本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

conducting-cyber-risk-assessment-with-nist-800-30

Conduct a defensible cybersecurity risk assessment using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 methodology: prepare scope and a risk model, identify threat sources and threat events, identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions, determine likelihood and impact, compute risk, and communicate results as a prioritized risk register. Use when an organization needs an actual risk *assessment* (not a maturity score), when a control framework (CSF, ISO 27001, RMF, SOC 2, PCI) requires a documented risk analysis as input, when leadership asks "what are our top risks and how bad are they", when assessing risk for a new system or major change, or when building a risk register from scratch. This is the methodology that feeds framework selection, ATO packages, and treatment decisions. Keywords: risk assessment, NIST 800-30, threat modeling, likelihood and impact, risk register, risk analysis, threat sources, vulnerabilities, risk determination, qualitative risk, risk matrix, residual risk, risk treatment.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(5)

  • SKILL.md9.8 KB
  • assets/template.md4.9 KB
  • LICENSE11.0 KB
  • references/standards.md3.7 KB
  • scripts/process.py7.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

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。

Conducting a Cyber Risk Assessment with NIST SP 800-30

When to Use

  • When the organization needs a real risk assessment — an analysis of specific threats, likelihoods, and impacts — rather than a maturity score against a framework. (Maturity tells you how mature your practices are; a risk assessment tells you what could hurt you and how badly.)
  • When another framework requires a documented risk analysis as a mandatory input: NIST CSF (ID.RA), ISO 27001 (Clause 6.1.2), NIST RMF / 800-37 (the Prepare and Select steps), SOC 2 (CC3), PCI DSS, or HIPAA (§164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)).
  • When standing up or significantly changing a system and you must understand its risk before authorization or go-live.
  • When leadership asks for the organization's top risks, ranked, with a rationale they can defend to a board or regulator.
  • When building or refreshing an enterprise risk register.

Prerequisites

  • An inventory of in-scope assets, systems, and the information types they handle (system boundary defined).
  • Access to threat intelligence (internal incident history, sector ISAC feeds, MITRE ATT&CK) to ground threat-event likelihood in observed behavior.
  • Vulnerability data (scan results, pen-test findings, configuration/architecture review) for the in-scope systems.
  • Business context: which missions/processes the systems support, and what impact to confidentiality, integrity, or availability would mean in business terms.
  • Agreement on the risk model and scales before scoring, so results are comparable and repeatable (see references/standards.md).
  • Familiarity with the three-tier risk-management context from NIST SP 800-39 (organization, mission/business process, information system).

Workflow

NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 defines four steps. Steps 1 and 4 bookend the assessment; Step 2 is the analytic core.

1. Prepare for the assessment

Define and document:

  • Purpose (e.g., support an authorization decision, inform control selection, satisfy ISO 6.1.2).
  • Scope — organizational tier (Tier 1/2/3), systems, and time horizon.
  • Assumptions and constraints (e.g., assume an external adversarial threat with moderate capability).
  • Information sources — threat, vulnerability, and impact inputs.
  • Risk model and analytic approach — the factors (threat source, threat event, vulnerability, likelihood, impact) and the scales (qualitative Very Low–Very High, or semi-quantitative 0–10). Lock these now.

2. Conduct the assessment

Work through the analytic tasks in order. The 800-30 appendices provide the reference taxonomies (D–I).

2a. Identify threat sources (Appendix D). Classify by type: Adversarial (individuals, groups, nation-states — characterize capability, intent, targeting), Accidental (user error), Structural (equipment/software failure), Environmental (natural disasters, infrastructure outages).

2b. Identify threat events (Appendix E). The specific actions a source could take (e.g., "adversary exfiltrates credentials via phishing then moves laterally"). Map adversarial events to MITRE ATT&CK techniques for traceability.

2c. Identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions (Appendix F). Weaknesses (missing MFA, unpatched service) and conditions that make exploitation more or less likely (internet exposure, flat network, lack of segmentation).

2d. Determine likelihood (Appendix G). Assess the likelihood that a threat event is initiated (adversarial) or occurs (non-adversarial), and the likelihood it results in adverse impact given the vulnerabilities. Combine into an overall likelihood on the agreed scale.

2e. Determine impact (Appendix H). Magnitude of harm if the event succeeds — to operations, assets, individuals, other organizations, or the nation. Express against the agreed scale and in business terms.

2f. Determine risk (Appendix I). Risk is a function of likelihood and impact. Plot each threat event on the risk matrix (e.g., likelihood × impact → Very Low … Very High). Record the risk level, the contributing factors, and uncertainty/assumptions.

