SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking
SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking [T1553.003]
Information
Introduction
SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking (T1553.003) is a sub-technique within the MITRE ATT&CK framework under the broader category of Subvert Trust Controls (T1553). This technique involves adversaries manipulating the Microsoft Windows cryptographic trust providers or the System Integrity Policy (SIP) to bypass security controls. Attackers exploit this method to execute unauthorized code, evade detection mechanisms, and maintain persistence within compromised environments by abusing the trust placed in digitally signed binaries or scripts.
Deep Dive Into Technique
SIP (Subject Interface Package) and Trust Providers are integral components of the Windows operating system responsible for verifying the authenticity and integrity of digitally signed files. Trust Providers perform cryptographic verification of digital signatures, while SIP modules determine how files are hashed and verified. By hijacking or manipulating these components, attackers can trick the operating system into accepting malicious or modified files as legitimate.
Attackers typically execute this technique through:
DLL Hijacking:
Attackers replace or modify legitimate SIP or Trust Provider DLLs (such as
wintrust.dllor related modules) with malicious versions.Malicious DLLs return fraudulent verification results, causing the system to accept unsigned or altered binaries as authentic.
Registry Manipulation:
Attackers alter registry keys responsible for loading SIP modules or Trust Providers, redirecting verification processes to malicious DLLs.
Common registry paths include:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\OID\EncodingType 0\CryptSIPDllVerifyIndirectDataHKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Providers\Trust
Code Injection and Hooking:
Attackers may inject malicious code directly into legitimate SIP or Trust Provider processes.
Hooking functions within trust verification processes to bypass security checks.
Real-world procedures often involve attackers leveraging this technique to execute unsigned binaries, malicious scripts, or modified system files without triggering security alerts, thus evading endpoint protection tools.
When this Technique is Usually Used
Attackers typically employ SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking in various attack scenarios and stages, including:
Persistence:
Establishing long-term persistence by ensuring malicious binaries remain trusted and undetected by endpoint protection tools.
Defense Evasion:
Evading detection by security software that relies on digital signature validation to identify malicious or unauthorized code.
Circumventing Application Control solutions (e.g., AppLocker, Windows Defender Application Control) that rely on digital signatures.
Privilege Escalation:
Manipulating trust validation processes to execute privileged binaries or scripts, potentially elevating privileges.
Execution:
Allowing the execution of unsigned or maliciously modified executables, DLLs, drivers, or scripts without triggering alerts.
How this Technique is Usually Detected
Detection of SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking typically requires monitoring and analyzing system integrity, registry changes, and DLL loading behaviors. Common detection methods and indicators include:
Monitoring Registry Changes:
Detecting unauthorized changes to registry keys related to SIP and Trust Providers:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\OID\EncodingType 0\CryptSIPDllVerifyIndirectDataHKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Providers\Trust
DLL Load Monitoring:
Observing unusual DLL loading events involving trust provider DLLs (e.g.,
wintrust.dll) or unknown DLLs loaded into signing processes.
File Integrity Monitoring:
Implementing File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) solutions to detect unauthorized modifications or replacements of critical DLLs and system binaries.
Event Logs and Audit Trails:
Analyzing Windows event logs for suspicious events related to cryptographic operations, DLL loading, or registry changes.
Using Sysmon or similar tools to track detailed process and registry activity.
Behavioral Analysis:
Identifying anomalous behaviors, such as unsigned binaries executing without generating expected security alerts or bypassing application control policies.
Specific Indicators of Compromise (IoCs):
Unexpected modification or replacement of SIP DLLs (
wintrust.dll,crypt32.dll).Registry entries pointing cryptographic verification functions to unknown or suspicious DLLs.
Presence of unsigned binaries executing without triggering expected security warnings or alerts.
Abnormal DLL loads within signing or verification processes.
Why it is Important to Detect This Technique
Early detection of SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking is critical due to the significant potential impacts on systems and networks, including:
Security Control Bypass:
Attackers leverage this technique to evade critical security mechanisms such as antivirus software, endpoint protection, application whitelisting, and integrity verification controls.
Persistence and Long-Term Access:
Successful hijacking enables attackers to maintain persistent access and execute malicious payloads undetected, increasing the likelihood of prolonged compromise.
Elevated Privileges and Lateral Movement:
Attackers can exploit trust provider manipulation to execute privileged binaries, facilitating privilege escalation and lateral movement within the network.
Data Exfiltration and System Manipulation:
Hijacking trust mechanisms allows attackers to execute malicious tools and scripts freely, enabling data theft, credential harvesting, and unauthorized system modifications.
Due to these severe impacts, organizations must prioritize detecting and mitigating this technique to maintain robust security posture, reduce attack surface, and prevent prolonged undetected intrusions.
Examples
Real-world examples and scenarios involving SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking include:
Operation ShadowHammer (ASUS Supply Chain Attack):
Attackers compromised ASUS's software update mechanism by hijacking cryptographic validation mechanisms, allowing malicious updates to appear legitimate and digitally signed.
Impact: Thousands of users unknowingly downloaded and executed malicious software updates, leading to widespread compromise and potential data theft.
Stuxnet Malware:
Stuxnet leveraged trust provider manipulation by employing stolen or forged digital certificates and tampering with trust verification mechanisms, allowing malicious drivers and binaries to execute without detection.
Impact: Successfully infected critical infrastructure systems, causing physical damages and operational disruptions.
APT Groups and Nation-State Actors:
Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups have been observed manipulating SIP and Trust Providers to bypass endpoint protection and execute custom malware undetected.
Tools used: Custom DLL replacements, registry modifications, hooking frameworks, and code injection tools.
Impact: Persistent espionage campaigns, data exfiltration, and prolonged undetected presence in targeted environments.
These examples highlight the real-world relevance of SIP and Trust Provider Hijacking, demonstrating its effectiveness in bypassing security controls and causing significant damage across diverse attack scenarios.
Last updated
Was this helpful?