Extract DPAPI-protected secrets such as credentials and browser data offline and online.
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。
Implement a vulnerability aging dashboard and SLA tracking system to measure remediation performance against severity-based timelines and drive accountability.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
With over 30,000 new vulnerabilities identified in 2024 (a 17% increase from the prior year), organizations must track how long vulnerabilities remain unpatched and whether remediation occurs within defined Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Vulnerability aging measures the time between discovery and remediation, while SLA tracking enforces severity-based deadlines. Industry benchmarks indicate standard SLAs of 14 days for critical, 30 days for high, 60 days for medium, and 90 days for low vulnerabilities, though more aggressive timelines (24-48 hours for actively exploited critical CVEs) are increasingly common. This skill covers designing SLA policies, building aging dashboards, implementing automated escalations, and generating compliance metrics.
| Severity | CVSS Range | Standard SLA | Aggressive SLA | CISA KEV SLA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 9.0-10.0 | 14 days | 48 hours | BOD 22-01 due date |
| High | 7.0-8.9 | 30 days | 7 days | 14 days |
| Medium | 4.0-6.9 | 60 days | 30 days | N/A |
| Low | 0.1-3.9 | 90 days | 60 days | N/A |
| Informational | 0.0 | Best effort | Best effort | N/A |
| Factor | Modifier | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Internet-facing asset | -50% SLA | Higher exposure risk |
| CISA KEV listed | Override to 48h | Active exploitation confirmed |
| EPSS > 0.7 | -50% SLA | High exploitation probability |
| Tier 1 (crown jewel) asset | -25% SLA | Maximum business impact |
| Compensating control in place | +25% SLA | Risk partially mitigated |
| Vendor patch unavailable | Exception with review date | Cannot remediate yet |
| KPI | Formula | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR) | Avg(remediation_date - discovery_date) | < 30 days overall |
| SLA Compliance Rate | (Vulns remediated within SLA / Total vulns) * 100 | >= 90% |
| Overdue Vulnerability Count | Count where age > SLA | Trending downward |
| Vulnerability Aging Distribution | Count by age bucket (0-14d, 15-30d, 31-60d, 60+d) | Majority in 0-30d |
| Remediation Velocity | Vulns closed per week | Trending upward |
| Exception Rate | (Exceptions / Total vulns) * 100 | < 5% |
Vulnerability Remediation SLA Policy v1.0
1. Scope: All information systems and applications
2. Severity Classification: Based on CVSS v4.0/v3.1 base score
3. SLA Timelines: See Standard SLA Framework table
4. Adaptive Modifiers: Applied based on asset context
5. Exception Process:
- Must be documented with business justification
- Requires compensating control description
- Maximum extension: 90 days (one renewal)
- CISO approval required for Critical/High exceptions
6. Escalation Path:
- 50% SLA elapsed: Automated reminder to asset owner
- 75% SLA elapsed: Escalation to manager
- 100% SLA elapsed (overdue): CISO notification
- 120% SLA elapsed: VP/CTO escalation
7. Metrics Reporting: Monthly to security committee
import pandas as pd
from datetime import datetime, timedelta
class VulnerabilityAgingTracker:
"""Track vulnerability aging and SLA compliance."""
SLA_DAYS = {
"Critical": 14,
"High": 30,
"Medium": 60,
"Low": 90,
}
def __init__(self, sla_overrides=None):
if sla_overrides:
self.SLA_DAYS.update(sla_overrides)
def calculate_aging(self, vulns_df):
"""Calculate aging metrics for each vulnerability."""
