What tools are used?
| Job | Common choice | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Name the technique | MITRE ATT&CK | A public knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques |
| Run small tests | Atomic Red Team | A library of small tests mapped to ATT&CK techniques |
| Run chains | Caldera | An open-source platform for automated adversary emulation |
| Track results | VECTR | Records assessments, test cases and outcomes |
| Write detections | Sigma | A generic rule format that converts to many SIEM query languages |
| Repeat at scale | Breach and attack simulation (BAS) platforms | Commercial products that run known techniques on a schedule |
How is ATT&CK used?
As a shared vocabulary. A scenario is described as techniques, each technique is tested, and results are shown as covered, detected or missed. Group-IB says its scenarios are mapped to MITRE ATT&CK techniques, and the Mandiant datasheet says its assessment aligns with the framework. Not every provider names a framework; Paranoid Security’s cyber exercises page does not, while its red teaming page cites the ATT&CK matrix. See the Mandiant profile and the Group-IB profile.
BAS versus manual?
BAS runs known techniques consistently and cheaply, so it suits repeat checks. Manual work suits judgment: choosing scenarios from threat intelligence, adapting to what the defenders see, and explaining why something was missed. The continuous vs one-off guide covers when to combine them.
What should I ask a provider about tools?
- Which tools will run in our environment, and who approves them?
- Are techniques mapped to ATT&CK in the report?
- Where are results tracked, and do we get the data?
- Are detection rules delivered in a format we can import, such as Sigma?
Many providers publish no tools list. Group-IB, Mandiant and Wattlecorp name none, so ask. For how a tool fits the sequence, read the step-by-step guide.