Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Adversaries may leverage the compute resources of co-opted systems to complete resource-intensive tasks, which may impact system and/or hosted service availability.
.claude/skills/cyberstrikeus-t1496-001-compute-hijacking/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 8% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 22% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -37% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | 31% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | 56% | 0% |
> Sub-technique of: T1496
Adversaries may leverage the compute resources of co-opted systems to complete resource-intensive tasks, which may impact system and/or hosted service availability.
One common purpose for Compute Hijacking is to validate transactions of cryptocurrency networks and earn virtual currency. Adversaries may consume enough system resources to negatively impact and/or cause affected machines to become unresponsive. Servers and cloud-based systems are common targets because of the high potential for available resources, but user endpoint systems may also be compromised and used for Compute Hijacking and cryptocurrency mining. Containerized environments may also be targeted due to the ease of deployment via exposed APIs and the potential for scaling mining activities by deploying or compromising multiple containers within an environment or cluster.
Additionally, some cryptocurrency mining malware identify then kill off processes for competing malware to ensure it’s not competing for resources.
Platforms: Windows, IaaS, Linux, macOS, Containers
> Note: No Atomic Red Team tests available for this technique. See Atomic Red Team GitHub for updates.
No specific mitigations documented for this technique.
| Finding | Severity | Impact | | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ------ | | Compute Hijacking technique applicable | High | Impact |
| CWE ID | Title | | ------- | --------------------------------- | | CWE-400 | Uncontrolled Resource Consumption |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-12 | pass→pass | 18,659 | 20,146 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,709 | 3,541 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 27,348 | 26,131 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,555 | 4,389 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 33,883 | 37,600 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,413 | 6,306 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 33,527 | 35,183 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,328 | 5,536 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 30,210 | 40,003 | +32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,882 | 6,041 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 28,312 | 49,755 | +76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,415 | 4,388 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 29,607 | 32,183 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,692 | 5,164 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 19,574 | 14,245 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,419 | 2,393 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 11,096 | 2,324 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,008 | 1,195 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 18,965 | 21,990 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,019 | 3,392 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 19,636 | 20,982 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,130 | 3,378 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 19,815 | 17,005 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,213 | 2,705 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 17,010 | 5,604 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,560 | 1,388 | -46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 28,999 | 6,946 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,389 | 1,159 | -66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 22,913 | 25,971 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,903 | 4,174 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 16,049 | 3,444 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,709 | 1,522 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 15,046 | 9,449 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,543 | 1,671 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 21,213 | 7,997 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,870 | 1,561 | -46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 20,300 | 8,074 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,270 | 1,437 | -37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 18,629 | 8,930 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,780 | 1,537 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 26,844 | 23,216 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,211 | 4,139 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 21,675 | 20,063 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,620 | 2,888 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +14 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.