AbuseIPDB API reference. IP reputation and abuse report lookups.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when prioritising CVEs, the user asks "should we patch X first?" / "is CVE-YYYY-NNNNN being exploited?", or wants weaponisation, EPSS, and KEV context combined into a patch-now-vs-later recommendation.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Not all vulnerabilities are equal. This skill provides a prioritisation methodology that goes beyond CVSS scores.
Base score provides a starting point but should NEVER be the sole prioritisation factor.
| Score | Severity | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0-10.0 | Critical | Immediate attention, but check exploitation status |
| 7.0-8.9 | High | High priority, especially if internet-facing |
| 4.0-6.9 | Medium | Standard patching cycle unless other factors elevate |
| 0.1-3.9 | Low | Lowest priority |
Predicts the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the next 30 days (0-1 scale).
| EPSS Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| >0.9 | Very high probability of exploitation — treat as urgent |
| 0.5-0.9 | High probability — prioritise |
| 0.1-0.5 | Moderate probability — evaluate with other factors |
| <0.1 | Low probability — standard cycle |
If a vulnerability is on the CISA KEV list, it IS being exploited in the wild. Patch immediately regardless of CVSS score.
| Stage | Description | Priority Impact |
|---|---|---|
| In the wild | Active exploitation confirmed | PATCH NOW |
| Weaponised exploit | Reliable exploit available (Metasploit, commercial) | Very high priority |
| PoC available | Proof-of-concept published (GitHub, blog) | High priority — weaponisation imminent |
| Technical details | Advisory with enough detail to develop exploit | Medium — monitor for PoC |
| Advisory only | CVE assigned, limited technical detail | Standard priority |
| Priority | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| P1 — Emergency | KEV listed OR in-the-wild exploitation + internet-facing | Patch within 24 hours |
| P2 — Urgent | Weaponised exploit available + internet-facing, OR KEV + internal | Patch within 72 hours |
| P3 — High | PoC available + internet-facing, OR high CVSS + high EPSS | Patch within 7 days |
| P4 — Standard | High CVSS but no exploitation evidence + compensating controls | Patch within 30 days |
| P5 — Low | Low CVSS + internal only + strong controls | Next patch cycle or accept risk |
## Vulnerability Assessment: CVE-YYYY-XXXXX
### Overview
- **CVE**: CVE-YYYY-XXXXX
- **Affected Product**: [Product and versions]
- **CVSS Base Score**: X.X ([vector string])
- **EPSS Score**: X.XX (as of YYYY-MM-DD)
- **KEV Listed**: Yes/No
- **Priority**: P1/P2/P3/P4/P5
### Exploitation Status
- **In the wild**: Yes/No [evidence]
- **Weaponised exploit**: Yes/No [Metasploit module, commercial exploit]
- **PoC available**: Yes/No [GitHub link, blog post]
- **Threat actors exploiting**: [Known actors, if any]
### Exposure Assessment
- **Internet-facing instances**: [Count if known]
- **Internal instances**: [Count if known]
- **Compensating controls**: [What mitigates even without patching?]
- **Detection capability**: [Do we have rules for exploitation of this?]
### Recommendation
[Patch/mitigate/accept risk with justification]
### Sources
[With Admiralty ratings]
/lookup-shodan search 'product:"<name>" version:<v>"' and /lookup-censys search '<CPE>' for population-level exposure counts; /lookup-shodan host <ip> for asset-level confirmation/lookup-virustotal + /lookup-otx for malware leveraging the CVE; /lookup-misp search-attributes --type vulnerability --value CVE-YYYY-NNNNN for prior internal events/lookup-liberty91 library vulnerabilities --name CVE-YYYY-NNNNN for the canonical record (CVSS, EPSS, KEV status, CWE ids), then entity vulnerabilities <id> --section threat-events for occurrences naming it. An occurrence classed security-incident (rather than vulnerability) means a named victim was actually hit — that is exploitation in the wild, not a disclosure event, and it should move the CVE up the queue/lookup-ransomwarelive group-profile <name> exposes per-group documented exploited vulnerabilities; cross-reference against your inventory/sigma-writing and /yara-writing produce the rules/score-source, /apply-tlp, /confidence-language还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
AbuseIPDB API reference. IP reputation and abuse report lookups.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses — structured technique for evaluating multiple explanations against evidence. Use when facing ambiguous attribution or multiple plausible scenarios. Prefers graded evidence items from /quality-of-information-check and runs that skill first when handed raw URLs or text. Runs on ungraded evidence when asked, labelled as such, unweighted, and capped at Moderate confidence.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when documenting a named campaign across time and victims, the user asks to start or update a campaign record, or another skill identified a multi-incident cluster that warrants formal tracking. Provides the template (timeline, attribution, victimology, attack chain, Diamond Model mapping, IOC clusters) and the lifecycle from active to historical.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Censys API v2 reference. Host reconnaissance and certificate data.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when the user asks about Chinese state-sponsored cyber operations or specific PRC-aligned actors (APT41, Volt Typhoon, Mustang Panda, APT10, APT31, Salt Typhoon, etc.), MSS/PLA-attributed campaigns, or PRC sector targeting. Self-updating knowledge cell.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。