「breach」の検索結果

Designing red team attack scenarios, threat models, MITRE ATT&CK/OWASP application, Purple Team exercises, and AI/LLM red teaming. Use when adversarial security validation is needed.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design SLA framework -- response time targets, resolution time targets, tier definitions, and breach escalation process. Use when asked to "define our SLAs", "what response times should we commit to", "build a support tier structure", or "set up SLA monitoring".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Understanding and managing what digital services collect, store, share, and infer about you. Covers password security and entropy, multi-factor authentication, privacy settings, data minimization, the difference between first-party and third-party tracking, cookies and fingerprinting, privacy laws (GDPR, CCPA), and how to respond to data breaches. Use when helping a learner make informed decisions about what to share, with whom, and under what terms.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use whenever the user wants to find, shortlist, vet, or enrich US cybersecurity firms — pen-testing/red team, security audits, vCISO, SOC 2 readiness, incident response, managed SOC, IAM, cloud security, and AppSec. Triggers on "find me a pen-testing firm for our SOC 2 audit", "shortlist three vCISO services for our healthcare-tech startup", "we need an incident response retainer", or "pull contact info for these 8 security firm domains", even when described indirectly (we got breached, prepare us for the compliance audit, get us SOC 2 ready). Drives the ServiceGraph API (api.servicegraph.co) — a 100k+ US firm catalog filterable by industry, services, location, size, ratings. Skip in-house security hires, "how do I patch CVE-X" or "configure firewall Y" DIY questions, security-product reviews (CrowdStrike vs SentinelOne, etc.), generic security knowledge questions, consumer/personal security advice, non-US firms, individual freelancers and bug-bounty hunters.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design security-conscious interfaces that protect users without frustrating them. Use when the user asks about MFA, password UX, breach notifications, trust indicators, secure forms, account recovery, or making security feel safe rather than scary.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the user asks about carding, BIN attacks, payment-card breach markets, fullz/CVV2 trade, autoshops (BidenCash, Brian's Club, Russianmarket, B1ack's Stash), or financial-fraud TTPs. Self-updating knowledge cell.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Monitors dark web forums, marketplaces, paste sites, and ransomware leak sites for mentions of organizational assets, leaked credentials, threatened attacks, and threat actor communications to provide early warning intelligence. Use when establishing dark web monitoring coverage, investigating specific data breach claims, or enriching incident investigations with dark web context. Activates for requests involving dark web OSINT, leak site monitoring, credential exposure, Recorded Future dark web, or Tor hidden service intelligence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate contextual briefings for legal work — daily summary, topic research, or incident response. Use when starting your day and need a scan of legal-relevant items across email, calendar, and contracts, when researching a specific legal question across internal sources, or when a developing situation (data breach, litigation threat, regulatory inquiry) needs rapid context.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Draft crisis communication packages including holding statements, stakeholder updates, Q&A documents, and internal briefs. Follows ICS (Incident Command System) communication principles. Use during PR crises, data breaches, product recalls, or any event requiring rapid coordinated messaging.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a task needs the judgment of a Chief Data Officer — resolving conflicting metric definitions across dashboards, deciding whether a dataset should be retained or purged, assigning data ownership for a system feeding regulatory or board reporting, sizing a privacy/breach risk against a proposed data collection, or auditing data readiness before an AI/ML initiative kicks off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert guidance for proactive threat hunting in Google SecOps. Use when proactively hunting for threats, retroactively analyzing indicators of compromise (IoCs), performing prevalence searches across enterprise events, hunting for MITRE ATT&CK techniques, or detecting behavioral and statistical outliers using UDM queries. Don't use for incoming alert triage (use secops-triage), active incident response and timeline deep-dives on a known breach (use secops-investigate), or detection rule authoring (use secops-detection-engineering).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Configure and troubleshoot Salesforce Case Escalation Rules: time-based escalation entries, business hours configuration, escalation actions (email alerts and reassignment), and diagnosing why cases are not escalating. Covers the EscalationRules metadata shape, businessHoursSource and escalationStartTime semantics, staged escalationAction thresholds, deploy-inactive parallel-run cutover, and monitoring escalated cases. Trigger keywords: escalation rule, case not escalating, SLA breach notification, escalate after X hours, reassign case automatically, IsEscalated. NOT for SLA milestone timers — use admin/entitlements-and-milestones. NOT for case routing on creation — use admin/assignment-rules. NOT for the calendar itself — use admin/business-hours-and-holidays.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit a healthcare software codebase for HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule compliance, HITECH breach notification readiness, 21st Century Cures Act interoperability requirements, and state-level regulatory gaps..

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze defense program budgets and acquisition costs — earned value management (EVM/CPI/SPI), should-cost modeling, PPBE process alignment, cost estimation per GAO guidelines, Nunn-McCurdy breach risk, FYDP profiles, and learning curve analysis. Audit DoD 5000 acquisition software, program cost databases, and budget justification systems.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Check SLA compliance across open tickets and flag breaches or at-risk tickets

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate contextual briefings for legal work. Supports three modes — daily brief (morning summary of legal-relevant items), topic brief (research synthesis on a specific legal question), and incident brief (rapid briefing for developing situations like data breaches or regulatory inquiries).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the rule set is over the Augment budget, when a new rule would breach it, or when asked to audit / merge / prune rules — runs the audit pipeline and proposes a verdict per rule.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when reviewing data flows, support macros, refund templates for GDPR/CCPA/HIPAA fit — regime, consent, PII redaction (email, order-id), breach triage. Triggers 'is this GDPR-safe', 'PII redact'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Responds to security incidents in cloud environments (AWS, Azure, GCP) by performing identity-based containment, cloud-native log analysis, resource isolation, and forensic evidence acquisition adapted for ephemeral cloud infrastructure. Activates for requests involving cloud incident response, AWS security incident, Azure compromise, GCP breach, cloud forensics, or cloud identity compromise.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Conducts external reconnaissance using Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) techniques to map an organization's external attack surface without directly interacting with target systems. The tester gathers information from public sources including DNS records, certificate transparency logs, search engines, social media, code repositories, and data breach databases to build a comprehensive target profile. Activates for requests involving OSINT reconnaissance, external footprinting, attack surface mapping, or passive information gathering.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 (Incident Response Recommendations for Cybersecurity Risk Management). Use for CSF 2.0-aligned incident response life cycles, IR roles, Community Profile priorities for DE/RS/RC and preparation, playbooks, coordination, and continuous improvement. Covers 800-61r3 only; does not replace CSF 2.0 full text, SP 800-61r2 tactical playbooks, or sector-specific breach-notification law.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

- Investigate an email address — MX and syntactic validation, Gravatar lookup, corporate email-format inference, breach exposure, and full mail-header analysis covering the Received chain, Message-ID and SPF, DKIM and DMARC results.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。