Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

analyzing-supply-chain-malware-artifacts

Investigate malicious software delivered through trusted updates or dependencies. Compare suspect files with legitimate versions, examine signing anomalies and injected code, and organize evidence to assess the infection path and downstream impact.

OriginalShow the original description

Investigate supply chain attack artifacts including trojanized software updates, compromised build pipelines, and sideloaded dependencies to identify intrusion vectors and scope of compromise.

See how to install

Good for

  • Comparing suspicious updates with legitimate versions
  • Investigating software signatures and injected code
  • Tracing infection through build artifacts
  • Assessing affected systems and extracting detection indicators

Files included (7)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • assets/template.md421 B
  • LICENSE11.0 KB
  • references/api-reference.md2.1 KB
  • references/standards.md309 B
  • references/workflows.md468 B
  • scripts/agent.py5.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Analyzing Supply Chain Malware Artifacts

Overview

Supply chain attacks compromise legitimate software distribution channels to deliver malware through trusted update mechanisms. Notable examples include SolarWinds SUNBURST (2020, affecting 18,000+ customers), 3CX SmoothOperator (2023, a cascading supply chain attack originating from Trading Technologies), and numerous npm/PyPI package poisoning campaigns. Analysis involves comparing trojanized binaries against legitimate versions, identifying injected code in build artifacts, examining code signing anomalies, and tracing the infection chain from initial compromise through payload delivery. As of 2025, supply chain attacks account for 30% of all breaches, a 100% increase from prior years.

When to Use

  • When investigating security incidents that require analyzing supply chain malware artifacts
  • When building detection rules or threat hunting queries for this domain
  • When SOC analysts need structured procedures for this analysis type
  • When validating security monitoring coverage for related attack techniques

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.9+ with pefile, ssdeep, hashlib
  • Binary diff tools (BinDiff, Diaphora)
  • Code signing verification tools (sigcheck, codesign)
  • Software composition analysis (SCA) tools
  • Access to legitimate software versions for comparison
  • Package repository monitoring (npm, PyPI, NuGet)

Workflow

Step 1: Binary Comparison Analysis

#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Compare trojanized binary against legitimate version."""
import hashlib
import pefile
import sys
import json


def compare_pe_files(legitimate_path, suspect_path):
    """Compare PE file structures between legitimate and suspect versions."""
    legit_pe = pefile.PE(legitimate_path)
    suspect_pe = pefile.PE(suspect_path)

    report = {"differences": [], "suspicious_sections": [], "import_changes": []}

    # Compare sections
    legit_sections = {s.Name.rstrip(b'\x00').decode(): {
        "size": s.SizeOfRawData,
        "entropy": s.get_entropy(),
        "characteristics": s.Characteristics,
    } for s in legit_pe.sections}

    suspect_sections = {s.Name.rstrip(b'\x00').decode(): {
        "size": s.SizeOfRawData,
        "entropy": s.get_entropy(),
        "characteristics": s.Characteristics,
    } for s in suspect_pe.sections}

    # Find new or modified sections
    for name, props in suspect_sections.items():
        if name not in legit_sections:
            report["suspicious_sections"].append({
                "name": name, "reason": "New section not in legitimate version",
                "size": props["size"], "entropy": round(props["entropy"], 2),
            })
        elif abs(props["size"] - legit_sections[name]["size"]) > 1024:
            report["suspicious_sections"].append({
                "name": name, "reason": "Section size significantly changed",
                "legit_size": legit_sections[name]["size"],
                "suspect_size": props["size"],
            })

    # Compare imports
    legit_imports = set()
    if hasattr(legit_pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT'):
        for entry in legit_pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT:
            for imp in entry.imports:
                if imp.name:
                    legit_imports.add(f"{entry.dll.decode()}!{imp.name.decode()}")

    suspect_imports = set()
    if hasattr(suspect_pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT'):
        for entry in suspect_pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT:
            for imp in entry.imports:
                if imp.name:
                    suspect_imports.add(f"{entry.dll.decode()}!{imp.name.decode()}")

    new_imports = suspect_imports - legit_imports
    if new_imports:
        report["import_changes"] = list(new_imports)

    # Check code signing
    report["legit_signed"] = bool(legit_pe.OPTIONAL_HEADER.DATA_DIRECTORY[4].Size)
    report["suspect_signed"] = bool(suspect_pe.OPTIONAL_HEADER.DATA_DIRECTORY[4].Size)

    return report


def hash_file(filepath):
    """Calculate multiple hashes for a file."""
    hashes = {}
    with open(filepath, 'rb') as f:
        data = f.read()
    for algo in ['md5', 'sha1', 'sha256']:
        h = hashlib.new(algo)
        h.update(data)
        hashes[algo] = h.hexdigest()
    return hashes


if __name__ == "__main__":
    if len(sys.argv) < 3:
        print(f"Usage: {sys.argv[0]} <legitimate_binary> <suspect_binary>")
        sys.exit(1)
    report = compare_pe_files(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2])
    print(json.dumps(report, indent=2))

Validation Criteria

  • Trojanized components identified through binary diffing
  • Injected code isolated and analyzed separately
  • Code signing anomalies documented
  • Infection timeline reconstructed from build artifacts
  • Downstream impact scope assessed across affected systems
  • IOCs extracted for detection and blocking

References

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Assess exposure of Windows secrets protected by DPAPI, the operating system’s data protection service, during authorized security tests. Guide examination and decryption of saved credentials and browser data using available user sessions, credentials, or backup keys.

  • Assessing saved credential exposure in authorized tests
  • Examining collected DPAPI files offline
  • Reviewing protected browser and RDP credentials
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34.9KUpdated Aug 31, 2026

Assess Shadow Credentials account takeover during authorized Active Directory testing. Examine permissions that allow public key registration, validate authentication without a password reset, and document credential cleanup, detection opportunities, and access control changes needed for remediation.

  • Assessing risky permissions identified in BloodHound
  • Validating account takeover without resetting a password
  • Generating directory change records during security exercises
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34.9KUpdated Aug 31, 2026

Prepare for CMMC Level 2, a cybersecurity certification for defense contractors. Define the systems handling controlled information, review security requirements, calculate the SPRS assessment score, and organize remediation plans and evidence into a readiness report.

  • Define the assessment scope for systems handling controlled information
  • Calculate an SPRS score and prioritize unmet security requirements
  • Prepare security plans, remediation milestones, and assessment evidence
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34.9KUpdated Aug 31, 2026

Create disk images for investigations using dd or dcfldd on Linux. The workflow covers write protection, bit-for-bit copying, hash checks to verify integrity, and documentation of the acquisition process.

  • Preserving a suspect drive before investigation
  • Creating evidence copies of USB devices or memory cards
  • Verifying that a disk image matches its source
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34.9KUpdated Aug 31, 2026

Review Active Directory permissions with ldap3, a Python library for directory queries. Identify excessive access granted to non-administrative accounts, explain potential privilege escalation paths, and produce a JSON report with affected objects and remediation recommendations.

  • Auditing excessive Active Directory permissions
  • Investigating privilege escalation paths from ordinary accounts
  • Reporting affected objects and permission remediation recommendations
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34.9KUpdated Aug 31, 2026

Inspect suspicious Android APK files without running them. Analyze permissions, app components, suspicious code patterns, and network indicators, then produce a JSON risk report to support malware triage and detection rule development.

  • Triage suspicious APK files without running them
  • Inspect dangerous permission combinations and suspicious API calls
  • Extract network indicators for malware detection rules
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34.9KUpdated Aug 31, 2026

See all skills by mukul975

Report a problem with this skill