What tools are used?

JobCommon choiceNote
Name the techniqueMITRE ATT&CKA public knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques
Run small testsAtomic Red TeamA library of small tests mapped to ATT&CK techniques
Run chainsCalderaAn open-source platform for automated adversary emulation
Track resultsVECTRRecords assessments, test cases and outcomes
Write detectionsSigmaA generic rule format that converts to many SIEM query languages
Repeat at scaleBreach and attack simulation (BAS) platformsCommercial 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.