The objective of the Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC) effort is to provide a publicly available catalog of common attack patterns classified in an intuitive manner, along with a comprehensive schema for describing related attacks and sharing information about them.
Attack patterns within this category focus on malicious interactions with a target in an attempt to deceive the target and convince the target that it is interacting with some other principal and as such take actions based on the level of trust that exists between the target and the other principal.
An adversary modifies content to make it contain something other than what the original content producer intended while keeping the apparent source of the content unchanged.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, issues an intent directed toward a specific trusted application's component in an attempt to achieve a variety of different objectives including modification of data, information disclosure, and data injection.
A common form of a GPS spoofing attack, commonly termed a carry-off attack begins with an adversary broadcasting signals synchronized with the genuine signals observed by the target receiver.
An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
An adversary exploits a weakness in the MD5 hash algorithm (weak collision resistance) to generate a certificate signing request (CSR) that contains collision blocks in the "to be signed" part.
An attacker obtains an authoritative or reputable signer's private signature key by theft and then uses this key to forge signatures from the original signer to mislead a victim into performing actions that benefit the attacker.
An attacker exploits a cryptographic weakness in the signature verification algorithm implementation to generate a valid signature without knowing the key.
An attacker exploits a weakness in the parsing or display code of the recipient software to generate a data blob containing a supposedly valid signature, but the signer's identity is falsely represented, which can lead to the attacker manipulating the recipient software or its victim user to perform compromising actions.
An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
An attacker obtains an authoritative or reputable signer's private signature key by exploiting a cryptographic weakness in the signature algorithm or pseudorandom number generation and then uses this key to forge signatures from the original signer to mislead a victim into performing actions that benefit the attacker.
A pharming attack occurs when the victim is fooled into entering sensitive data into supposedly trusted locations, such as an online bank site or a trading platform.
An adversary creates a false front organizations with the appearance of a legitimate supplier in the critical life cycle path that then injects corrupted/malicious information system components into the organizational supply chain.
An adversary sends a malicious ("NXDOMAIN" ("No such domain") code, or DNS A record) response to a targets route request before a legitimate resolver can.
In this attack pattern, the adversary transmits disruptive signals in the direction of the target consumer-level satellite dish (as opposed to the satellite itself).
Phishing is a social engineering technique where an attacker masquerades as a legitimate entity with which the victim might do business in order to prompt the user to reveal some confidential information (very frequently authentication credentials) that can later be used by an attacker.
An adversary targets a specific user or group with a Phishing (CAPEC-98) attack tailored to a category of users in order to have maximum relevance and deceptive capability.
An attacker exploits the execution flow of a call to an external library to point to an attacker supplied library or code base, allowing the attacker to compromise the application or server via the execution of unauthorized code.
The attacker exploits the functionality of the Windows DLL loader where the process loading the DLL searches for the DLL to be loaded first in the same directory in which the process binary resides and then in other directories (e.
An attacker positions a symbolic link in such a manner that the targeted user or application accesses the link's endpoint, assuming that it is accessing a file with the link's name.
This attack loads a malicious resource into a program's standard path used to bootstrap and/or provide contextual information for a program like a path variable or classpath.
An adversary is able to disguise one action for another and therefore trick a user into initiating one type of action when they intend to initiate a different action.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, monitors the task list maintained by the operating system and waits for a specific legitimate task to become active.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, registers for a URL scheme intended for a target application that has not been installed.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, displays an interface that misleads the user and convinces him/her to tap in an attacker desired location on the screen.
In a clickjacking attack the victim is tricked into unknowingly initiating some action in one system while interacting with the UI from a seemingly completely different system.
In an iFrame overlay attack the victim is tricked into unknowingly initiating some action in one system while interacting with the UI from seemingly completely different system.
An adversary exploits inherent human psychological predisposition to influence a targeted individual or group to solicit information or manipulate the target into performing an action that serves the adversary's interests.
An adversary engages in pretexting behavior to solicit information from target persons, or manipulate the target into performing some action that serves the adversary's interests.
