MITRE ATT&CK T1574.008: Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking
When to use this skill
Use this skill when the task involves T1574.008, Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking, enterprise ATT&CK, TTP mapping, detection engineering, hunting, incident-response enrichment, control validation, or authorized adversary-emulation planning. Treat it as a defensive analysis aid: keep outputs focused on understanding, detecting, mitigating, and safely validating this ATT&CK sub-technique.
Technique context
- ATT&CK domain: enterprise
- ATT&CK ID: T1574.008
- Technique name: Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking
- Type: sub-technique
- ATT&CK URL: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1574/008
- Tactics: execution, stealth
- Platforms: Windows
- Required permissions: Not specified
- Effective permissions: Not specified
- Defenses bypassed: Not specified
ATT&CK description
Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the search order used to load other programs. Because some programs do not call other programs using the full path, adversaries may place their own file in the directory where the calling program is located, causing the operating system to launch their malicious software at the request of the calling program.
Search order hijacking occurs when an adversary abuses the order in which Windows searches for programs that are not given a path. Unlike DLL search order hijacking, the search order differs depending on the method that is used to execute the program. (Citation: Microsoft CreateProcess) (Citation: Windows NT Command Shell) (Citation: Microsoft WinExec) However, it is common for Windows to search in the directory of the initiating program before searching through the Windows system directory. An adversary who finds a program vulnerable to search order hijacking (i.e., a program that does not specify the path to an executable) may take advantage of this vulnerability by creating a program named after the improperly specified program and placing it within the initiating program's directory.
For example, "example.exe" runs "cmd.exe" with the command-line argument net user. An adversary may place a program called "net.exe" within the same directory as example.exe, "net.exe" will be run instead of the Windows system utility net. In addition, if an adversary places a program called "net.com" in the same directory as "net.exe", then cmd.exe /C net user will execute "net.com" instead of "net.exe" due to the order of executable extensions defined under PATHEXT. (Citation: Microsoft Environment Property)
Search order hijacking is also a common practice for hijacking DLL loads and is covered in DLL.
Agent workflow
- Clarify scope: identify the system, asset class, log sources, cloud or endpoint platform, and whether the user wants triage, detection, coverage assessment, or safe emulation planning.
- Load bundled resources as needed: use
references/technique-profile.json for structured metadata, references/detection-and-mitigation.md for triage and telemetry guidance, references/known-threat-context.md for ATT&CK relationship context, and templates/ for repeatable outputs.
- Map observations to ATT&CK: compare the user's evidence to the ATT&CK description, tactics, platforms, and known procedure patterns before asserting a match.
- Produce defensive outputs: prioritize hypotheses, telemetry requirements, detection logic ideas, validation steps, containment guidance, and mitigations.
- Preserve uncertainty: distinguish confirmed evidence, plausible indicators, assumptions, and gaps. Recommend what to collect next.
- Stay safe: do not provide malware, credential theft, persistence, evasion, destructive automation, or unauthorized exploitation instructions. For adversary emulation, keep steps bounded to approved lab or control-validation contexts and omit operational abuse details.
Bundled resources
references/technique-profile.json: machine-readable ATT&CK metadata for this technique.
references/detection-and-mitigation.md: detection notes, telemetry checklist, triage questions, mitigation candidates, and false-positive considerations.
references/known-threat-context.md: ATT&CK relationship context with attribution cautions.
templates/detection-brief.md: detection engineering brief template.
templates/hunt-plan.md: threat hunt plan template.
templates/incident-response-note.md: incident response note template.
templates/coverage-assessment.md: ATT&CK coverage assessment template.
scripts/render_brief.py: local helper that renders a Markdown defensive brief from technique-profile.json.
assets/output-schema.json: JSON schema for structured technique analysis outputs.
To generate a quick brief, run python scripts/render_brief.py --output brief.md from inside this skill directory, or adapt the templates directly.
Detection guidance
No ATT&CK detection guidance was present in the source STIX object.
Useful telemetry and data sources
- Not specified in the STIX object.
Mitigations to consider
- Audit
- Execution Prevention
- Restrict File and Directory Permissions
Known threat context
Use these examples only as contextual leads, not as proof that an observed event is this technique:
- Empire (tool)
- PowerSploit (tool)
Recommended output pattern
When responding with this skill, structure the answer as:
- Assessment: whether the evidence supports this ATT&CK mapping and why.
- Evidence: specific indicators, logs, behaviors, and assumptions.
- Detection: telemetry sources, analytic logic, and tuning considerations.
- Response: containment, eradication, recovery, and validation actions.
- Coverage gaps: missing logs, sensors, controls, or environmental details.
- References: include the ATT&CK URL and any user-provided evidence references.
