pasta-attack-sim（面食攻击模拟）

PASTA Stage 6: Attack Simulation

Simulate realistic exploit chains by combining Stage 4 threats with Stage 5 vulnerabilities. Score each scenario by exploitability and impact, and assess whether existing controls detect or prevent each chain.

Supported Flags

Read ../../shared/schemas/flags.md for the full flag specification. Key behaviors:

Framework Context

Read ../../shared/frameworks/pasta.md, Stage 6 section. PASTA is SEQUENTIAL. Stage 6 consumes Stages 1-5 output and feeds Stage 7.

Prerequisites

Required: Stage 5 output -- vulnerability inventory with CWE mappings and vulnerability-threat correlations. Also needs: business assets (Stage 1), entry points (Stage 2), components and trust boundaries (Stage 3), threat catalog (Stage 4). If unavailable, warn and assume.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Attack Pairs

Combine threats with vulnerabilities. Prioritize pairs targeting business-critical assets. Discard pairs fully mitigated by existing controls.

Step 2: Construct Exploit Chains

For each high-priority pair, build multi-step scenarios covering: entry point, exploitation, lateral movement, privilege escalation, objective reached, and exfiltration/impact. Construct attack trees showing alternate paths:

Goal: [Business-critical asset]
  OR
  +-- Path A: [Entry point] -> [Vuln-1] -> [Pivot] -> [Target]
  +-- Path B: [Entry point] -> [Vuln-2] -> [Escalation] -> [Target]

Step 3: Score Exploitability (DREAD)

DREAD Score = Average of all five factors (0-10).

Step 4: Assess Detection Gaps

For each chain: is exploitation logged? Would alerts fire? Would WAF/IDS block it? Is rate limiting effective? Would post-exploitation behavior be detected?

Step 5: Identify Control Bypasses

For each security control: can it be bypassed via alternative paths? Does it cover all entry points? Are there timing windows? Can the attacker degrade it?

Step 6: Rank Attack Scenarios

Order by: DREAD score, business impact, attack complexity (simpler = higher), detection coverage (undetectable = higher).

Analysis Checklist

1. Can low-severity vulns chain into high-impact exploits?
2. What is the shortest path from internet to most sensitive data?
3. Would current logging detect this attack in progress?
4. What skill level and tooling is required per path?
5. Are there paths that bypass all existing controls?
6. Can a single compromised credential yield full system access?
7. Are there TOCTOU windows exploitable in chains?
8. What is the blast radius of the most likely attack?

Output Format

Stage 6 produces Attack Scenarios with Exploit Chains. ID prefix: PASTA (e.g., PASTA-ATK-001).

## PASTA Stage 6: Attack Simulation

### ATK-001: [Scenario Name]
**Target**: [Asset] | **Actor**: [Profile] | **DREAD**: X.X
**Chain**: Entry point -> Vuln exploited -> Access gained -> Pivot -> Objective
| Damage | Reproducibility | Exploitability | Affected Users | Discoverability | Score |
|--------|----------------|---------------|---------------|----------------|-------|
| X | X | X | X | X | X.X |
**Detection**: Logging [Y/N], Alerting [Y/N], WAF [Y/N]
**Gaps**: [Missing controls]

### Attack Scenario Summary
| ID | Scenario | DREAD | Target Asset | Complexity | Detected |
|----|----------|-------|-------------|------------|----------|
| ATK-001 | ... | X.X | ... | Low/Med/High | Yes/No |

### Detection Gap Summary
| Gap | Scenarios Affected | Recommendation |
|-----|-------------------|----------------|

Findings follow ../../shared/schemas/findings.md with:

• dread: Full DREAD scoring object
• references.mitre_attck: technique IDs, references.cwe: exploited CWE IDs
• metadata.tool: "pasta-attack-sim", metadata.framework: "pasta", metadata.category: "Stage-6"

Next Stage

Stage 7: Risk & Impact Analysis (pasta-risk). Pass attack scenarios, DREAD scores, and detection gaps. Stage 7 combines technical exploitability with Stage 1 business impact to produce risk-weighted scores and a remediation roadmap.