today = datetime.now()
vulns_df["discovery_date"] = pd.to_datetime(vulns_df["discovery_date"])
vulns_df["remediation_date"] = pd.to_datetime(
vulns_df["remediation_date"], errors="coerce"
)
vulns_df["age_days"] = vulns_df.apply(
lambda row: (row["remediation_date"] - row["discovery_date"]).days
if pd.notna(row["remediation_date"])
else (today - row["discovery_date"]).days,
axis=1
)
vulns_df["sla_days"] = vulns_df["severity"].map(self.SLA_DAYS)
vulns_df["sla_deadline"] = vulns_df["discovery_date"] + \
pd.to_timedelta(vulns_df["sla_days"], unit="D")
vulns_df["is_overdue"] = vulns_df.apply(
lambda row: row["age_days"] > row["sla_days"]
if pd.isna(row["remediation_date"]) else False,
axis=1
)
vulns_df["sla_compliance"] = vulns_df.apply(
lambda row: row["age_days"] <= row["sla_days"]
if pd.notna(row["remediation_date"]) else None,
axis=1
)
vulns_df["days_overdue"] = vulns_df.apply(
lambda row: max(0, row["age_days"] - row["sla_days"])
if row["is_overdue"] else 0,
axis=1
)
vulns_df["sla_pct_elapsed"] = (
vulns_df["age_days"] / vulns_df["sla_days"] * 100
).round(1)
return vulns_df
def generate_kpis(self, vulns_df):
"""Generate KPI summary from aging data."""
open_vulns = vulns_df[vulns_df["remediation_date"].isna()]
closed_vulns = vulns_df[vulns_df["remediation_date"].notna()]
kpis = {
"total_vulnerabilities": len(vulns_df),
"open_vulnerabilities": len(open_vulns),
"closed_vulnerabilities": len(closed_vulns),
"overdue_count": open_vulns["is_overdue"].sum(),
"mttr_days": closed_vulns["age_days"].mean() if len(closed_vulns) > 0 else 0,
"sla_compliance_rate": (
closed_vulns["sla_compliance"].mean() * 100
if len(closed_vulns) > 0 else 0
),
}
kpis["overdue_by_severity"] = (
open_vulns[open_vulns["is_overdue"]]
.groupby("severity")
.size()
.to_dict()
)
return kpis
def get_escalation_list(self, vulns_df):
"""Get vulnerabilities requiring escalation."""
open_vulns = vulns_df[vulns_df["remediation_date"].isna()].copy()
escalations = []
for _, vuln in open_vulns.iterrows():
pct = vuln["sla_pct_elapsed"]
if pct >= 120:
level = "VP/CTO Escalation"
elif pct >= 100:
level = "CISO Notification"
elif pct >= 75:
level = "Manager Escalation"
elif pct >= 50:
level = "Owner Reminder"
else:
continue
escalations.append({
"cve_id": vuln.get("cve_id", ""),
"severity": vuln["severity"],
"age_days": vuln["age_days"],
"sla_days": vuln["sla_days"],
"days_overdue": vuln["days_overdue"],
"sla_pct": pct,
"escalation_level": level,
"asset": vuln.get("asset", ""),
"owner": vuln.get("owner", ""),
})
return pd.DataFrame(escalations)
# Grafana/Kibana query examples for vulnerability aging
# Age distribution histogram (Elasticsearch)
age_distribution_query = {
"aggs": {
"age_buckets": {
"range": {
"field": "age_days",
"ranges": [
{"key": "0-7 days", "to": 8},
{"key": "8-14 days", "from": 8, "to": 15},
{"key": "15-30 days", "from": 15, "to": 31},
{"key": "31-60 days", "from": 31, "to": 61},
{"key": "61-90 days", "from": 61, "to": 91},
{"key": "90+ days", "from": 91},
]
}
}
}
}
# SLA compliance trend (monthly)
sla_trend_query = {
"aggs": {
"monthly": {
"date_histogram": {"field": "remediation_date", "interval": "month"},
"aggs": {
"within_sla": {
"filter": {"script": {
"source": "doc['age_days'].value <= doc['sla_days'].value"
}}
}
}
}
}
}
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Extract DPAPI-protected secrets such as credentials and browser data offline and online.
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, detect, and remediate Shadow Credentials misconfigurations on msDS-KeyCredentialLink in Active Directory. Focuses on access-controls, monitoring Event ID 5136, and credential-management hygiene.
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。
Prepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.
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。
Create forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images using dd and dcfldd while preserving evidence integrity through hash verification.
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。
Detect dangerous ACL misconfigurations in Active Directory using ldap3 to identify GenericAll, WriteDACL, and WriteOwner abuse paths
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。
Perform static analysis of Android APK malware samples using apktool for decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for permission analysis, manifest inspection, and suspicious API call detection.
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。