Volatile CedarG0123 ↗
Has used DirBuster and GoBuster to brute force web directories and DNS subdomains.1
- Tactic
- Reconnaissance
- Platform
- PRE
- Version
- 1.0
- Created
- 04 March 2022
- Last modified
- 24 October 2025
- Contributors
- Jan Petrov, Citi; Elvis Veliz, Citi; Richard Julian, Citi
Adversaries may iteratively probe infrastructure using brute-forcing and crawling techniques. While this technique employs similar methods to Brute Force, its goal is the identification of content and infrastructure rather than the discovery of valid credentials. Wordlists used in these scans may contain generic, commonly used names and file extensions or terms specific to a particular software. Adversaries may also create custom, target-specific wordlists using data gathered from other Reconnaissance techniques (ex: Gather Victim Org Information, or Search Victim-Owned Websites).
ReconResource DevInitial AccessExecutionPersistencePriv EscStealthDef ImpairmentCred AccessDiscoveryLateral MoveCollectionC2ExfiltrationImpact
2
Threat groups56th pct
Threat groups56th percentile · 56% of ATT&CK techniques have this many threat groups attributed or fewer.0
CampaignsNone recorded
CampaignsNone recorded · 54% of ATT&CK techniques have none either.0
Tools & malwareNone recorded
Tools & malwareNone recorded · 29% of ATT&CK techniques have none either.0
Detection rulesNone recorded
Detection rulesNone recorded · 33% of ATT&CK techniques have none either.Wordlist Scanning MITRE reference T1595.003
56th pctamong all ATT&CK techniques for number of groups
2 groups have been recorded using this technique. Newest first; each entry carries MITRE’s procedure text and a link to the group’s full record. Click a name to filter the rules below.
All 2 groups for this technique
Offense vs defense T1595.003
Is defensive coverage keeping up with adversary use? Eight counts, each ranked against all 697 ATT&CK techniques. Attack sits left, defense right, so a shape leaning left means adversaries are better documented here than defenders are equipped. Hover any spoke for its percentile and the share of techniques that have more. The timeline below shows when each side arrived.
Wordlist Scanning detection strategy DET0868
MITRE names one behaviour worth catching for this technique and breaks it into 1 analytic, one per platform. Each carries the log sources it needs and the fields you tune per environment.
Detection of Wordlist Scanning
1 platform
AN2000 · PRE
Monitor for suspicious network traffic that could be indicative of scanning, such as large quantities originating from a single source (especially if the source is known to be associated with an adversary/botnet).
Log sources
The data this analytic draws on. You do not need every component — each one you already collect covers part of it. Each links to its ATT&CK record.
| Data component | Name | Channel |
|---|---|---|
| Network Traffic ContentDC0085 | Network Traffic | None |
Remove or disable access to any systems, resources, and infrastructure that are not explicitly required to be available externally.
Pre-compromiseM1056
This technique cannot be easily mitigated with preventive controls since it is based on behaviors performed outside of the scope of enterprise defenses and controls. Efforts should focus on minimizing the amount and sensitivity of data available to external parties.
Tests1ExecutorsPowerShell 1Need elevation0 of 1Have prerequisites0Have cleanup0Platformswindows, linux, macos
Tests from Atomic Red Team (MIT licence) · technique definition