An adversary engages in pretexting behavior, assuming the role of someone who works for Customer Service, to solicit information from target persons, or manipulate the target into performing an action that serves the adversary's interests.
An adversary engages in pretexting behavior, assuming the role of a tech support worker, to solicit information from target persons, or manipulate the target into performing an action that serves the adversary's interests.
An adversary engages in pretexting behavior, assuming the role of a delivery person, to solicit information from target persons, or manipulate the target into performing an action that serves the adversary's interests.
An adversary engages in pretexting behavior, assuming some sort of trusted role, and contacting the targeted individual or organization via phone to solicit information from target persons, or manipulate the target into performing an action that serves the adversary's interests.
An adversary uses a social engineering techniques to produce a sense of obligation in the target to perform a certain action or concede some sensitive or key piece of information.
The adversary leverages a perception of scarcity to persuade the target to perform an action or divulge information that is advantageous to the adversary.
An adversary uses a social engineering technique to convey a sense of authority that motivates the target reveal specific information or take specific action.
An adversary uses framing techniques to contextualize a conversation so that the target is more likely to be influenced by the adversary's point of view.
The adversary shapes the target's actions or behavior by focusing on the ways human interact and learn, leveraging such elements as cognitive and social psychology.
The adversary tailors their communication to the language and thought patterns of the target thereby weakening barriers or reluctance to communication.
An adversary uses or manipulates one or more functions of an application in order to achieve a malicious objective not originally intended by the application, or to deplete a resource to the point that the target's functionality is affected.
An adversary manipulates the use or processing of an Application Programming Interface (API) resulting in an adverse impact upon the security of the system implementing the API.
An attacker initiates a resource depletion attack where a large number of small XML messages are delivered at a sufficiently rapid rate to cause a denial of service or crash of the target.
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the UDP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth.
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the ICMP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth.
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the HTTP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming resources at the application layer such as web services and their infrastructure.
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the SSL protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming all the available resources on the server side.
An adversary causes the target to allocate excessive resources to servicing the attackers' request, thereby reducing the resources available for legitimate services and degrading or denying services.
An adversary exploits a few properties of XML(substitution entities and inline DTDs) to cause a denial of service situation due to excessive memory being allocated to fully expand the XML.
An attacker submits an XML document to a target application where the XML document uses nested entity expansion to produce an excessively large output XML.
An adversary may execute an attack on a program that uses a poor Regular Expression(Regex) implementation by choosing input that results in an extreme situation for the Regex.
An attacker leverages the security functionality of the system aimed at thwarting potential attacks to launch a denial of service attack against a legitimate system user.
An attacker, with control of a Cellular Rogue Base Station or through cooperation with a Malicious Mobile Network Operator can force the mobile device (e.
An attacker may take advantage of the application feature to help users recover their forgotten passwords in order to gain access into the system with the same privileges as the original user.
This pattern of attack is defined by the selection of messages distributed over via multicast or public information channels that are intended for another client by determining the parameter value assigned to that client.
An adversary attempts to deny legitimate users access to a resource by continually engaging a specific resource in an attempt to keep the resource tied up as long as possible.
HTTP Request Splitting (also known as HTTP Request Smuggling) is an attack pattern where an attacker attempts to insert additional HTTP requests in the body of the original (enveloping) HTTP request in such a way that the browser interprets it as one request but the web server interprets it as two.
HTTP Request Smuggling results from the discrepancies in parsing HTTP requests between HTTP entities such as web caching proxies or application firewalls.
This attack uses a maliciously-crafted HTTP request in order to cause a vulnerable web server to respond with an HTTP response stream that will be interpreted by the client as two separate responses instead of one.
An attacker manipulates functions and/or their values used by web-related protocols to cause a web application or service to react differently that intended, allowing the attacker to gain access to data or resources normally restricted or to cause the application or service to crash.
An attacker sends a SOAP message where the field values are other than what the server is likely to expect in order to precipitate non-standard server behavior.
An attacker is able to discover and query Micro-services at a web location and thereby expose the Micro-services to further exploitation by gathering information about their implementation and function.
Attack patterns in this category manipulate and exploit characteristics of system data structures in order to violate the intended usage and protections of these structures.
