T1134 Access Token Manipulation
EnterpriseAdversaries may modify access tokens to operate under a different user or system security context to perform actions and bypass access controls. Windows uses access tokens to determine the ownership of a running process. A user can manipulate access tokens to make a running process appear as though it is the child of a different process or belongs to someone other than the user that started the process. When this occurs, the process also takes on the security context associated with the new token. An adversary can use built-in Windows API functions to copy access tokens from existing processes; this is known as token stealing. These token can then be applied to an existing process (i.e. Token Impersonation/Theft) or used to spawn a new process (i.e. Create Process with Token). An adversary must already be in a privileged user context (i.e. administrator) to steal a token. However, adversaries commonly use token stealing to elevate their security context from the administrator level to the SYSTEM level. An adversary can then use a token to authenticate to a remote system as the account for that token if the account has appropriate permissions on the remote system. Any standard user can use the <code>runas</code> command, and the Windows API functions, to create impersonation tokens; it does not require access to an administrator account. There are also other mechanisms, such as Active Directory fields, that can be used to modify access tokens.
platforms
Platforms this applies to.
tactics
ATT&CK tactics this technique serves.
sub-techniques (5)
More specific entries beneath this one.
mitigations
ATT&CK mitigations that reduce this.
detected by (5)
Data components that detect this.
NIST CSF 2.0 — areas of relevance (Protect / Detect)
NIST CSF 2.0 areas this most relates to (evidence-ranked).
- PR.AAIdentity Management, Authentication, and Access Controlstrong · backed by 6 of 8 mapped controls
- DE.CMContinuous Monitoringmoderate · backed by 2 of 8 mapped controls
- PR.DSData Securitymoderate · backed by 2 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.
attack patterns (2)
CAPEC attack patterns that exploit this.
groups (3)
Threat groups associated with this.
software (19)
Malware and tools associated with this.
campaigns (1)
Campaigns that use this.
Detected by (Sigma) (4)
Sigma detection rules related to this.
source
Where this definition is published.