Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Adversaries may leverage the resources of co-opted systems to complete resource-intensive tasks, which may impact system and/or hosted service availability.
.claude/skills/cyberstrikeus-t1496-resource-hijacking/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 27% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -23% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -17% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -11% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -27% | 0% |
Adversaries may leverage the resources of co-opted systems to complete resource-intensive tasks, which may impact system and/or hosted service availability.
Resource hijacking may take a number of different forms. For example, adversaries may:
In some cases, adversaries may leverage multiple types of Resource Hijacking at once.
Platforms: Windows, IaaS, Linux, macOS, Containers, SaaS
The following tests are from Atomic Red Team and provide actionable ways to test this technique:
This test simulates a high CPU load as you might observe during cryptojacking attacks. End the test by using CTRL/CMD+C to break.
Supported Platforms: linux, macos
bashyes > /dev/null
This test simulates high CPU load using PowerShell, commonly seen in resource hijacking. Spawns background jobs to stress CPU cores for a specified duration.
Supported Platforms: windows
powershell$end = (Get-Date).AddSeconds(#{duration_seconds}) 1..#{cpu_threads} | ForEach-Object { Start-Job { param($t) while((Get-Date) -lt $t) { $i=0; while($i -lt 200000){$i++} } } -ArgumentList $end } Get-Job | Wait-Job | Remove-Job
If Atomic Red Team tests are not applicable, manually verify the technique by:
No specific mitigations documented for this technique.
| Finding | Severity | Impact | | --------------------------------------- | -------- | ------ | | Resource 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-01 | fail→pass | 13,099 | 6,096 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,196 | 1,519 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 21,993 | 12,947 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,747 | 2,126 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 22,087 | 12,124 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,742 | 2,039 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 10,266 | 8,346 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 725 | 1,147 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 16,569 | 7,710 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,547 | 1,281 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 10,375 | 10,132 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 816 | 1,434 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 13,770 | 9,055 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,412 | 2,157 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 17,549 | 2,427 | -86% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,674 | 1,226 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 17,185 | 7,315 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,624 | 1,194 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 10,238 | 9,757 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,582 | 1,178 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 7,120 | 7,381 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,138 | 1,159 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 19,783 | 7,524 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,196 | 1,113 | -49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 14,321 | 3,743 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,963 | 1,419 | -28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 13,548 | 7,224 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,016 | 1,809 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 13,672 | 6,646 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,909 | 1,015 | -47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 19,137 | 7,126 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,044 | 1,102 | -46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 14,976 | 9,084 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,537 | 1,498 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 19,293 | 12,005 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,177 | 1,963 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 18,422 | 7,674 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,102 | 1,269 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 19,014 | 7,059 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,111 | 1,121 | -47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 12,246 | 7,060 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,951 | 1,181 | -39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 24,033 | 16,284 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,727 | 3,010 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 27,181 | 29,642 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,653 | 5,007 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 23,016 | 19,102 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,012 | 4,008 | +33% | 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. 24 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +58 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 24 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.