1200kmSECURITY RESEARCH
Loading interactive filters…

1200KM / simulation

T1476 Deliver Malicious Application via Other Means — Attack Simulation

Adversaries may direct victims to download malicious applications via ways that avoid an authorized application store (e.g. Google Play Store or Apple App Store). For example, victims may be directed to downloading a malicious APK directly from a domain. Adversaries may wish to avoid placing malicious applications in an authorized application store due to increased potential risk of detection or other reasons. Delivery methods for malicious…

Complete technique description

Adversaries may direct victims to download malicious applications via ways that avoid an authorized application store (e.g. Google Play Store or Apple App Store). For example, victims may be directed to downloading a malicious APK directly from a domain. Adversaries may wish to avoid placing malicious applications in an authorized application store due to increased potential risk of detection or other reasons.

Delivery methods for malicious applications include:

* Spearphishing Attachment: including the mobile application package as an attachment to an email * Spearphishing Link: including a link to the mobile application package within an email, text message (e.g. SMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, etc.), web site, QR code, or other means. * Third-Party Application Store: installing the mobile application package from a third-party application store, as opposed to an authorized app store that the device implicitly trusts as part of its default behavior. Third-party application stores may not apply the same level of scrutiny to applications as enforced by an authorized application store.[IBTimes-ThirdParty][TrendMicro-RootingMalware][TrendMicro-FlappyBird]

Some Android malware comes with functionality to install additional applications, either automatically or when the adversary instructs it to.[android-trojan-steals-paypal-2fa]

Official technique definition · Open in the interactive matrix

Detection telemetry and configuration

These contracts are selected through exact technique-to-data-component relationships or explicitly labelled planning overrides. Configure a collector at the relevant observation point; a telemetry name alone is not coverage.

No source-mapped collection contract is available for T1476. Read the technique-specific MITRE guidance below to determine what is observable and which party controls that data.

Detection rules and analytic guidance

Open the dedicated detection workspace · Existing query engineering

Source rule directory and observation requirements

No exact-tagged Sigma source rule was imported. This does not establish that the technique is undetectable; the MITRE guidance and collection requirements remain relevant.

Before treating a rule as coverage

  1. Read the actual condition and logsource; identify attacker-side, victim-side or third-party visibility.
  2. Map native sensor fields, parse times and identities, then compile for the selected backend.
  3. Replay a behavior-positive case, a normal control, an authorized look-alike and a missing-telemetry case.
  4. Record matches and misses with rule version and source events. No match is inconclusive when required telemetry is absent.

Anomaly-based detection

No exact technique-specific Atlas model is present for T1476 in the selected source snapshot. The following is a design worksheet, not a newly validated model.

Anomaly engineering worksheet

Start from the exact analytic above. The collection-specific lenses below are analyst recommendations; they do not assert that an arbitrary statistical deviation detects this technique.

Resolve the observation point before defining measurable features. Private attacker preparation can be outside victim visibility.

  1. Define an entity/peer group and feature; exclude the evaluation period from baseline training.
  2. Use representative normal and maintenance activity. Do not invent a production threshold from a synthetic example.
  3. Evaluate held-out behavior-positive and benign cases; measure false positives, misses and telemetry loss separately.
  4. Keep abnormality separate from maliciousness. Correlate with the behavior-specific source evidence.

Anomaly Detection Atlas · Baseline, validation and blind spots

Attack tools and documented software

No reviewed lab-tool association is selected for this exact technique. This is a curation gap, not a statement that no tool can implement the behavior.

Software observed in source procedures

These are exact ATT&CK software-use relationships, including malware. They provide behavior context, not recommendations to download or execute malware. No safety or detector claim is inherited.

31 source-documented software associations

Simulation design and documented procedures

Atomic evidence: no compatible candidate in this snapshot. Live lab status: not run for these imported procedures.

Use owned test devices or emulators, disposable app accounts and test data. Verify platform/version instrumentation; desktop test procedures do not establish mobile coverage.

No compatible Atomic procedure is present in this pinned evidence set. Technical feasibility has not been ruled out. A custom procedure must define the behavior, target, collection point, success observable and rollback before execution.

Technique-specific experiment contract

  1. Choose one procedure implementing T1476 Deliver Malicious Application via Other Means; identify the observable behavior in the source definition, not just its tactic.
  2. Record exact target, tool/version, inputs, privileges, network limits and approval. Never run an imported default target automatically.
  3. Enable the collection sources above and verify a benign baseline reaches the detector.
  4. Run only the approved isolated scenario; capture native events and an independent behavior observable.
  5. Evaluate the exact rule/model, restore the lab, and preserve configuration, event hashes, alerts, controls and misses.

Synthetic logs and offline contract check

No synthetic event is invented when the relevant collection point is unresolved. Download the workbook and define the observable source with the system owner first.

Validation status and remaining work

Source identity
Joined by exact technique/object IDs against hash-pinned sources.
Collection fixture
Not supplied because no collection contract is available.
Native telemetry / backend / real attack
Not validated for these imported procedures. Source fidelity and page tests cannot establish sensor or detector effectiveness.

All-page audit and evidence inventory · This page’s machine-readable workbook

Sources and evidence boundaries

Pinned MITRE STIX source · SHA-256 824f7d8a37e7893b29e4c6ca6d87b5fbbf3b228ec6384f1a69ee20d523ff59e5. Definition and procedure context are reproduced from this snapshot, not independently re-investigated incidents.

Connected ecosystem references

Linked tags

mobilemobileAndroidiOSinitial-accessisolated_authorized_labprocedure_review_requiredtelemetry_configuration_requireddevice_or_emulator_and_sensor_access_required
No Atomic candidate in snapshottechniquesource_mapping_gap

Detection and collection

T1476 detection workspace

No reviewed association in this snapshot.

No reviewed association in this snapshot.

Pinned research references. No browser attack runner or production-validated detector is asserted. Imported procedures remain unvalidated; any bounded lab evidence has its own scope. ATT&CK / Atomic provenance · Detection provenance.