Skip to main content
In this lesson, we’ll dive into popular threat modeling frameworks that guide security teams on how to secure systems by identifying threats, visualizing attack paths, and suggesting mitigations. We’ll contrast these with compliance frameworks that focus on what to achieve to meet legal or industry standards.

​
Compliance Frameworks vs Threat Modeling

Compliance frameworks—such as GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, NIST, and CIS Benchmarks—define what security controls and processes are required for regulatory or industry compliance:
The image lists various compliance frameworks, including GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, NIST, and CIS Benchmarks, under the heading "Compliance Frameworks" with the note "Defines what to do."
For instance, GDPR mandates protecting personal data against unauthorized access but does not prescribe how to implement those safeguards:
The image explains compliance frameworks, specifically GDPR, highlighting that it mandates securing personal data against unauthorized access without specifying how to achieve it.
Threat modeling frameworks fill this gap by offering structured methods—like attack trees or matrices—to discover potential attacks and recommend specific countermeasures. Two widely adopted models are:

​
STRIDE: Six Threat Categories

STRIDE breaks down threats into six distinct types, helping teams audit applications or infrastructure end to end:
Threat TypeDefinitionCommon Mitigation
SpoofingImpersonation of a legitimate user or systemMulti-factor authentication, certificate-based auth
TamperingUnauthorized modification of data in transit or at restEncryption, digital signatures
RepudiationDenial of actions performed (e.g., transactions)Comprehensive logging, non-repudiation techniques
Information DisclosureExposure of sensitive dataTLS for transit, disk encryption
Denial of ServiceResource exhaustion or service disruptionRate limiting, resource quotas, autoscaling policies
Elevation of PrivilegeUnauthorized gain of higher-level permissionsRole-Based Access Control (RBAC), least privilege

​
1. Spoofing

An attacker forges credentials to access the front end (e.g., NGINX).
Mitigation: enforce strong authentication and certificate validation.
The image illustrates a threat modeling framework involving spoofing, showing an attacker targeting an NGINX server.

​
2. Tampering

An adversary alters data either in flight or at rest on backend services.
Mitigation: apply end-to-end encryption and use checksums or digital signatures.

​
3. Repudiation

Users or attackers deny performing specific actions (e.g., financial transfers).
Mitigation: implement immutable audit logs and digital-signature-based non-repudiation.
The image illustrates key threat modeling frameworks, focusing on "Repudiation" with icons representing a user and application logs.

​
4. Information Disclosure

Sensitive information (e.g., customer PII in a MySQL database) becomes exposed.
Mitigation: encrypt data at rest and enforce TLS/TCP encryption in transit.
The image illustrates a threat modeling framework focusing on information disclosure, showing a MySQL database with encryption in transit and at rest. It highlights the importance of securing data to prevent unauthorized access.

​
5. Denial of Service

Attackers flood the application, overwhelming resources and causing outages.
Mitigation: configure rate limits, implement resource quotas in Kubernetes, and deploy autoscaling.

​
6. Elevation of Privilege

An unauthorized principal gains admin-level rights within the cluster.
Mitigation: enforce strict RBAC policies and conduct regular privilege reviews.
The image illustrates key threat modeling frameworks, focusing on "Elevation of Privilege," "RBAC Policies," and "Admin Rights" related to high privilege.
Integrating STRIDE early in your design process uncovers gaps before production deployment.

​
MITRE ATT&CK: Real-World Tactics & Techniques

The MITRE ATT&CK framework catalogs adversary tactics (goals) and techniques (methods) observed in the wild. For Kubernetes environments, these techniques map to cluster-specific scenarios:
  • Initial Access: Exploit weak authentication, compromise cloud credentials
  • Execution: Deploy malicious containers or init-hooks
  • Persistence: Create backdoor user accounts, install rogue controllers
  • Privilege Escalation: Abuse misconfigured RBAC or admission controllers
  • Defense Evasion: Disable logging, tamper with audit trails
The image outlines the MITRE ATT&CK Framework, detailing various attack techniques such as initial access, execution, persistence, privilege escalation, and defense evasion.

​
MITRE Kubernetes Threat Matrix

Microsoft’s Kubernetes threat matrix adapts ATT&CK to cluster contexts, enabling teams to visualize attacker pathways and design targeted mitigations:
The image shows a section of the MITRE ATT&CK Framework, specifically a "Threat Matrix for Kubernetes," detailing various tactics and techniques used in cybersecurity. It includes categories like Initial Access, Execution, Persistence, and others, with specific methods listed under each.
Under Using Cloud Credentials (Initial Access), ATT&CK recommends:
  • Enabling multi‐factor authentication
  • Restricting API server exposure with IP allowlists
  • Applying least‐privilege principles to service accounts
The image is a screenshot of the MITRE ATT&CK Framework for Kubernetes, focusing on using cloud credentials. It includes a list of mitigations with descriptions to prevent cluster takeover in cloud environments.
Neglecting to map MITRE techniques to your Kubernetes deployment can leave critical attack paths unaddressed.

​
Summary

By combining compliance frameworks (GDPR, HIPAA, NIST) with threat modeling (STRIDE, MITRE ATT&CK), security teams can:
  1. Understand what requirements apply to your environment.
  2. Determine how to implement controls that mitigate real-world threats.
  3. Continuously refine defenses through structured threat analysis.
Integrate these models into your SDLC to identify risks early and build resilient, secure systems.

Watch Video