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service.
This attack pattern involves an adversary manipulating a pointer within a target application resulting in the application accessing an unintended memory location.
An adversary uses path manipulation methods to exploit insufficient input validation of a target to obtain access to data that should be not be retrievable by ordinary well-formed requests.
An adversary with access to file system resources, either directly or via application logic, will use various file absolute paths and navigation mechanisms such as ".
An attacker exploits a weakness in input validation on the target by supplying a specially constructed path utilizing dot and slash characters for the purpose of obtaining access to arbitrary files or resources.
This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult.
The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request.
An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request.
An attacker initiates a series of events designed to cause a user, program, server, or device to perform actions which undermine the integrity of software code, device data structures, or device firmware, achieving the modification of the target's integrity to achieve an insecure state.
An attacker uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code that originates from an attacker controlled source.
An attacker uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code believed to be a valid update that originates from an attacker controlled source.
An attacker introduces malicious code to the victim's system by altering the payload of a software update, allowing for additional compromise or site disruption at the victim location.
An attacker exploits a weakness in a server or client's process of delivering and verifying the integrity of code supplied by an update-providing server or mechanism to cause code of the attackers' choosing to be downloaded and installed as a software update.
An attacker changes a technology, product, component, or sub-component during its deployed use at the victim location for the purpose of carrying out an attack.
An attacker exploits a weakness in ATA security on a drive to gain access to the information the drive contains without supplying the proper credentials.
An attacker introduces malicious hardware during an update or replacement procedure, allowing for additional compromise or site disruption at the victim location.
An attacker provides a counterfeit component during the procurement process of a lower-tier component supplier to a sub-system developer or integrator, which is then built into the system being upgraded or repaired by the victim, allowing the attacker to cause disruption or additional compromise.
An attacker maliciously alters hardware components that will be sold on the gray market, allowing for victim disruption and compromise when the victim needs replacement hardware components for systems where the parts are no longer in regular supply from original suppliers, or where the hardware components from the attacker seems to be a great benefit from a cost perspective.
An attacker exploits characteristics of the infrastructure of a network entity in order to perpetrate attacks or information gathering on network objects or effect a change in the ordinary information flow between network objects.
The attacker injects, manipulates, deletes, or forges malicious log entries into the log file, in an attempt to mislead an audit of the log file or cover tracks of an attack.
Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior.
An attacker forces the target into a previous state in order to leverage potential weaknesses in the target dependent upon a prior configuration or state-dependent factors.
An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.
An attacker exploits file location algorithms in an operating system or application by creating a file with the same name as a protected or privileged file.
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content.
An attacker with access to data files and processes on a victim's system injects false data into critical operational data during configuration or recalibration, causing the victim's system to perform in a suboptimal manner that benefits the attacker.
An attacker corrupts or modifies the content of XML schema information passed between a client and server for the purpose of undermining the security of the target.
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
In this attack scenario, the attacker actively transmits on the Wi-Fi channel to prevent users from transmitting or receiving data from the targeted Wi-Fi network.
In this attack scenario, the attacker actively transmits signals to overpower and disrupt the communication between a cellular user device and a cell tower.
In this attack pattern, the adversary sends disruptive signals at a target satellite using a rogue uplink station to disrupt the intended transmission.
An attacker modifies a technology, product, or component during a stage in its manufacture for the purpose of carrying out an attack against some entity involved in the supply chain lifecycle.
An attacker uses common delivery mechanisms such as email attachments or removable media to infiltrate the IDE (Integrated Development Environment) of a victim manufacturer with the intent of implanting malware allowing for attack control of the victim IDE environment.
An attacker with access to system components during allocated baseline development can substitute a maliciously altered hardware component for a baseline component in the during the product development and research phase.
An attacker with either direct access to the product assembly process or to the supply of subcomponents used in the product assembly process introduces counterfeit hardware components into product assembly.
An attacker, leveraging the ability to manipulate components of primary support systems and tools within the development and production environments, inserts malicious software within the hardware and/or firmware development environment.
