Threaticon
Toggle sidebar

You're viewing a limited, public preview. Log in for full access.

Log in User Guide
Log in Get started
Attack Patterns T1480.002 — Mutual Exclusion
T1480.002

Mutual Exclusion

Stealth
TLP:CLEAR

Description

Adversaries may constrain execution or actions based on the presence of a mutex associated with malware. A mutex is a locking mechanism used to synchronize access to a resource. Only one thread or process can acquire a mutex at a given time.(Citation: Microsoft Mutexes) While local mutexes only exist within a given process, allowing multiple threads to synchronize access to a resource, system mutexes can be used to synchronize the activities of multiple processes.(Citation: Microsoft Mutexes) By creating a unique system mutex associated with a particular malware, adversaries can verify whether or not a system has already been compromised.(Citation: Sans Mutexes 2012) In Linux environments, malware may instead attempt to acquire a lock on a mutex file. If the malware is able to acquire the lock, it continues to execute; if it fails, it exits to avoid creating a second instance of itself.(Citation: Intezer RedXOR 2021)(Citation: Deep Instinct BPFDoor 2023) Mutex names may be hard-coded or dynamically generated using a predictable algorithm.(Citation: ICS Mutexes 2015)

MITRE ATT&CK Detection Strategies
1

DET0132 Detection of Mutex-Based Execution Guardrails Across Platforms
AN0372 Windows

Adversary-created named mutex using system APIs (e.g., CreateMutexW) followed by conditional process termination or alternate code path indicating malware avoiding reinfection.

WinEventLog:Sysmon WinEventLog:Sysmon
AN0374 macOS

User-mode application uses flock() or NSDistributedLock to gain exclusive access to a resource file (e.g., /tmp/guard.lock), conditional logic alters execution if already locked.

macos:unifiedlog macos:unifiedlog
AN0373 Linux

File lock acquired via open() + flock() or lockf() on predictable path (e.g., /tmp/.lock123) followed by conditional early exit or divergent process behavior.

auditd:SYSCALL auditd:SYSCALL

MITRE ATT&CK Mitigations
1

M1055

Do Not Mitigate

The Do Not Mitigate category highlights scenarios where attempting to mitigate a specific technique may inadvertently increase the organization's security risk or operational instability. This could happen due to the complexity of the system, the integration of critical processes, or the potential for introducing new vulnerabilities. Instead of direct mitigation, these situations may call for alternative strategies such as detection, monitoring, or response. The Do Not Mitigate category underscores the importance of assessing the trade-offs between mitigation efforts and overall system integrity. This mitigation can be implemented through the following measures: Complex Systems Where Mitigation is Risky: - Interpretation: In certain systems, direct mitigation could introduce new risks, especially if the system is highly interconnected or complex, such as in legacy industrial control systems (ICS). Patching or modifying these systems could result in unplanned downtime, disruptions, or even safety risks. - Use Case: In a power grid control system, attempting to patch or disable certain services related to device communications might disrupt critical operations, leading to unintended service outages. Risk of Reducing Security Coverage: - Interpretation: In some cases, mitigating a technique might reduce the visibility or effectiveness of other security controls, limiting an organization’s ability to detect broader attacks. - Use Case: Disabling script execution on a web server to mitigate potential PowerShell-based attacks could interfere with legitimate administrative operations that rely on scripting, while attackers may still find alternate ways to execute code. Introduction of New Vulnerabilities: - Interpretation: In highly sensitive or tightly controlled environments, implementing certain mitigations might create vulnerabilities in other parts of the system. For instance, disabling default security mechanisms in an attempt to resolve compatibility issues may open the system to exploitation. - Use Case: Disabling certificate validation to resolve internal communication issues in a secure environment could lead to man-in-the-middle attacks, creating a greater vulnerability than the original problem. Negative Impact on Performance and Availability: - Interpretation: Mitigations that involve removing or restricting system functionalities can have unintended consequences for system performance and availability. Some mitigations, while effective at blocking certain attacks, may introduce performance bottlenecks or compromise essential operations. - Use Case: Implementing high levels of encryption to mitigate data theft might result in significant performance degradation in systems handling large volumes of real-time transactions.

Details

Platforms
Linux
Macos
Windows
Added
May 2, 2026
Leaving Threaticon

This link opens an external site that isn't part of the platform.