts, cloud accounts, and more. 

Benefits and Limitations to Using the ATT&CK Framework 

While MITRE’s ATT&CK framework is updated often, its structure can feel confining as overlapping techniques come to the fore. Additionally, emerging attacks aren’t documented, so treating the MITRE ATT&CK framework as a complete cybersecurity guide can leave organizations vulnerable to exploits that haven’t yet been documented in the ATT&CK framework.

According to Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG), zero-day attacks increased 50% in 2023 compared to the previous year.

The substantial rise highlights the growing prevalence of threats that can’t be prepared for by treating knowledge from previous attacks as a definitive guidebook for what and how to protect current resources.

Nevertheless, the learnings contained in the ATT&CK framework are substantial. Let’s address the benefits alongside how to manage limitations for more comprehensive overall security.

Granular Understanding of Adversary Behavior

By mapping specific behaviors, organizations can identify gaps in their coverage, strengthen their defenses, proactively hunt for threats, and tailor incident response to counter observed attack patterns. 

While some overlaps exist in techniques across different stages of an attack lifecycle, the framework’s granularity provides defenders with a detailed view of adversary behaviors. However, overlapping techniques can complicate application. 

For instance, attackers often blend techniques across multiple stages of the attack lifecycle (i.e., Initial Access and Execution) and exploit both technical vulnerabilities and human factors.

Vendor-Agnostic and Universal

ATT&CK is open source and widely adopted across the cybersecurity industry, making it a unifying language for defenders, vendors, and researchers. That standardization leads to better communication, collaboration, and tool integration. 

Yet universality can suggest the framework is a universal solution as well as a universal document. While ATT&CK doesn’t address all regulatory or operational risks directly (e.g., HIPAA compliance or financial insider threats), it includes tailored matrices like ATT&CK for ICS and Cloud that address techniques targeting specific environments, such as industrial components or cloud workloads.

While ATT&CK doesn’t directly address all industry-specific compliance requirements or operational risks, such as HIPAA compliance, it does provide tailored matrices like ATT&CK ICS (Industrial Control Systems) which does address manipulations of industrial components.

Strong Foundation for Threat-Hunting

By focusing on adversary behavior rather than static indicators, ATT&CK enables proactive threat hunting, helping teams discover attacks that evade traditional detection. But that means emerging threats like zero-day exploits are not included in ATT&CK until observed in the wild.

Supports Comprehensive Threat Assessments

Organizations can systematically map their defensive capabilities against ATT&CK to identify strengths and weaknesses. For example, integrating ATT&CK with practices like a Secure Software Development Lifecycle helps teams bake security into their systems from the start.

They might also use ATT&CK information for red teaming, when organizations simulate real-world attacks in order to test the organization’s defenses.

While the ATT&CK framework can be incorporated into actions to enhance security, it provides limited guidance on mitigation strategies beyond high-level suggestions, requiring defenders to translate insights into actionable plans themselves.

Common Critiques of MITRE ATT&CK

MITRE ATT&CK is widely praised for its universality and versatility, but recurring critiques help underscore that it’s not a stand-alone solution for cybersecurity pros. Among the common criticisms are that: 

• ATT&CK uses a checklist mentality: Organizations can fall into the trap of using the framework as a to-do list, leading to a false sense of security.
• The framework is reactive by design: It documents observed attacks, which makes it reactive by definition. That limits its use for prediction or modeling.
• The framework categories are too discrete: Overlapping techniques and sub-categories can create confusion.
• The framework lacks prioritization. There’s no risk scoring here. Teams can’t surmise the likelihood of any of the threats (or assess their potential impact).
• ATT&CK has a high learning curve: The framework is expansive, requiring significant time to digest and taking even longer to operationalize. 
• The coverage is inconsistent for emerging environments. While updated often, the framework’s coverage for new technologies, like Kubernetes and serverless applications, remains less comprehensive.
• There’s no built-in guidance for implementation. Teams must translate insights into actionable security measures themselves.

When Should Organizations Use ATT&CK?

So when and how should organizations use ATT&CK? The MITRE framework is not a universal solution, but it excels when used for certain purposes, specifically those requiring granular insight into adversary behaviors. ATT&CK is most effective when combined with other tools and frameworks, tailored to organizational needs, and used strategically rather than as a standalone guide.

Here’s how it compares to traditional frameworks like those developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) Controls — and compared to emerging tools like CNAPP, which don’t rely on human-driven implementation, but instead turn to automation to identify and mitigate risks.

