CAPEC-304
TCP Null Scan
An adversary uses a TCP NULL scan to determine if ports are closed on the target machine. This scan type is accomplished by sending TCP segments with no flags in the packet header, generating packets that are illegal based on RFC 793. The RFC 793 expected behavior is that any TCP segment with an out-of-state Flag sent to an open port is discarded, whereas segments with out-of-state flags sent to closed ports should be handled with a RST in response. This behavior should allow an attacker to scan for closed ports by sending certain types of rule-breaking packets (out of sync or disallowed by the TCB) and detect closed ports via RST packets.
On this page
In addition to being fast, the major advantage of this scan type is its ability to scan through stateless firewall or ACL filters. Such filters are configured to block access to ports usually by preventing SYN packets, thus stopping any attempt to 'build' a connection. NULL packets, like out-of-state FIN or ACK packets, tend to pass through such devices undetected. Additionally, because open ports are inferred via no responses being generated, one cannot distinguish an open port from a filtered port without further analysis. For instance, NULL scanning a system protected by a stateful firewall may indicate all ports being open. Because of their obvious rule-breaking nature, NULL scans are flagged by almost all intrusion prevention or intrusion detection systems.
Ask an AI about this attack pattern
Show the prompt
Explain the attack pattern CAPEC-304: TCP Null Scan: how it unfolds, what it needs and how to prevent and detect it in my systems. Use https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/304.html and https://cve.bz/cve/capec/304?via=ask-ai-copy, which lists recent CVEs with the weaknesses it exploits. Cite the sources.Opens a third-party assistant; its answer is its own, not cve.bz's. The prompt holds only this attack pattern's id and public links.
How the attack unfolds
Experiment
They probe what they found.
An adversary sends TCP packets with no flags set and that are not associated with an existing connection to target ports.
An adversary uses the response from the target to determine the port's state. If no response is received the port is open. If a RST packet is received then the port is closed.
Prerequisites
The adversary requires logical access to the target network. NULL scanning requires the use of raw sockets, and thus cannot be performed from some Windows systems (Windows XP SP 2, for example). On Unix and Linux, raw socket manipulations require root privileges.
Resources required
This attack can be carried out via a network mapper/scanner, or via raw socket programming in a scripting language. Packet injection tools are also useful for this purpose. Depending upon the method used it may be necessary to sniff the network in order to see the response.
Consequences
| Impact | Affects | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Other | Confidentiality | |
| Bypass Protection Mechanism, Hide Activities | Confidentiality, Access Control, Authorization |
Mitigations
Employ a robust network defensive posture that includes a managed IDS/IPS.
Weaknesses it exploits
- CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Recent CVEs with these weaknesses
- 4.3CVE-2026-124944
Information disclosure in the Marionette component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160.
- 4.3CVE-2026-124941
Information disclosure in the Security: RLBox component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.
- 4.3CVE-2026-124930
Information disclosure in the Address Bar component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.
- 4.3CVE-2026-124929
Information disclosure in the Layout: Form Controls component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.
- 4.3CVE-2026-124925
Information disclosure in the Layout component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160.
- 4.3CVE-2026-124909
Information disclosure in the Private Browsing component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.
- 5.3CVE-2026-96769
The Extend B2B - Companies and Users Management for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.4 via the register_company_api. This makes it possible for unaut…
- 7.5CVE-2026-63644
bird-lg-go is a BIRD looking glass in Go. Prior to version 1.4.7, unsanitized input path enables arbitrary local file read, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to read sensitive files such as /etc/shadow and /root/.bash_history. Th…
The newest records naming one of them. Each weakness's page lists them all.
Related attack patterns
- Part of
- CAPEC-300 Port Scanning
MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-304 at MITRE. CAPEC is Copyright © 2007–2026, The MITRE Corporation, used under the CAPEC terms of use: “The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC™) for research, development, and commercial purposes. Any copy you make for such purposes is authorized provided that you reproduce MITRE’s copyright designation and this license in any such copy.” CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Credits. All attack patterns.