MITRE ATT&CK T1684.002: Email Spoofing
When to use this skill
Use this skill when the task involves T1684.002, Email Spoofing, 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: T1684.002
- Technique name: Email Spoofing
- Type: sub-technique
- ATT&CK URL: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1684/002
- Tactics: stealth
- Platforms: Linux, macOS, Office Suite, Windows
- Required permissions: Not specified
- Effective permissions: Not specified
- Defenses bypassed: Not specified
ATT&CK description
Adversaries may fake, or spoof, a sender’s identity by modifying the value of relevant email headers in order to establish contact with victims under false pretenses.(Citation: Proofpoint TA427 April 2024) In addition to actual email content, email headers (such as the FROM header, which contains the email address of the sender) may also be modified. Email clients display these headers when emails appear in a victim's inbox, which may cause modified emails to appear as if they were from the spoofed entity.
Enterprise environments can use Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) as an email authentication protocol that references results of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) configurations. SPF and DKIM are configured separately in DNS: SPF verifies that the sending server is authorized for the domain, while DKIM uses a digital signature to verify email integrity and domain authentication. Together, they validate email authenticity and specify how receiving servers should handle authentication failures. Without enforced identity authentication, adversaries may compromise the integrity of an authentication check with altered headers that would not have otherwise passed.(Citation: Cloudflare DMARC, DKIM, and SPF)(Citation: DMARC-overview)(Citation: Proofpoint-DMARC)
An example of a weak or absent DMARC policy is v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1;. The p=none. The p=none indicates no action should be taken, and therefore no filtering action will take place, even if an email fails authentication checks (i.e., SPF and/or DKIM fail). When a DMARC policy indicates no action, the email will still be delivered to the victim’s inbox.(Citation: ic3-dprk)
Adversaries have abused weak or absent DMARC policies to circumvent authentication checks and conceal social engineering attempts. Adversaries can alter email headers to include legitimate domain names with fake usernames or impersonate legitimate users via Impersonation for Phishing. Additionally, adversaries may abuse Microsoft 365’s Direct Send functionality to spoof internal users by using internal devices like printers to send emails without authentication.(Citation: Barnea DirectSend)
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
Known threat context
Use these examples only as contextual leads, not as proof that an observed event is this technique:
- No group or software uses relationships were included for this technique in the source STIX bundle.
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.
1---2name: attack-ent-t1684-002-email-spoofing3description: Analyze MITRE ATT&CK T1684.002 Email Spoofing in the enterprise matrix. Use for TTP triage, detection engineering, hunting, defensive emulation planning, mitigations, incident response mapping, ATT&CK coverage, or questions mentioning T1684.002, Email Spoofing, or enterprise ATT&CK. Adversaries may fake, or spoof, a sender’s identity by modifying the value of relevant email headers in order to establish contact with victims under false pretenses.(Citation: Proofpoint TA427 April 2024) In addition t…4license: MITRE ATT&CK Terms of Use apply to ATT&CK-derived content. See h5---67# MITRE ATT&CK T1684.002: Email Spoofing89## When to use this skill1011Use this skill when the task involves T1684.002, Email Spoofing, 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: T1684.00217- Technique name: Email Spoofing18- Type: sub-technique19- ATT&CK URL: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1684/00220- Tactics: stealth21- Platforms: Linux, macOS, Office Suite, Windows22- Required permissions: Not specified23- Effective permissions: Not specified24- Defenses bypassed: Not specified2526## ATT&CK description2728Adversaries may fake, or spoof, a sender’s identity by modifying the value of relevant email headers in order to establish contact with victims under false pretenses.(Citation: Proofpoint TA427 April 2024) In addition to actual email content, email headers (such as the FROM header, which contains the email address of the sender) may also be modified. Email clients display these headers when emails appear in a victim's inbox, which may cause modified emails to appear as if they were from the spoofed entity.2930Enterprise environments can use Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) as an email authentication protocol that references results of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) configurations. SPF and DKIM are configured separately in DNS: SPF verifies that the sending server is authorized for the domain, while DKIM uses a digital signature to verify email integrity and domain authentication. Together, they validate email authenticity and specify how receiving servers should handle authentication failures. Without enforced identity authentication, adversaries may compromise the integrity of an authentication check with altered headers that would not have otherwise passed.(Citation: Cloudflare DMARC, DKIM, and SPF)(Citation: DMARC-overview)(Citation: Proofpoint-DMARC)3132An example of a weak or absent DMARC policy is `v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1;`. The `p=none`. The `p=none` indicates no action should be taken, and therefore no filtering action will take place, even if an email fails authentication checks (i.e., SPF and/or DKIM fail). When a DMARC policy indicates no action, the email will still be delivered to the victim’s inbox.(Citation: ic3-dprk) 3334Adversaries have abused weak or absent DMARC policies to circumvent authentication checks and conceal social engineering attempts. Adversaries can alter email headers to include legitimate domain names with fake usernames or impersonate legitimate users via [Impersonation](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1684/001) for [Phishing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566). Additionally, adversaries may abuse Microsoft 365’s Direct Send functionality to spoof internal users by using internal devices like printers to send emails without authentication.(Citation: Barnea DirectSend)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- Software Configuration7071## Known threat context7273Use these examples only as contextual leads, not as proof that an observed event is this technique:7475- No group or software uses relationships were included for this technique in the source STIX bundle.7677## Recommended output pattern7879When responding with this skill, structure the answer as:8081- Assessment: whether the evidence supports this ATT&CK mapping and why.82- Evidence: specific indicators, logs, behaviors, and assumptions.83- Detection: telemetry sources, analytic logic, and tuning considerations.84- Response: containment, eradication, recovery, and validation actions.85- Coverage gaps: missing logs, sensors, controls, or environmental details.86- References: include the ATT&CK URL and any user-provided evidence references.
santosomar