An attacker with access to the development environment process of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) for a victim system being developed or maintained after initial deployment can insert malicious functionality into the system for the purpose of disruption or further compromise.
An attacker uses their privileged position within an authorized software development organization to inject malicious logic into a codebase or product.
An attacker exploits a configuration management system so that malicious logic is inserted into a software products build, update or deployed environment.
An attacker conducts supply chain attacks by the inclusion of insecure 3rd party components into a technology, product, or code-base, possibly packaging a malicious driver or component along with the product before shipping it to the consumer or acquirer.
An attacker with access to a manufacturer's documentation, which include descriptions of advanced technology and/or specific components' criticality, alters the documents to circumvent dial-down functionality requirements.
An attacker with access to a manufacturer's documentation alters the descriptions of system capabilities with the intent of causing errors in derived system requirements, impacting the overall effectiveness and capability of the system, allowing an attacker to take advantage of the introduced system capability flaw once the system is deployed.
An attacker with access to a manufacturer's documentation containing requirements allocation and software design processes maliciously alters the documentation in order to cause errors in system design.
An attacker with access to a manufacturer's hardware manufacturing process documentation alters the design specifications, which introduces flaws advantageous to the attacker once the system is deployed.
An attacker replaces legitimate hardware in the system with faulty counterfeit or tampered hardware in the supply chain distribution channel, with purpose of causing malicious disruption or allowing for additional compromise when the system is deployed.
An attacker implants malicious software into the system in the supply chain distribution channel, with purpose of causing malicious disruption or allowing for additional compromise when the system is deployed.
An attacker with access to download and update system software sends a maliciously altered BIOS to the victim or victim supplier/integrator, which when installed allows for future exploitation.
An attacker with access to an open source code project and knowledge of its particular use for in a system being developed, manufactured, or supported for the victim, can insert malicious code into the open source software used for math libraries in anticipation of inclusion into the system for the purpose of disruption or further compromise within the victim organization.
An attacker tampers with the code of a product and injects malicious logic into the device in order to infect any machine which interfaces with the product, and possibly steal private data or eavesdrop.
An adversary contaminates organizational information systems (including devices and networks) by causing them to handle information of a classification/sensitivity for which they have not been authorized.
Attack patterns within this category focus on the ability to control or disrupt the behavior of an target either through crafted data submitted via an interface for data input, or the installation and execution of malicious code on the target system.
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation by manipulating the content of request parameters for the purpose of undermining the security of the target.
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database.
An attacker is able to trick the victim into executing a Flash document that passes commands or calls to a Flash player browser plugin, allowing the attacker to exploit native Flash functionality in the client browser.
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation by manipulating resource identifiers enabling the unintended modification or specification of a resource.
Adversaries inject data into mobile technology traffic (data flows or signaling data) to disrupt communications or conduct additional surveillance operations.
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser.
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is “reflected” off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser.
This attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where malicious scripts are embedded in elements that are not expected to host scripts such as image tags (), comments in XML documents (), etc.
An attack of this type exploits the ability of most browsers to interpret "data", "javascript" or other URI schemes as client-side executable content placeholders.
An adversary embeds malicious script code in the parameters of an HTTP query string and convinces a victim to submit the HTTP request that contains the query string to a vulnerable web application.
An adversary exploits web applications that generate web content, such as links in a HTML page, based on unvalidated or improperly validated data submitted by other actors.
An adversary distributes a link (or possibly some other query structure) with a request to a third party web server that is malformed and also contains a block of exploit code in order to have the exploit become live code in the resulting error page.
This type of attack is a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistenly “stored” within the data storage of a vulnerable web application.
An adversary looking to execute a command of their choosing, injects new items into an existing command thus modifying interpretation away from what was intended.
An attacker utilizes crafted XML user-controllable input to probe, attack, and inject data into the XML database, using techniques similar to SQL injection.
An attacker can craft special user-controllable input consisting of XPath expressions to inject the XML database and bypass authentication or glean information that he normally would not be able to.
