T1090.003 Multi-hop Proxy
sub-techniqueEnterpriseAdversaries may chain together multiple proxies to disguise the source of malicious traffic. Typically, a defender will be able to identify the last proxy traffic traversed before it enters their network; the defender may or may not be able to identify any previous proxies before the last-hop proxy. This technique makes identifying the original source of the malicious traffic even more difficult by requiring the defender to trace malicious traffic through several proxies to identify its source. For example, adversaries may construct or use onion routing networks – such as the publicly available Tor network – to transport encrypted C2 traffic through a compromised population, allowing communication with any device within the network. Adversaries may also use operational relay box (ORB) networks composed of virtual private servers (VPS), Internet of Things (IoT) devices, smart devices, and end-of-life routers to obfuscate their operations. In the case of network infrastructure, it is possible for an adversary to leverage multiple compromised devices to create a multi-hop proxy chain (i.e., Network Devices). By leveraging Patch System Image on routers, adversaries can add custom code to the affected network devices that will implement onion routing between those nodes. This method is dependent upon the Network Boundary Bridging method allowing the adversaries to cross the protected network boundary of the Internet perimeter and into the organization’s Wide-Area Network (WAN). Protocols such as ICMP may be used as a transport. Similarly, adversaries may abuse peer-to-peer (P2P) and blockchain-oriented infrastructure to implement routing between a decentralized network of peers.
platforms
Platforms this applies to.
tactics
ATT&CK tactics this technique serves.
sub-technique of
The broader entity this sits under.
mitigations
ATT&CK mitigations that reduce this.
detected by (5)
Data components that detect this.
countered by (D3FEND)
D3FEND countermeasures that counter this.
Detect
NIST CSF 2.0 — areas of relevance (Protect / Detect)
NIST CSF 2.0 areas this most relates to (evidence-ranked).
- DE.CMContinuous Monitoringstrong · backed by 4 of 8 mapped controls
- PR.DSData Securitystrong · backed by 4 of 8 mapped controls
- PR.IRTechnology Infrastructure Resiliencemoderate · backed by 3 of 8 mapped controls
Derived from MITRE CTID (Apache-2.0) and the NIST 800-53 ↔ CSF crosswalk (public domain). Indicative relevance along the Protect/Detect axis — not a compliance assessment or coverage claim.
mitigating controls (8)
Security controls that mitigate this.
groups (13)
Threat groups associated with this.
software (23)
Malware and tools associated with this.
campaigns (8)
Campaigns that use this.
Detected by (Sigma) (3)
Sigma detection rules related to this.
source
Where this definition is published.