What It Does
Hold a rehearsed path to constrain a compromised vendor or integrator connection on disclosure.
Observable indicator. A vendor disclosure produces a constraint, not a meeting.
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 maneuverM9 Spoiling AttackDisrupt adversary staging before the attack is launched.
- Terrain layerTX Cross-CuttingThe enablers of movement. Key terrain: The telemetry pipeline, the orchestration layer, the rules of engagement.
- Position in the form6 of 9M9 carries 9 cataloged techniques; this is the 6th in catalog order.
Phases It Is Employed In
Employed in 2 of the campaign’s six phases. A phase named here means at least this technique is live in it — not that the form it belongs to is the main effort.
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.
- 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.
- TM-5 Connection and Denied-Path RegisterTerrain Management — To record connectivity as three distinct states — permitted, denied, unknown — so that reachability conclusions rest on tested denials rather than on absence of evidence.
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-SVCDM Service Dependency MappingModel tactic
- D3-NAM Network Access MediationIsolate 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 15 that share at least one control.
- 2 shared controlsM8.10 Third-Party Connection CutoutM8 Isolation / Retrograde · T3 Networks
- CG-5
- TM-5
- 2 shared controlsM3.13 Federation Trust Boundary ControlM3 Envelopment · T1 Identity
- CG-5
- TM-5
- 1 shared controlM1.09 Supply Chain and Vendor WatchM1 Screen / Guard · TX Cross-Cutting
- CG-5
- 1 shared controlM2.01 Trust Zone ArchitectureM2 Defense in Depth · T3 Networks
- TM-5
- 1 shared controlM4.02 East-West Deny by DefaultM4 Obstacle / Canalization · T3 Networks
- TM-5
- 1 shared controlM4.03 Egress Filtering and Allow-ListingM4 Obstacle / Canalization · T3 Networks
- TM-5