This attack utilizes XQuery to probe and attack server systems; in a similar manner that SQL Injection allows an attacker to exploit SQL calls to RDBMS, XQuery Injection uses improperly validated data that is passed to XQuery commands to traverse and execute commands that the XQuery routines have access to.
An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject his or her own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database.
An attacker is able to leverage access gained to the database to read / write data to the file system, compromise the operating system, create a tunnel for accessing the host machine, and use this access to potentially attack other machines on the same network as the database machine.
An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack.
It is possible to schedule software to be run at a time in the future (Windows commands "at" and "schtasks", along with the Windows Task Scheduler, cron in UNIX-based systems).
An attacker utilizes probabilistic techniques to explore and overcome security properties of the target that are based on an assumption of strength due to the extremely low mathematical probability that an attacker would be able to identify and exploit the very rare specific conditions under which those security properties do not hold.
An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
An attacker exploits weaknesses in timing or state maintaining functions to perform actions that would otherwise be prevented by the execution flow of the target code and processes.
The adversary targets a race condition occurring when multiple processes access and manipulate the same resource concurrently, and the outcome of the execution depends on the particular order in which the access takes place.
An adversary cases an establishment and searches through trash bins, dumpsters, or areas where company information may have been accidentally discarded for information items which may be useful to the dumpster diver.
An adversary obtains a collection of password hashes through the use of automated utilities designed specifically for gathering this type of information.
An adversary exploits the temporary, insecure storage of information by monitoring the content of files used to store temp data during an application's routine execution flow.
An adversary, aware of an application's location (and possibly authorized to use the application), probes an application's structure and evaluates its robustness by submitting requests and examining responses.
An attacker sends random, malformed, or otherwise unexpected messages to a target application and observes any stack traces produced by error messages.
An attacker sends random, malformed, or otherwise unexpected messages to a target application and observes the application's log or error messages returned.
An attacker who is authorized to send queries to a target sends variants of expected queries in the hope that these modified queries might return information (directly or indirectly through error logs) beyond what the expected set of queries should provide.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, intercepts messages from a trusted Android-based application in an attempt to achieve a variety of different objectives including denial of service, information disclosure, and data injection.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, intercepts an implicit intent sent to launch a trusted activity and instead launches a counterfeit activity in its place.
An attacker hosts an event within an application framework and then monitors the data exchanged during the course of the event for the purpose of harvesting any important data leaked during the transactions.
Adversary uses malware or a similarly controlled application installed inside an organizational perimeter to gather information about the composition, configuration, and security mechanisms of a targeted application, system or network.
An attacker explores a target to identify the names and locations of predictable temporary files for the purpose of launching further attacks against the target.
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively listens for WiFi management frame messages containing the Service Set Identifier (SSID) for the WiFi network.
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively monitors the signal strength of the target’s cellular RF signal or WiFi RF signal and uses the strength of the signal (with directional antennas and/or from multiple listening points at once) to identify the source location of the signal.
An attacker sends a series of probes to a web application in order to elicit version-dependent and type-dependent behavior that assists in identifying the target.
An adversary engages in activity to detect the operating system or firmware version of a remote target by interrogating a device, server, or platform with a probe designed to solicit behavior that will reveal information about the operating systems or firmware in the environment.
This type of operating system probe attempts to determine an estimate for how predictable the sequence number generation algorithm is for a remote host.
An adversary uses a technique to generate an ICMP Error message (Port Unreachable, Destination Unreachable, Redirect, Source Quench, Time Exceeded, Parameter Problem) from a target and then analyze the amount of data returned or "Quoted" from the originating request that generated the ICMP error message.
An adversary uses a technique to generate an ICMP Error message (Port Unreachable, Destination Unreachable, Redirect, Source Quench, Time Exceeded, Parameter Problem) from a target and then analyze the integrity of data returned or "Quoted" from the originating request that generated the error message.
An adversary sends a UDP packet to a closed port on the target machine to solicit an IP Header's total length field value within the echoed 'Port Unreachable" error message.
An adversary sends a UDP datagram having an assigned value to its internet identification field (ID) to a closed port on a target to observe the manner in which this bit is echoed back in the ICMP error message.
