Definition
Application Hardening makes an executable application more resilient to a class of exploits which either introduce new code or execute unwanted existing code. These techniques may be applied at compile-time or on an application binary.
Technique Overview
Exploits may, for example, rely on knowledge of addresses in a process's memory, they may alter memory contents, and they may cause a program to use instructions in a way that they were not intended. By, for example, including code that dynamically changes the memory address of data or code on each run, introducing logic to validating the memory contents before certain potentially dangerous flows are executed, or monitoring a program for unusual sequence of instructions, this makes it harder for an attacker to craft a working exploit.
Implementation perspective
Application Hardening should be treated as a technical defensive capability rather than a product checkbox. In practice, teams should define the protected scope, the conditions under which the technique acts, and the observable evidence that demonstrates the intended behavior. For this technique, likely engineering context includes Application Configuration, Process Segment, Stack Frame.
Use the technique to increase the effort, prerequisites, or constraints an adversary must overcome before exploitation or misuse succeeds.
Questions to ask
- Which component, configuration, credential, interface, or behavior is being hardened?
- What secure baseline or policy defines the intended state?
- How are exceptions approved, time-limited, and reviewed?
- How is the hardened state verified after deployment and significant change?
Evidence and validation
- Approved hardening standards and configuration baselines
- Automated configuration or integrity assessment results
- Exception records with owners, rationale, and expiration dates
- Test results demonstrating that the intended restriction is enforced
Common failure patterns
- A secure setting is documented but not enforced consistently across the environment.
- Hardening breaks required functions and is permanently weakened through undocumented exceptions.
- Teams measure deployment of a product rather than verification of the hardened condition.
This implementation perspective is original Bare Metal Cyber educational content. It does not replace the official D3FEND definition or establish that a specific product implements the technique.
Technique hierarchy
Top-level family
Parent techniques
None listed at this level.
Direct child techniques
Artifacts and ontology entities
These relationships describe how D3FEND connects a defensive technique to artifacts or other ontology entities. They describe graph semantics, not a product certification.
Show inferred artifact relationship paths (5)
NIST SP 800-53 relationships
The relation label is preserved from the D3FEND ontology. It is not converted into a claim that the control automatically implements or validates this technique.
ATT&CK Enterprise mitigation relationships
These links come from the D3FEND ontology’s ATT&CK mitigation mapping. They help users navigate between the knowledge bases and do not guarantee mitigation effectiveness.
Offensive-technique relationships
These relationships are generated from D3FEND graph paths and are explicitly experimental. They should be treated as hypotheses for defensive analysis—not as proof that the technique prevents, detects, or removes an offensive behavior.
ATT&CK Enterprise (16)
ATT&CK for ICS (7)
Authoritative sources
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND™ and the D3FEND logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK® and ATT&CK® are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Use of D3FEND source material is subject to the official Terms of Use.