T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service
EnterpriseAdversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users. Endpoint DoS can be performed by exhausting the system resources those services are hosted on or exploiting the system to cause a persistent crash condition. Example services include websites, email services, DNS, and web-based applications. Adversaries have been observed conducting DoS attacks for political purposes and to support other malicious activities, including distraction, hacktivism, and extortion. An Endpoint DoS denies the availability of a service without saturating the network used to provide access to the service. Adversaries can target various layers of the application stack that is hosted on the system used to provide the service. These layers include the Operating Systems (OS), server applications such as web servers, DNS servers, databases, and the (typically web-based) applications that sit on top of them. Attacking each layer requires different techniques that take advantage of bottlenecks that are unique to the respective components. A DoS attack may be generated by a single system or multiple systems spread across the internet, which is commonly referred to as a distributed DoS (DDoS). To perform DoS attacks against endpoint resources, several aspects apply to multiple methods, including IP address spoofing and botnets. Adversaries may use the original IP address of an attacking system, or spoof the source IP address to make the attack traffic more difficult to trace back to the attacking system or to enable reflection. This can increase the difficulty defenders have in defending against the attack by reducing or eliminating the effectiveness of filtering by the source address on network defense devices. Botnets are commonly used to conduct DDoS attacks against networks and services. Large botnets can generate a significant amount of traffic from systems spread across the global internet. Adversaries may have the resources to build out and control their own botnet infrastructure or may rent time on an existing botnet to conduct an attack. In some of the worst cases for DDoS, so many systems are used to generate requests that each one only needs to send out a small amount of traffic to produce enough volume to exhaust the target's resources. In such circumstances, distinguishing DDoS traffic from legitimate clients becomes exceedingly difficult. Botnets have been used in some of the most high-profile DDoS attacks, such as the 2012 series of incidents that targeted major US banks. In cases where traffic manipulation is used, there may be points in the global network (such as high traffic gateway routers) where packets can be altered and cause legitimate clients to execute code that directs network packets toward a target in high volume. This type of capability was previously used for the purposes of web censorship where client HTTP traffic was modified to include a reference to JavaScript that generated the DDoS code to overwhelm target web servers. For attacks attempting to saturate the providing network, see Network Denial of Service.
platforms
Platforms this applies to.
tactics
ATT&CK tactics this technique serves.
sub-techniques (4)
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).
- DE.CMContinuous Monitoringstrong · backed by 5 of 9 mapped controls
- PR.DSData Securitystrong · backed by 5 of 9 mapped controls
- PR.IRTechnology Infrastructure Resiliencemoderate · backed by 3 of 9 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 (9)
Security controls that mitigate this.
known-exploited CVEs (7)
Related CVEs.
| ID | severity | exploitable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-42599US | critical9.8OT critical | KEV | ||
Active! mail 6 BuildInfo: 6.60.05008561 and earlier contains a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability. Receiving a specially crafted request created and sent by a remote unauthe… | ||||
| CVE-2024-54085US | critical9.8OT critical | KEV | ||
AMI’s SPx contains
a vulnerability in the BMC where an Attacker may bypass authentication remotely through the Redfish Host Interface. A successful exploitation
of this vulnerabili… | ||||
| CVE-2023-6549US | high7.5OT critical | KEV | ||
Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway allows Unauthenticated Denial of Service and Out-Of-Bounds Memory Rea… | ||||
| CVE-2023-44487US | high7.5OT critical | KEV | ||
The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through… | ||||
| CVE-2023-20109US | medium6.6OT critical | KEV | ||
A vulnerability in the Cisco Group Encrypted Transport VPN (GET VPN) feature of Cisco IOS Software and Cisco IOS XE Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker who has a… | ||||
| CVE-2021-35394US | critical9.8OT critical | KEV | ||
Realtek Jungle SDK version v2.x up to v3.4.14B provides a diagnostic tool called 'MP Daemon' that is usually compiled as 'UDPServer' binary. The binary is affected by multiple memo… | ||||
| CVE-2020-5735US | high8.8OT critical | KEV | ||
Amcrest cameras and NVR are vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow over port 37777. An authenticated remote attacker can abuse this issue to crash the device and possibly exec… | ||||
attack patterns (3)
CAPEC attack patterns that exploit this.
groups (1)
Threat groups associated with this.
software (2)
Malware and tools associated with this.
Detected by (Sigma) (3)
Sigma detection rules related to this.
source
Where this definition is published.