3. Communicate and share results

Produce the risk register and an executive briefing. For each risk: the threat event, affected assets, likelihood, impact, risk level, key contributing vulnerabilities, and a recommended treatment. Rank by risk level so decision-makers see the top risks first.

4. Maintain the assessment

Risk is not static. Define a refresh cadence and the triggers that force re-assessment (new system, major architecture change, significant incident, new threat intel). Track risk-acceptance decisions and treatment progress over time.

5. Drive treatment decisions

Hand the ranked register to risk owners. For each risk choose a treatment — mitigate (add/strengthen controls), transfer (insurance, contractual), avoid (stop the activity), or accept (document residual risk with an authorizing signature). Re-score residual risk after planned controls to show the post-treatment position.

Key Concepts

ConceptDefinition
Threat sourceThe cause of a threat event: adversarial, accidental, structural, or environmental.
Threat eventA specific action or occurrence that could cause harm (mapped to ATT&CK for adversarial cases).
VulnerabilityA weakness that a threat event can exploit.
Predisposing conditionA condition that increases or decreases the likelihood of adverse impact (e.g., internet exposure).
LikelihoodThe chance a threat event initiates/occurs and results in adverse impact.
ImpactThe magnitude of harm if the event succeeds.
RiskA function of likelihood and impact; the expected harm to the organization.
Inherent vs residual riskRisk before vs after planned/implemented controls.
Risk tolerance / appetiteThe level of risk leadership is willing to accept.
Risk registerThe prioritized record of risks, scores, owners, and treatments.

Tools & Systems

  • NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 — the methodology and Appendices D–I taxonomies (threat sources, events, vulnerabilities, likelihood, impact, risk).
  • NIST SP 800-39 — enterprise risk-management context (three tiers).
  • MITRE ATT&CK — to enumerate and ground adversarial threat events in observed TTPs.
  • Vulnerability scanners / pen-test reports — empirical vulnerability input.
  • Threat intel sources — sector ISACs, vendor feeds, internal incident history for likelihood grounding.
  • GRC / risk-register tooling — spreadsheet, or platforms such as ServiceNow GRC, Archer, OneTrust, to store and track the register.
  • FAIR (optional) — a quantitative model if leadership wants risk expressed in dollar ranges rather than qualitative bands.

Common Scenarios

  • CSF/ISO/SOC 2 needs a risk analysis. Run 800-30 to produce the documented assessment those frameworks require as input, then map results to their control sets.
  • New system before go-live. Assess threat events against the system's architecture and feed the result into the authorization (RMF Select/Authorize) decision.
  • Board wants the top risks. Deliver a ranked register with impacts in business terms and clear treatment recommendations.
  • Post-incident. Re-assess the affected systems; the incident updates likelihood evidence and may surface new threat events.
  • Annual refresh. Re-score against current threat intel and control changes; show movement in residual risk year over year.

Output Format

Produce a Risk Assessment Report using assets/template.md, containing:

  1. Purpose, scope, and tier — what was assessed and why.
  2. Assumptions, constraints, and risk model — the factors and scales used (so results are reproducible).
  3. Threat sources — by type, with adversarial characterization.
  4. Threat events — each with affected assets and ATT&CK mapping where adversarial.
  5. Vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions — tied to threat events.
  6. Risk register — table: ID, threat event, asset, likelihood, impact, risk level, contributing vulnerabilities, recommended treatment, owner, residual risk.
  7. Top risks summary — ranked, in business terms, for leadership.
  8. Maintenance plan — refresh cadence and re-assessment triggers.

Use scripts/process.py to score the register from a risk-input JSON (likelihood × impact → risk level on a configurable matrix), rank risks, and emit the register table.

レビュー

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Extract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team credential-access engagements after gaining a foothold or when triaging DPAPI blobs pulled from a host.

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。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Take over Active Directory accounts by writing attacker-controlled public keys to msDS-KeyCredentialLink (Shadow Credentials) with pyWhisker, Whisker, or Certipy, then authenticate via PKINIT to recover the target's NT hash without a password reset. Use when BloodHound shows GenericWrite/GenericAll/AddKeyCredentialLink over a target, as a stealthier alternative to ForceChangePassword, during authorized red-team engagements.

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。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

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。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Create forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.

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。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

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。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Perform static analysis of Android APK malware using apktool for resource decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for manifest inspection, dangerous permission-combination detection, and identification of obfuscated code, dynamic code loading, and reflection-based API calls. Use to statically triage a suspicious APK without executing it or to build mobile malware detection rules.

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。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

mukul975 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する