Assessment

Protego Security Solutions is a security auditing and penetration testing company that also provides customized cybersecurity training to clients. Assume that you have been hired as a junior penetration tester to simulate a security auditing and penetration testing exercise for Pixel Paradise (the client), a video game company.

The client wants you to perform security auditing and penetration testing on their infrastructure. An initial threat modeling assessment has indicated that Pixel Paradise's infrastructure is vulnerable to multiple attack vectors. The client has requested you to identify all existing vulnerabilities in their network. Additionally, they have asked for a proof of concept demonstrating how these attack vectors could be used to carry out a targeted attack against their employees and infrastructure. Finally, the client wants you to simulate how to detect, contain, and mitigate such threats to minimize potential damage. In order to achieve the objective, the client’s IT support team has handed over a VM, running multiple Docker containers. As part of the penetration testing scope, the client has also shared the network topology below to help you better understand the infrastructure.

Your Task

• Identify the vulnerabilities across the infrastructure in all the containers.
• Select ONE attack vector from your findings and create a technical analysis report which covers the below sections:
  • Discuss what are the common techniques used by attackers to carry out the selected attack vector
  • Discuss and simulate how you could implement a proof of concept against the provided client VM to demonstrate the selected attack vector.
    • Identify whether a chained attack combine multiple vulnerabilities across one or more container is possible to escalate the attack. If yes, simulate the chained attack.
    • Include any evading techniques that you could use in order to enhance the effectiveness of your proof of concept.
• Critically evaluate the effectiveness of your proof of concept.
• Investigate how you could detect, analyse, contain, and eradicate the attack vector presented in your proof of concept. Your discussion should be based on the Cyber Kill Chain/ MITRE ATT&CK™ phases.
• Provide your recommendations to mitigate similar attack vectors targeting the client organisation in the future.

Important Notice: 

• You MUST exercise extreme caution when simulating your proof of concept. DO NOT execute any suspicious files on your host PC.
• Do not use any real-world malware samples or do not attempt to connect your proof-ofconcept code into any real-world malware C&C servers or bitcoin payment systems.
• You are allowed to install any dependencies that are required to simulate your proof of concept in the provided VM.

Assessment Brief

Purpose:
You were contracted as a junior penetration tester to perform a security audit and penetration test on Pixel Paradise’s infrastructure (VM with multiple Docker containers). The client expects (a) identification of vulnerabilities across containers, (b) a safe proof‑of‑concept (PoC) demonstrating one selected attack vector, (c) analysis of whether chained attacks (cross‑container escalation) are possible, (d) evaluation of evasion techniques that could enhance an attacker’s success, (e) a detection/containment/eradication plan mapped to the Cyber Kill Chain / MITRE ATT&CK™, and (f) remediation recommendations.

Hard constraints / safety requirements:

• Work only within the provided VM/test environment.
• Do not run suspicious files on your host machine.
• Do not use real-world malware, connect to live C2 infrastructures, or perform destructive actions.
• Use only benign, controlled PoC methods inside the VM to demonstrate risk.

Key Pointers to Cover in Your Report

1. Infrastructure inventory & threat model

   • Container list, exposed services/ports, network segmentation, trust boundaries.
   • High‑value assets (credential stores, CI/CD pipelines, databases, authentication services).
   • Threat actors & likely motives (espionage, ransomware, supply‑chain).

2. Vulnerability identification (survey of findings)

   • Misconfigurations (privileged containers, exposed Docker sockets, overly permissive mounts).
   • Insecure secrets management (hard-coded credentials, env vars exposed in images).
   • Unpatched/outdated packages and known CVEs in container images.
   • Weak authentication, insecure APIs, improper input validation.
   • Excessive network exposure or absent segmentation between services.
   • Poor logging, insufficient monitoring, or missing runtime defenses.

3. Selection of one attack vector for PoC

   • Justify selection based on risk (likelihood × impact), exploitability in the lab, and business relevance.

   • Discuss common attacker techniques for this vector at a conceptual level (what attackers generally do and why it works).

4. Proof of Concept (safe simulation)

   • Demonstrate non‑destructive confirmation of the vulnerability within the VM (e.g., prove that a control can be bypassed or a component accepts malformed input) using benign payloads and lab‑safe test code.
   • If a chained attack is possible, describe conceptually how multiple flaws could be combined to escalate impact (without operational exploit code).

5. Evasion & enhancement techniques (conceptual)

   • Discuss techniques attackers might use to avoid detection (e.g., obfuscation, living‑off‑the‑land behaviors, slow “low‑and‑slow” activity), noting tradeoffs and detection opportunities.

6. Detection, containment & eradication mapped to Cyber Kill Chain / MITRE ATT&CK™

   • Map PoC stages to ATT&CK tactics (reconnaissance, initial access, execution, persistence, privilege escalation, lateral movement, exfiltration, impact).
   • Specify telemetry and logs to monitor (container runtime logs, host syslogs, network flow, application logs).
   • Outline containment steps (isolate container, revoke credentials, network segmentation), and eradication (patch, rebuild images, rotate secrets).

