What It Does
Track the security posture and incident disclosures of vendors and integrators whose products sit on key terrain.
Observable indicator. A vendor compromise reaches the terrain owner before it reaches the news.
Where It Sits
A technique is chosen from inside a form and emplaced on one layer. Both are the catalog’s own declarations; the position is counted in catalog order.
- Form of maneuverM1 Screen / GuardGain early warning and buy reaction time before the adversary touches key terrain.
- Terrain layerTX Cross-CuttingThe enablers of movement. Key terrain: The telemetry pipeline, the orchestration layer, the rules of engagement.
- Position in the form9 of 15M1 carries 15 cataloged techniques; this is the 9th in catalog order.
Phases It Is Employed In
Employed in one phase of the campaign. A phase named here means at least this technique is live in it — not that the form it belongs to is the main effort.
- Phase 0ShapeContinuous terrain preparation, zero-trust hardening, partnerships, threat intelligence.
Controls That Assess It
The controls the catalog names against this technique. They are what an assessor would test to establish that it is emplaced and working — the indicator above is what shows it is working, which is a different question.
- TM-7 Terrain OwnershipTerrain Management — To attach every element to a person who can be asked to act, so that findings convert into work rather than accumulating.
- CG-5 Control Inheritance MappingCommand and Governance — To keep the framework additive, so that adopting it adds assessment effort only where it adds assessable content.
In MITRE D3FEND
What this technique is called in MITRE’s countermeasure ontology. The join runs technique-to-technique: D3FEND catalogs countermeasures, and the thing with a countermeasure’s shape here is the technique, not the control.
- D3-ODM Operational Dependency MappingModel tactic
- D3-SVCDM Service Dependency MappingModel tactic
That a technique reaches a D3FEND countermeasure says the two describe the same defensive act. It does not say the countermeasure is deployed, configured, or working — that is an assessment finding about your estate, not a property of the framework.
Related Techniques
The catalog declares no relation for this entry, and no other entry names it — the inverse is derived here, so an incoming edge would show up even though this one never declared it. The techniques below share its assessment surface, which is the nearest adjacency the data supports.
Assessed Alongside
Not a declared relation: these are the techniques whose assessing controls overlap this one’s, ranked by how much of the two assessment surfaces coincide. Showing 6 of 9 that share at least one control.
- 1 shared controlM8.10 Third-Party Connection CutoutM8 Isolation / Retrograde · T3 Networks
- CG-5
- 1 shared controlM9.06 Vendor Compromise ResponseM9 Spoiling Attack · TX Cross-Cutting
- CG-5
- 1 shared controlM10.05 Community ReportingM10 Exploitation & Pursuit · TX Cross-Cutting
- CG-5
- 1 shared controlM10.07 Supply Chain Lesson PropagationM10 Exploitation & Pursuit · T9 Supply Chain
- CG-5
- 1 shared controlM3.06 Machine and Service Identity GovernanceM3 Envelopment · T1 Identity
- TM-7
- 1 shared controlM3.13 Federation Trust Boundary ControlM3 Envelopment · T1 Identity
- CG-5