Mapping Format

Below is the structure of the data format that captures the details of how a security control maps to ATT&CK (sub-)techniques. The type, description and required attributes of each field are provided in the subsequent sections along with an example mapping file.

Above: Entity Diagram for Data Mapping Format

Data Dictionary

Top Level Metadata Fields

Name	Type	Required	Description
version	String	yes	The version of the data mapping format used in this mapping file.
ATT&CK version	String	yes	The version of the ATT&CK (Enterprise) matrix used to source the (sub-)techniques included in this mapping file.
creation date	String	yes	Creation time of this mapping file. Format: 1/21/2021
last update	String	no	Last update time of this mapping file. Format: 1/21/2021
name	String	yes	The name of the security control being mapped in this file.
author	String	no	The author of this mapping file.
contact	String	no	The email address of the author of this mapping file.
organization	String	no	The organization that produced this mapping file.
platform	String	yes	The platform of the security control being mapped in this file. Ex: Azure, AWS, GPC, Windows, etc.
tags	List of Strings	no	Will enable the mapping tool to produce visualizations (e.g. ATT&CK Navigator) by aggregating security controls by these tag values. Ex: Produce an ATT&CK Navigator layer for all security controls tagged with "Azure AD".
description	String	yes	The description of the security control
techniques	List of Technique objects List Size: [1-*]	no	List of technique objects that describe the ATT&CK techniques that the control is able to mitigate. This field is optional for controls that are currently not mappable (please ensure to document this explicitly as a comment).
comments	String	no	Document any assumptions or comments on the mapping.
references	List of URLs	no	A list of links to documentation helpful in understanding the data contained in this mapping. Ex: A link to the documentation for the security control

Technique Object Fields

A technique object describes an ATT&CK technique that the security control provides protection against.

Name	Type	Required	Description
id	String	yes	The ID of the ATT&CK technique.
name	String	yes	The name of the ATT&CK technique.
technique-scores	List of Score objects List Size: [1-3]	yes	The list of Score objects that enables assessing the effectiveness of the protect, detect, and/or respond mitigations provided by the security control for this ATT&CK technique.
sub-techniques-scores	List of SubTechniquesScore objects List Size: [1-*]	no	This list of SubTechniquesScore objects that describe the specific sub-techniques of this technique that this control provides protection against. If the ATT&CK technique supports sub-techniques, this field is mandatory.

SubTechniquesScore Object Fields

A score object describes the assessment (score) of the effectiveness of the protect, detect, and/or response mitigations provided by the security control for the list of ATT&CK sub-techniques included in this object.

Name	Type	Required	Description
sub-techniques	List of sub-technique id and name tuples.	yes	The list of sub-techniques, identified by their id and name fields, that the scores field in this object apply to. The length of this list should be at least one, i.e. at least one sub-technique must be in the list. This field supports providing a score for a group of sub-techniques rather than having to provide it for each sub-technique individually.
scores	List of Score objects List Size: [1-3]	yes	The list of score objects that describe the type of protection provided by this control to the specified sub-techniques.

Score Object Fields

A score object describes the assessment (score) of the effectiveness of the protect, detect, and/or response mitigations provided by the security control for this ATT&CK (sub-)technique.

Name	Type	Required	Description
category	String	yes	The control category. Valid values: [Protect, Detect, Respond]
value	String	yes	The score Ex: (Minimal, Partial, Significant)
comments	String	no	A justification for the assessed score or any related comments.

Example Mapping

version: 1.0
ATT&CK version: 8.1
creation date: 1/21/2021
name: Azure Active Directory Password Protection
author:
contact: ctid@mitre-engenuity.org
organization: Center for Threat Informed Defense (CTID)
platform: Azure
tags:
  - Identity
  - Azure Active Directory
  - Passwords
  - Credentials
description: >
  Azure AD Password Protection detects and blocks known weak passwords and their variants,
  and can also block additional weak terms that are specific to your organization.
  Azure AD Password Protection provides a global banned password list that is
  automatically applied to all users in an Azure AD tenant.  The Azure AD
  Identity Protection team constantly analyzes Azure AD security telemetry data
  looking for commonly used weak or compromised passwords.  When weak terms are
  found, they're added to the global banned password list. To support your own
  business and security needs, you can define entries in a custom banned
  password list. When users change or reset their passwords, these banned
  password lists are checked to enforce the use of strong passwords.
techniques:
  - id: T1110
    name: Brute Force
    technique-scores:
      - category: Protect
        value: Partial
    sub-techniques-scores:
      - sub-techniques:
        - id: T1110.001
          name: Password Guessing
        - id: T1110.002
          name: Password Cracking
        - id: T1110.003
          name: Password Spraying
        - id: T1110.004
          name: Credential Stuffing
        scores:
          - category: Protect
            value: Partial
comments: >
  All scores have been assessed as Partial because this control increases the
  strength of user passwords thereby reducing the likelihood of a successful
  brute force attack.  Due to the fact that a user's password is not checked
  against the banned list of passwords unless the user changes or resets their
  password (which is an infrequent event), there is still ample opportunity
  for attackers to utilize this technique to gain access. This is what prevented
  the score from being elevated to Significant.
references:
  - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/authentication/concept-password-ban-bad