7. Recommendations & hardening roadmap

   • Short‑term mitigations (network segmentation, remove privileged modes, rotate secrets, implement principle of least privilege).
   • Medium/long‑term controls (image scanning, vulnerability management, secure build pipelines, runtime protection/EDR for containers, centralised logging and SIEM rules, MFA).
   • Operational recommendations: incident response playbook, backup/restore test, purple‑team exercises, staff training.

Mentor‑Guided Approach Step‑by‑Step

Step 1: Scoping & Safe Working Rules

• Mentor reviewed rules of engagement with the student: confirm asset list, limits (VM only), permitted tools, and explicit no‑malware policy.

• Agreed on reporting expectations and PoC safety (non‑destructive confirmation only).

Step 2: Reconnaissance & Inventory

• Student performed passive enumeration inside the VM (service discovery, container listings, image names, exposed ports). Mentor emphasised documenting findings and preserving evidence (screenshots, sanitized logs) rather than destructive testing.

Step 3: Vulnerability Identification (Non‑Destructive Scanning & Review)

• Mentor showed how to combine automated scans of images/configuration with manual review of Dockerfiles, compose files, and environment variables.

• Student logged misconfigurations, outdated dependencies, and secrets found in images or volumes.

Step 4: Risk Prioritisation & Attack Vector Selection

• Mentor helped the student score findings by likelihood and impact, prioritising a single, high‑risk, ethically testable vector for the PoC (e.g., misconfigured service, exposed credentials, or an insecure API endpoint).

• The student documented rationale for selection.

Step 5: Safe PoC Design (Simulation Only)

• Mentor insisted on benign test methods: proof that an attacker can reach a sensitive API endpoint, or that an exposed configuration can be read but using non‑harmful confirmation (no destructive commands, no live exfiltration).

• If demonstrating lateral movement potential, mentor required conceptual chaining and safe demonstrations limited to the VM without persistence.

Step 6: Map Detection & Response (Kill Chain / ATT&CK)

• Mentor coached the student to map each PoC step to ATT&CK tactics and propose detection sources (e.g., container audit logs, unusual process creation, outbound DNS queries).

• Discussed containment workflows and recommended immediate actions for the client’s IT (isolate, patch, revoke credentials).

Step 7: Documentation & Recommendations

• Mentor reviewed the draft technical report structure: executive summary, findings, PoC description (safe & non‑actionable), detection/response mapping, remediation roadmap, and appendices with sanitized artefacts.

• Emphasised clear, non‑alarmist wording for executives plus technical appendices for engineers.

Outcome Achieved

• Comprehensive vulnerability inventory across containers and configuration items, prioritised by risk.
• Safe PoC demonstrating the selected attack vector in a non‑destructive manner within the VM. The PoC clearly proved the existence and exploitability of the issue without using live malware or affecting external systems.
• Conceptual chained‑attack analysis showing how multiple issues could be combined for privilege escalation or lateral movement; student documented mitigations to break the chain.
• Detection & response plan mapped to the Cyber Kill Chain / MITRE ATT&CK™, listing required telemetry, containment steps and eradication procedures.
• Actionable remediation roadmap covering short‑term patches, medium‑term process changes (secrets management, CI/CD hardening), and long‑term resilience measures (runtime protection, purple‑team).

Learning Objectives Covered

1. Technical analysis & ethical testing: identify and categorise container‑centric vulnerabilities while operating under strict ethical and safety constraints.
2. Risk assessment & prioritisation: evaluate impact vs probability and justify selection of a PoC vector.
3. Safe PoC design: demonstrate exploitability without destructive actions or real malware highlighting proof rather than weaponisation.
4. Adversary modelling: understand common attacker techniques relevant to containerised environments and the concept of chained attacks.
5. Detection & incident response mapping: translate PoC activity into concrete detection signals and containment/eradication steps using Cyber Kill Chain / MITRE ATT&CK™ frameworks.
6. Communication skills: present findings in layered output—executive summary for stakeholders and technical appendices for remediation teams.
7. Operational remediation planning: formulate practical mitigations and policy/process recommendations for secure container operations and developer/IT education.

Access Expert Assignment Solutions Safely

Boost your understanding and academic performance with our expertly crafted assignment solutions. The sample solution provided here is designed for reference only using it as your own submission may lead to plagiarism issues. Study the structure, approach, and insights to guide your learning, and ensure your work remains original.

If you want a completely fresh, plagiarism-free solution, our professional academic writers can create a tailored assignment just for you. With a custom solution, you gain:

• Accurate, well-researched content aligned with your assessment requirements
• Clear explanations and structured answers for easier comprehension
• Peace of mind knowing your submission is 100% original and plagiarism-free

Disclaimer: The sample solution is strictly for educational and reference purposes. Do not submit it as your own work.

Download Sample Solution              Order Fresh Assignment