New to CAPEC? Start Here
Home > CAPEC List > CAPEC-701: Browser in the Middle (BiTM) (Version 3.9)  

CAPEC-701: Browser in the Middle (BiTM)

Attack Pattern ID: 701
Abstraction: Standard
View customized information:
+ Description
An adversary exploits the inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to establish an unnoticed remote desktop connection in the victim's browser to the adversary's system. The adversary must deploy a web client with a remote desktop session that the victim can access.
+ Extended Description

Unlike Adversary in the Browser, the victim does not need to install a malicious application. Browser in the Middle uses the inherent functionalities of a web browser to convince the victim they are browsing normally under the assumption that the connection is secure. All the actions performed by the victim in the open window are actually performed on the machine of the adversary. These victim-authenticated sessions are available to the adversary to use. All entered data such as passwords and usernames can be logged by the adversary and the content displayed to the victim can be altered arbitrarily. Varieties of multifactor authentication which rely solely on user input and do not use a form of hardware-based secret exchange are vulnerable to browser in the middle.

+ Likelihood Of Attack

Medium

+ Typical Severity

High

+ Relationships
Section HelpThis table shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf and ParentOf, and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
NatureTypeIDName
ChildOfMeta Attack PatternMeta Attack Pattern - A meta level attack pattern in CAPEC is a decidedly abstract characterization of a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. A meta attack pattern is often void of a specific technology or implementation and is meant to provide an understanding of a high level approach. A meta level attack pattern is a generalization of related group of standard level attack patterns. Meta level attack patterns are particularly useful for architecture and design level threat modeling exercises.94Adversary in the Middle (AiTM)
CanFollowStandard Attack PatternStandard Attack Pattern - A standard level attack pattern in CAPEC is focused on a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. It is often seen as a singular piece of a fully executed attack. A standard attack pattern is meant to provide sufficient details to understand the specific technique and how it attempts to accomplish a desired goal. A standard level attack pattern is a specific type of a more abstract meta level attack pattern.98Phishing
CanPrecedeMeta Attack PatternMeta Attack Pattern - A meta level attack pattern in CAPEC is a decidedly abstract characterization of a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. A meta attack pattern is often void of a specific technology or implementation and is meant to provide an understanding of a high level approach. A meta level attack pattern is a generalization of related group of standard level attack patterns. Meta level attack patterns are particularly useful for architecture and design level threat modeling exercises.148Content Spoofing
CanPrecedeMeta Attack PatternMeta Attack Pattern - A meta level attack pattern in CAPEC is a decidedly abstract characterization of a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. A meta attack pattern is often void of a specific technology or implementation and is meant to provide an understanding of a high level approach. A meta level attack pattern is a generalization of related group of standard level attack patterns. Meta level attack patterns are particularly useful for architecture and design level threat modeling exercises.151Identity Spoofing
Section HelpThis table shows the views that this attack pattern belongs to and top level categories within that view.
+ Execution Flow
Explore
  1. Identify potential targets: The adversary identifies an application or service that the target is likely to use.

    Techniques
    The adversary stands up a server to host the transparent browser and entices victims to use it by using a domain name similar to the legitimate application. In addition to the transparent browser, the adversary could also install a web proxy, sniffer, keylogger, and other tools to assist in their goals.
Experiment
  1. Lure victims: The adversary crafts a phishing campaign to lure unsuspecting victims into using the transparent browser.

    Techniques
    An adversary can create a convincing email with a link to download the web client and interact with the transparent browser.
Exploit
  1. Monitor and Manipulate Data: When the victim establishes the connection to the transparent browser, the adversary can view victim activity and make alterations to what the victim sees when browsing the web.

    Techniques
    Once a victim has established a connection to the transparent browser, the adversary can use installed tools such as a web proxy, keylogger, or additional malicious browser extensions to gather and manipulate data or impersonate the victim.
+ Prerequisites
The adversary must create a convincing web client to establish the connection. The victim then needs to be lured onto the adversary's webpage. In addition, the victim's machine must not use local authentication APIs, a hardware token, or a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to authenticate.
+ Skills Required
[Level: Medium]
+ Resources Required
A web application with a client is needed to enable the victim's browser to establish a remote desktop connection to the system of the adversary.
+ Consequences
Section HelpThis table specifies different individual consequences associated with the attack pattern. The Scope identifies the security property that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in their attack. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a pattern will be used to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
ScopeImpactLikelihood
Confidentiality
Access Control
Authentication
Gain Privileges
High
Confidentiality
Authorization
Read Data
High
Integrity
Modify Data
Medium
+ Mitigations
Implementation: Use strong, mutual authentication to fully authenticate with both ends of any communications channel
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Section HelpCAPEC mappings to ATT&CK techniques leverage an inheritance model to streamline and minimize direct CAPEC/ATT&CK mappings. Inheritance of a mapping is indicated by text stating that the parent CAPEC has relevant ATT&CK mappings. Note that the ATT&CK Enterprise Framework does not use an inheritance model as part of the mapping to CAPEC.
Relevant to the ATT&CK taxonomy mapping (see parent )
+ References
[REF-747] Tommasi F., Catalano, C. and Taurino I.. "Browser-in-the-Middle (BitM) attack". 2021-04-17. <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10207-021-00548-5#citeas>. URL validated: 2023-01-13.
+ Content History
Submissions
Submission DateSubmitterOrganization
2023-01-24
(Version 3.9)
Jonas TzschoppeNuremberg Institute of Technology
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Page Last Updated or Reviewed: January 24, 2023