| --- |
| task_categories: |
| - text-classification |
| language: |
| - en |
| license: cc-by-4.0 |
| library_name: datasets |
| tags: |
| - vulnerability |
| - cybersecurity |
| - security |
| - cve |
| - mitre-attack |
| - attack-techniques |
| dataset_info: |
| features: |
| - name: id |
| dtype: string |
| - name: title |
| dtype: string |
| - name: description |
| dtype: string |
| - name: exploitation_techniques |
| list: string |
| - name: primary_impact |
| list: string |
| - name: secondary_impact |
| list: string |
| - name: techniques |
| list: string |
| - name: techniques_derived |
| list: string |
| - name: label_sources |
| list: string |
| - name: attack_version |
| dtype: string |
| splits: |
| - name: train |
| num_bytes: 691228 |
| num_examples: 1086 |
| - name: test |
| num_bytes: 77015 |
| num_examples: 121 |
| download_size: 485452 |
| dataset_size: 768243 |
| configs: |
| - config_name: default |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: data/train-* |
| - split: test |
| path: data/test-* |
| --- |
| |
| # vulnerability-attack-techniques |
|
|
| This dataset maps **1,207 CVEs** to **MITRE ATT&CK (Enterprise) techniques**, joining |
| hand-curated mappings from the [MITRE Center for Threat-Informed Defense (CTID)](https://ctid.mitre.org/) |
| with vulnerability descriptions from |
| [CIRCL/vulnerability-scores](https://huggingface.co/datasets/CIRCL/vulnerability-scores). |
| It is intended for training and evaluating models that suggest candidate ATT&CK |
| techniques from a vulnerability description: CVSS tells you *how bad* a |
| vulnerability is, CWE *what kind of flaw* it is — ATT&CK tells defenders *what |
| adversary behavior to expect and detect*. |
|
|
| Every label in the `techniques` column was written by an analyst following the CTID |
| ["Mapping ATT&CK to CVE for Impact" methodology](https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/attack_to_cve/blob/master/methodology.md), |
| which assigns each CVE up to three kinds of techniques: an **exploitation |
| technique** (how it is exploited), a **primary impact** (what exploitation |
| directly yields), and a **secondary impact** (what the attacker can do next). |
|
|
| ## Label sources |
|
|
| | `label_sources` | CVEs | Origin | |
| |-----------------|------|--------| |
| | `ctid_cve` | 788 | [attack_to_cve](https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/attack_to_cve) (2021), ATT&CK v9 era | |
| | `ctid_kev` | 392 | [Mappings Explorer](https://center-for-threat-informed-defense.github.io/mappings-explorer/) KEV mappings, ATT&CK 16.1 | |
| | both | 27 | | |
|
|
| All technique IDs are normalized to **enterprise ATT&CK v19.1**: techniques revoked |
| since the original mappings are remapped to their successor via the STIX |
| `revoked-by` relationships (e.g. T1562 *Impair Defenses* → T1685 *Disable or |
| Modify Tools*), and Mobile/ICS techniques are dropped (enterprise domain only). |
|
|
| ## ⚠️ `techniques` vs `techniques_derived` |
| |
| The `techniques_derived` column contains labels from the automatically derived |
| CVE → CWE → CAPEC → ATT&CK chain maintained by |
| [CVE2CAPEC](https://github.com/Galeax/CVE2CAPEC). **Do not train on this |
| column.** Analysis of the chain shows a median fan-out of 4–20 techniques per |
| CVE and top-frequency techniques (e.g. T1574.007 on 53% of 2024 CVEs) that are |
| artifacts of the cross-framework table expansion, not descriptions of real |
| adversary behavior. The column is included as: |
|
|
| 1. a candidate prior at inference time (restrict suggestions to techniques compatible with the CWE chain); |
| 2. a baseline that a trained model must beat; |
| 3. a comparison column for studying where the deterministic chain diverges from analyst judgment. |
|
|
| The full source analysis is documented in the |
| [VulnTrain documentation](https://github.com/vulnerability-lookup/VulnTrain/blob/main/docs/attack-techniques-dataset.md). |
|
|
| ## Fields |
|
|
| | Field | Type | Description | |
| |-------|------|-------------| |
| | `id` | string | CVE identifier | |
| | `title` | string | Vulnerability title | |
| | `description` | string | Vulnerability description in English (model input) | |
| | `exploitation_techniques` | list[string] | CTID exploitation technique(s) | |
| | `primary_impact` | list[string] | CTID primary impact technique(s) | |
| | `secondary_impact` | list[string] | CTID secondary impact technique(s) | |
| | `techniques` | list[string] | Union of all curated techniques — the training target | |
| | `techniques_derived` | list[string] | CVE2CAPEC weak labels — **not** for training | |
| | `label_sources` | list[string] | `ctid_cve` and/or `ctid_kev` | |
| | `attack_version` | string | Enterprise ATT&CK version the IDs are normalized to | |
|
|
| ## Label statistics |
|
|
| 192 distinct techniques; 66 with at least 5 examples. Most CVEs carry 1–3 |
| techniques. Top techniques: T1190 *Exploit Public-Facing Application* (348), |
| T1059 *Command and Scripting Interpreter* (262), T1203 *Exploitation for Client |
| Execution* (213), T1068 *Exploitation for Privilege Escalation* (189). |
|
|
| ## Known limitations |
|
|
| - **Size**: ~1,200 CVEs supports a proof-of-concept, not a production model. |
| - **Selection bias**: both label sources over-represent exploited-in-the-wild |
| vulnerabilities (the KEV set by construction). |
| - **Inherent task ceiling**: a CVE description describes a flaw, while ATT&CK |
| describes attacker behavior around it — even human annotators disagree on |
| such mappings. Models trained on this data should *suggest candidate |
| techniques for analyst review*, not produce authoritative mappings. |
|
|
| ## Usage |
|
|
| ```python |
| from datasets import load_dataset |
| |
| dataset = load_dataset("CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-techniques") |
| |
| for entry in dataset["train"].select(range(3)): |
| print(entry["id"], entry["techniques"], "-", entry["description"][:80]) |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Licensing of upstream sources |
|
|
| The CTID mappings are Apache-2.0. Descriptions come from |
| [CIRCL/vulnerability-scores](https://huggingface.co/datasets/CIRCL/vulnerability-scores) |
| (CC BY 4.0). The `techniques_derived` column is derived from the GPLv3 |
| [CVE2CAPEC](https://github.com/Galeax/CVE2CAPEC) project. MITRE ATT&CK® is a |
| registered trademark of The MITRE Corporation; ATT&CK content is used in |
| accordance with the [MITRE ATT&CK terms of use](https://attack.mitre.org/resources/legal-and-branding/terms-of-use/). |
|
|
| ## References |
|
|
| - [Vulnerability-Lookup](https://vulnerability.circl.lu) — the vulnerability data source |
| - [VulnTrain](https://github.com/vulnerability-lookup/VulnTrain) — generation pipeline (`vulntrain-dataset-attack-generation`) |
| - [Methodology documentation](https://github.com/vulnerability-lookup/VulnTrain/blob/main/docs/attack-techniques-dataset.md) |
| - [MITRE CTID attack_to_cve](https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/attack_to_cve) and [Mappings Explorer](https://center-for-threat-informed-defense.github.io/mappings-explorer/) |
| - [CVE2CAPEC](https://github.com/Galeax/CVE2CAPEC) by Galeax |
|
|