An adversary engages in activity to detect the version or type of OS software in a an environment by passively monitoring communication between devices, nodes, or applications.
An adversary discovers the structure, function, and composition of an object, resource, or system by using a variety of analysis techniques to effectively determine how the analyzed entity was constructed or operates.
An attacker analyzes a binary file or executable for the purpose of discovering the structure, function, and possibly source-code of the file by using a variety of analysis techniques to effectively determine how the software functions and operates.
An adversary engages in activities to discover any sensitive strings are present within the compiled code of an executable, such as literal ASCII strings within the file itself, or possibly strings hard-coded into particular routines that can be revealed by code refactoring methods including static and dynamic analysis.
In this attack scenario, the attacker passively monitors electromagnetic emanations that are produced by the targeted electronic device as an unintentional side-effect of its processing.
Compromising Emanations (CE) are defined as unintentional signals which an attacker may intercept and analyze to disclose the information processed by the targeted equipment.
An adversary engages in activities to decipher and/or decode protocol information for a network or application communication protocol used for transmitting information between interconnected nodes or systems on a packet-switched data network.
Cryptanalysis is a process of finding weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms and using these weaknesses to decipher the ciphertext without knowing the secret key (instance deduction).
An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext.
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, performs malicious actions against a third-party Software as a Service (SaaS) application (also known as a cloud based application) by leveraging the persistent and implicit trust placed on a trusted user's session.
Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to destination system's web server.
An attacker obtains unauthorized access to an application, service or device either through knowledge of the inherent weaknesses of an authentication mechanism, or by exploiting a flaw in the authentication scheme's implementation.
An adversary that has previously obtained unauthorized access to certain device resources, uses that access to obtain information such as location and .
An attacker gains access to application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by evading or circumventing an authentication mechanism.
When web services require callees to authenticate, they sometimes issue a token / secret to the caller that the caller is to use to sign their web service calls.
An attacker removes or modifies the logic on a client associated with monetary calculations resulting in incorrect information being sent to the server.
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated.
An adversary exploits a weakness in the server's trust of client-side processing by modifying data on the client-side, such as price information, and then submitting this data to the server, which processes the modified data.
An attacker subverts an intermediate system used to process XML content and forces the intermediate to modify and/or re-route the processing of the content.
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged.
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages.
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages.
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to place man in the middle once SSL is terminated.
An adversary is able to exploit features of the target that should be reserved for privileged users or administrators but are exposed to use by lower or non-privileged accounts.
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it.
An adversaries may add malicious content to a website through the open file share and then browse to that content with a web browser to cause the server to execute the content.
An adversary, through a malicious web page, accesses application specific functionality by leveraging interfaces registered through WebView's addJavascriptInterface API.
An attacker exploits a weakness in the configuration of access controls and is able to bypass the intended protection that these measures guard against and thereby obtain unauthorized access to the system or network.
An adversary exploits a weakness enabling them to elevate their privilege and perform an action that they are not supposed to be authorized to perform.
An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets.
Adversaries can sometimes hijack a privileged thread from the underlying system through synchronous (calling a privileged function that returns incorrectly) or asynchronous (callbacks, signal handlers, and similar) means.
Attackers can sometimes hijack a privileged thread from the underlying system through synchronous (calling a privileged function that returns incorrectly) or asynchronous (callbacks, signal handlers, and similar) means.
Because languages use code signing facilities to vouch for code's identity and to thus tie code to its assigned privileges within an environment, subverting this mechanism can be instrumental in an attacker escalating privilege.
The attacker extracts credentials used for code signing from a production environment and uses these credentials to sign malicious content with the developer's key.
The attacker may submit a malicious signed code from another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox.
Facilities often used layered models for physical security such as traditional locks, Electronic-based card entry systems, coupled with physical alarms.
An attacker uses methods to deactivate a passive RFID tag for the purpose of rendering the tag, badge, card, or object containing the tag unresponsive.
An attacker analyzes the data on two or more magnetic strip cards and is able to generate new cards containing valid sequences that allow unauthorized access and/or impersonation of individuals.