	MITRE ATT&CK	Traditional Frameworks (e.g., NIST CFS, CIS Controls)	Emerging Tools (e.g., runtime-focused CNAPPs)
Focus	Adversary behaviors (TTPs, or tactics, techniques, and procedures), attack lifecycle	Broad governance, compliance, best practices	Runtime visibility, real-time protection
Approach	Behavior-driven. Catalogs observed attack methods	Policy-driven. Emphasizes high-level strategies for risk reduction	Automated: Leverages insights and behavior analysis to detect and mitigate threats dynamically
Granularity	Highly detailed, with 11 categories and 200+ techniques and sub-techniques	High-level, focused on principles and general controls	Fine-grained, tailored to workloads, containers, and cloud-native apps
Threat Coverage	Known adversary behaviors, documented attacks, with tailored matrices for environments like ICS, cloud, and enterprise IT.	Generalized risks, including physical and procedural security	Broad, including known and emerging threats, including zero-days and industry-specific risks
Guidance for Mitigation	High-level, focuses on what attackers do rather than how to prevent	Prescriptive, procedural	Actionable and automated, with detection and response features
Tool integration	Vendor-agnostic, widely adopted across cybersecurity tools such as SIEM, EDR, and SOAR	Indirect integration, often requiring manual adaptation	Full-stack integration with cloud, workload, and app security, providing comprehensive runtime insights
Industry Context	Generalized, but does include tailored matrices like ICS	Adaptable to industry needs by tailoring these broad frameworks to industry needs	Customizable features that can adapt to industry-specific needs.
Use Cases	Proactive threat hunting, red teaming, and identifying TTPs	Compliance reporting, risk assessments, basic defense networks	Detecting blended attacks, securing cloud-native apps, and mitigating vulnerabilities in real time

So when should teams use ATT&CK? It’s best for advanced teams focused on understanding adversary behavior, designing red team scenarios, and proactively hunting threats. They’ll get insights into how attacks happen, complementing their strategic goals, and they’ll be able to integrate their learnings into security tools like Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), Endpoint Detection Response (EDR), and Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR).

On the other hand, traditional frameworks are best for organizations seeking a baseline security posture, especially in industries where compliance is a must. They’ll get broad governance and risk management with guidance rather than specific response and detection capabilities.

Because each of these approaches addresses different aspects of cyber security, they are often used together for a complementary approach. For example, traditional frameworks ensure compliance, while ATT&CK’s tailored matrices, like ATT&CK ICS or Cloud, help teams analyze tactics to cover existing security gaps.

Finally, comprehensive CNAPPs that provide advanced threat detections are ideal for companies operating in cloud-native or hybrid spaces. They give real-time protection for dynamic workloads, with threat detection, runtime analysis, and automated responses – often while using ATT&CK to help users understand detections. CNAPPs also guard against complex, multi-stage attacks, as well as zero-day attacks using never-before-seen techniques.

Upwind Transforms Your Strategy into a Dynamic Security Force

Static frameworks like ATT&CK become truly actionable when paired with tools like CNAPP that provide real-time visibility, automated risk mitigation, and behavioral analysis in cloud-native environments. 

Upwind brings these capabilities to life by operationalizing ATT&CK’s principles for dynamic security needs. It supports knowledge bases like ATT&CK, including its tailored matrices for ICS and cloud, transforming reactive data into a proactive, industry-aligned defense posture.

See how it works. Get a demo today.

FAQ

What does MITRE stand for?

MITRE stands for MIT Research Establishment. It emerged to serve government agencies, but today, the non-profit organization’s mission is to serve the public interest.

What are the 3 main matrices of the MITRE ATT&CK Framework? 

There isn’t an official distinction for “main” matrices. However, 3 focus areas (Enterprise, Mobile, ICS) are often emphasized:

1. Enterprise ATT&CK Matrix: It covers TTPS used to attack enterprise networks and systems. It includes platforms such as Windows, macOS, etc., as well as cloud environments (like AWS Azure) and network infrastructure.
2. Mobile ATT&CK Matrix: It covers threats to mobile devices, tactics used against iOS and Android platforms, and methods attackers use to access devices without requiring physical access.
3. Industrial Control Systems (ICS) ATT&CK Matrix: It covers industrial control systems commonly found in industries like energy or manufacturing. That can include tactics unique to ICS environments, such as manipulating control system devices or exploiting industrial protocols.

Further, more specialized matrices like ATT&CK for Cloud focus on tactics and techniques specific to cloud platforms such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. 

What is the difference between NIST and MITRE ATT&CK?

NIST is a security framework that strategically aligns security posture to organizational goals. It can help teams build a baseline security program, ensuring compliance and managing broad risks. NIST lacks granularity on adversary tactics and operational details about how attacks happen.

On the other hand, MITRE ATT&CK is a security framework that’s tactical, made to inform proactive threat hunting, red teaming, and incident response. It helps teams understand adversary behavior and identify security gaps in their posture. ATT&CK requires integration with tools for actionable insights and lacks a focus on governance.

What is the use case of MITRE ATT&CK?

MITRE ATT&CK is ideal for use cases in cyber security that focus on how an attacker behaves. For instance, organizations may use ATT&CK for threat hunting, identifying active threats in an environment by looking for known adversarial behaviors. They might use tactics described by ATT&CK to search for suspicious activity in logs, network traffic, or endpoint data. 

Another common use case is red teaming, where teams design attack scenarios using information in ATT&CK about actual attacks. That helps organizations test their defenses and shore up security gaps they may not have recognized.