ATT&CK contributors
1---2name: attack-ent-t1574-008-path-interception-by-search-order-hi3description: Analyze MITRE ATT&CK T1574.008 Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking in the enterprise matrix. Use for TTP triage, detection engineering, hunting, defensive emulation planning, mitigations, incident response mapping, ATT&CK coverage, or questions mentioning T1574.008, Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking, or enterprise ATT&CK. Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the search order used to load other programs.4license: MITRE ATT&CK Terms of Use apply to ATT&CK-derived content. See h5---67# MITRE ATT&CK T1574.008: Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking89## When to use this skill1011Use this skill when the task involves T1574.008, Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking, enterprise ATT&CK, TTP mapping, detection engineering, hunting, incident-response enrichment, control validation, or authorized adversary-emulation planning. Treat it as a defensive analysis aid: keep outputs focused on understanding, detecting, mitigating, and safely validating this ATT&CK sub-technique.1213## Technique context1415- ATT&CK domain: enterprise16- ATT&CK ID: T1574.00817- Technique name: Path Interception by Search Order Hijacking18- Type: sub-technique19- ATT&CK URL: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1574/00820- Tactics: execution, stealth21- Platforms: Windows22- Required permissions: Not specified23- Effective permissions: Not specified24- Defenses bypassed: Not specified2526## ATT&CK description2728Adversaries may execute their own malicious payloads by hijacking the search order used to load other programs. Because some programs do not call other programs using the full path, adversaries may place their own file in the directory where the calling program is located, causing the operating system to launch their malicious software at the request of the calling program.2930Search order hijacking occurs when an adversary abuses the order in which Windows searches for programs that are not given a path. Unlike [DLL](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1574/001) search order hijacking, the search order differs depending on the method that is used to execute the program. (Citation: Microsoft CreateProcess) (Citation: Windows NT Command Shell) (Citation: Microsoft WinExec) However, it is common for Windows to search in the directory of the initiating program before searching through the Windows system directory. An adversary who finds a program vulnerable to search order hijacking (i.e., a program that does not specify the path to an executable) may take advantage of this vulnerability by creating a program named after the improperly specified program and placing it within the initiating program's directory.3132For example, "example.exe" runs "cmd.exe" with the command-line argument <code>net user</code>. An adversary may place a program called "net.exe" within the same directory as example.exe, "net.exe" will be run instead of the Windows system utility net. In addition, if an adversary places a program called "net.com" in the same directory as "net.exe", then <code>cmd.exe /C net user</code> will execute "net.com" instead of "net.exe" due to the order of executable extensions defined under PATHEXT. (Citation: Microsoft Environment Property)3334Search order hijacking is also a common practice for hijacking DLL loads and is covered in [DLL](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1574/001).3536## Agent workflow37381. Clarify scope: identify the system, asset class, log sources, cloud or endpoint platform, and whether the user wants triage, detection, coverage assessment, or safe emulation planning.392. Load bundled resources as needed: use `references/technique-profile.json` for structured metadata, `references/detection-and-mitigation.md` for triage and telemetry guidance, `references/known-threat-context.md` for ATT&CK relationship context, and `templates/` for repeatable outputs.403. Map observations to ATT&CK: compare the user's evidence to the ATT&CK description, tactics, platforms, and known procedure patterns before asserting a match.414. Produce defensive outputs: prioritize hypotheses, telemetry requirements, detection logic ideas, validation steps, containment guidance, and mitigations.425. Preserve uncertainty: distinguish confirmed evidence, plausible indicators, assumptions, and gaps. Recommend what to collect next.436. Stay safe: do not provide malware, credential theft, persistence, evasion, destructive automation, or unauthorized exploitation instructions. For adversary emulation, keep steps bounded to approved lab or control-validation contexts and omit operational abuse details.4445## Bundled resources4647- `references/technique-profile.json`: machine-readable ATT&CK metadata for this technique.48- `references/detection-and-mitigation.md`: detection notes, telemetry checklist, triage questions, mitigation candidates, and false-positive considerations.49- `references/known-threat-context.md`: ATT&CK relationship context with attribution cautions.50- `templates/detection-brief.md`: detection engineering brief template.51- `templates/hunt-plan.md`: threat hunt plan template.52- `templates/incident-response-note.md`: incident response note template.53- `templates/coverage-assessment.md`: ATT&CK coverage assessment template.54- `scripts/render_brief.py`: local helper that renders a Markdown defensive brief from `technique-profile.json`.55- `assets/output-schema.json`: JSON schema for structured technique analysis outputs.5657To generate a quick brief, run `python scripts/render_brief.py --output brief.md` from inside this skill directory, or adapt the templates directly.5859## Detection guidance6061No ATT&CK detection guidance was present in the source STIX object.6263## Useful telemetry and data sources6465- Not specified in the STIX object.6667## Mitigations to consider6869- Audit70- Execution Prevention71- Restrict File and Directory Permissions7273## Known threat context7475Use these examples only as contextual leads, not as proof that an observed event is this technique:7677- Empire (tool)78- PowerSploit (tool)7980## Recommended output pattern8182When responding with this skill, structure the answer as:8384- Assessment: whether the evidence supports this ATT&CK mapping and why.85- Evidence: specific indicators, logs, behaviors, and assumptions.86- Detection: telemetry sources, analytic logic, and tuning considerations.87- Response: containment, eradication, recovery, and validation actions.88- Coverage gaps: missing logs, sensors, controls, or environmental details.89- References: include the ATT&CK URL and any user-provided evidence references.9091## ATT&CK contributors9293- Stefan Kanthak