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。
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.
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。
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見る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。
# Export incident timeline from ticketing system
curl -s "https://thehive.local/api/v1/case/$CASE_ID/timeline" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $THEHIVE_API_KEY" | jq '.' > incident_timeline.json
# Extract detection and response metrics from SIEM
index=notable incident_id="IR-2024-042"
| stats min(_time) as first_alert, max(_time) as last_alert,
count as total_alerts, dc(src) as unique_sources
# Compile all responder actions and timestamps
grep -E "timestamp|action|analyst" /var/log/ir/IR-2024-042/*.json | \
python3 -m json.tool > compiled_actions.json
Structured Agenda (90 minutes):
1. Incident summary (5 min) - Factual overview
2. Timeline walkthrough (20 min) - Chronological events
3. What worked well (15 min) - Positive outcomes
4. What needs improvement (15 min) - Gaps and failures
5. Root cause analysis (15 min) - 5 Whys or fishbone
6. Action items (10 min) - Specific improvements with owners
7. Playbook updates (10 min) - Changes to IR procedures
Blameless Principles:
- Focus on systems and processes, not individuals
- Assume best intentions with available information
- Seek to understand, not to blame
# 5 Whys analysis example:
# Why 1: Why did ransomware encrypt production servers?
# Answer: Attacker had domain admin credentials
# Why 2: Why did attacker have domain admin credentials?
# Answer: Kerberoasted a service account and cracked it
# Why 3: Why was the service account password crackable?
# Answer: Used a 12-character dictionary-based password
# Why 4: Why was the service account password weak?
# Answer: No enforcement of service account password policy
# Why 5: Why was there no service account password policy?
# Answer: PAM was not implemented for service accounts
# ROOT CAUSE: Lack of privileged access management
from datetime import datetime
events = {
'compromise': '2024-01-10 14:00:00',
'detection': '2024-01-15 08:30:00',
'triage': '2024-01-15 08:45:00',
'containment': '2024-01-15 09:30:00',
'eradication': '2024-01-16 14:00:00',
'recovery': '2024-01-18 16:00:00',
'closure': '2024-01-25 10:00:00',
}
fmt = '%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S'
times = {k: datetime.strptime(v, fmt) for k, v in events.items()}
print(f"Dwell Time: {times['detection'] - times['compromise']}")
print(f"MTTD: {times['triage'] - times['detection']}")
print(f"MTTC: {times['containment'] - times['detection']}")
print(f"MTTR: {times['recovery'] - times['eradication']}")
print(f"Total Duration: {times['closure'] - times['detection']}")
# Create tracked action items in project management
curl -X POST "https://jira.local/rest/api/2/issue" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $JIRA_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"fields": {
"project": {"key": "SEC"},
"summary": "Implement PAM for service accounts (IR-2024-042)",
"issuetype": {"name": "Task"},
"priority": {"name": "High"},
"assignee": {"name": "security_engineer"},
"duedate": "2024-03-15"
}
}'
# New Sigma detection rule based on incident learnings
title: Kerberoasting Activity Detected
status: stable
description: Detects Kerberoasting based on IR-2024-042 lessons
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID: 4769
TicketEncryptionType: '0x17'
condition: selection
level: high
tags:
- attack.credential_access
- attack.t1558.003
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Blameless Post-Mortem | Reviewing incidents focusing on systems, not blaming individuals |
| Root Cause Analysis | Identifying the fundamental reason the incident occurred |
| 5 Whys | Iterative questioning technique to find root cause |
| MTTD | Mean Time to Detect - time from compromise to detection |
| MTTC | Mean Time to Contain - time from detection to containment |
| MTTR | Mean Time to Recover - time from eradication to full recovery |
| Continuous Improvement | Iterating on IR processes based on real incident data |
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| TheHive/ServiceNow | Incident timeline and documentation |
| Jira/Azure DevOps | Action item tracking |
| Confluence/SharePoint | Lessons learned documentation |
| Splunk/Elastic | Incident metrics and detection improvement |
| Sigma | Detection rule development |
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。
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。
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。
Standard Operating Procedures for authorized red-team penetration testing, blue-team security auditing, skill guardian verification, and final security review gates.
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。