analyzing-cyber-kill-chain
Analyzes intrusion activity against the Lockheed Martin Cyber Kill Chain framework to identify which phases an adversary has completed, where defenses succeeded or failed, and what controls would have interrupted the attack at earlier phases. Use when conducting post-incident analysis, building prevention-focused security controls, or mapping detection gaps to kill chain phases. Activates for requests involving kill chain analysis, intrusion kill chain, attack phase mapping, or Lockheed Martin kill chain framework.
- License 许可
- Apache-2.0
- 最近更新
- 2026-08-31
- Stars
- ★ 3.6w
- Forks
- 4.4k
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- analyzing-cyber-kill-chain
- tags
- [ "kill-chain", "Lockheed-Martin", "MITRE-ATT&CK", "intrusion-analysis", "defense-in-depth", "NIST-CSF" ]
- author
- team-cybersecurity
- domain
- cybersecurity
- license
- Apache-2.0
- version
- 1.0.0
- nist_csf
- [ "ID.RA-01", "ID.RA-05", "DE.CM-01", "DE.AE-02" ]
- subdomain
- threat-intelligence
- description
- Analyzes intrusion activity against the Lockheed Martin Cyber Kill Chain framework to identify which phases an adversary has completed, where defenses succeeded or failed, and what controls would have interrupted the attack at earlier phases. Use when conducting post-incident analysis, building prevention-focused security controls, or mapping detection gaps to kill chain phases. Activates for requests involving kill chain analysis, intrusion kill chain, attack phase mapping, or Lockheed Martin kill chain framework.
- mitre_attack
- [ "T1566.001", "T1190", "T1547.001", "T1071.001", "T1486" ]
02 资源文件 9
- 参考文档agents/openai.yaml152 B
- 参考文档domain.md2.0 KB
- 参考文档issue-tracker-github.md4.0 KB
- 参考文档issue-tracker-gitlab.md3.7 KB
- 参考文档issue-tracker-local.md1.8 KB
- 许可证LICENSE11.0 KB
- 参考文档references/api-reference.md2.7 KB
- 脚本scripts/agent.py10.2 KB
- 参考文档triage-labels.md1.0 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Analyzing Cyber Kill Chain
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- Conducting post-incident analysis to determine how far an adversary progressed through an attack sequence
- Designing layered defensive controls with the goal of interrupting attacks at the earliest possible phase
- Producing threat intelligence reports that communicate attack progression to non-technical stakeholders
Do not use this skill as a standalone framework — combine with MITRE ATT&CK for technique-level granularity beyond what the 7-phase kill chain provides.
Prerequisites
- Complete incident timeline with forensic artifacts mapped to specific adversary actions
- MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise matrix for technique-level mapping within each kill chain phase
- Access to threat intelligence on the suspected adversary group's typical kill chain progression
- Post-incident report or IR timeline from responding team
Workflow
Step 1: Map Observed Actions to Kill Chain Phases
The Lockheed Martin Cyber Kill Chain consists of seven phases. Map all observed adversary actions:
Phase 1 - Reconnaissance: Adversary gathers target information before attack.
- Indicators: DNS queries from adversary IP, LinkedIn scraping, job posting analysis, Shodan scans of organization infrastructure
Phase 2 - Weaponization: Adversary creates attack tool (malware + exploit).
- Indicators: Malware compilation timestamps, exploit document metadata, builder artifacts in malware samples
Phase 3 - Delivery: Adversary transmits weapon to target.
- Indicators: Phishing emails, malicious attachments, drive-by downloads, USB drops, supply chain compromise
Phase 4 - Exploitation: Adversary exploits vulnerability to execute code.
- Indicators: CVE exploitation events in application/OS logs, memory corruption artifacts, shellcode execution
Phase 5 - Installation: Adversary establishes persistence on target.
- Indicators: New scheduled tasks, registry run keys, service installation, web shells, bootkits
Phase 6 - Command & Control (C2): Adversary communicates with compromised system.
- Indicators: Beaconing traffic (regular intervals), DNS tunneling, HTTPS to uncommon domains, C2 framework signatures (Cobalt Strike, Sliver)
Phase 7 - Actions on Objectives: Adversary achieves goals.
- Indicators: Data staging/exfiltration, lateral movement, ransomware execution, destructive activity
Step 2: Identify Phase Completion and Detection Points
Create a phase matrix for the incident:
Phase 1: Recon → Completed (undetected)
Phase 2: Weaponize → Completed (undetected — pre-attack)
Phase 3: Delivery → Completed; phishing email bypassed SEG
Phase 4: Exploit → Completed; CVE-2023-23397 exploited
Phase 5: Install → DETECTED: EDR flagged scheduled task creation (attack stalled here)
Phase 6: C2 → Not achieved (installation blocked)
Phase 7: Objectives → Not achieved
For each phase completed without detection, document the defensive control gap.
Step 3: Map to MITRE ATT&CK for Technique Detail
Each kill chain phase maps to multiple ATT&CK tactics:
- Delivery → Initial Access (TA0001)
- Exploitation → Execution (TA0002)
- Installation → Persistence (TA0003), Privilege Escalation (TA0004)
- C2 → Command and Control (TA0011)
- Actions on Objectives → Exfiltration (TA0010), Impact (TA0040)
Within each phase, enumerate specific ATT&CK techniques observed and map to existing detections.
Step 4: Identify Courses of Action per Phase
For each phase, document applicable defensive courses of action (COAs):
- Detect COA: What detection would alert on adversary activity in this phase?
- Deny COA: What control would prevent the adversary from completing this phase?
- Disrupt COA: What control would interrupt the adversary mid-phase?
- Degrade COA: What control would reduce the adversary's effectiveness in this phase?
- Deceive COA: What deception (honeypots, canary tokens) would expose activity in this phase?
- Destroy COA: What active defense capability would neutralize adversary infrastructure?
Step 5: Produce Kill Chain Analysis Report
Structure findings as:
- Attack narrative (timeline of phases)
- Phase-by-phase analysis with evidence
- Detection point analysis (what worked, what failed)
- Defensive recommendation per phase prioritized by cost/effectiveness
- Control improvement roadmap
Key Concepts
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Kill Chain | Sequential model of adversary intrusion phases; breaking any link theoretically stops the attack |
| Courses of Action (COA) | Defensive responses mapped to each kill chain phase: detect, deny, disrupt, degrade, deceive, destroy |
| Beaconing | Regular, periodic C2 check-in pattern from compromised host to adversary server; detectable by frequency analysis |
| Phase Completion | Adversary successfully finishes a kill chain phase and progresses to the next; defense-in-depth aims to prevent this |
| Intelligence Gain/Loss | Analysis of whether detecting at Phase 5 (vs. Phase 3) reduced intelligence about adversary capabilities or intent |
Tools & Systems
- MITRE ATT&CK Navigator: Overlay kill chain phases with ATT&CK technique coverage for integrated analysis
- Elastic Security EQL: Event Query Language for querying multi-phase attack sequences in Elastic SIEM
- Splunk ES: Timeline visualization and correlation searches for kill chain phase sequencing
- MISP: Kill chain tagging via galaxy clusters for structured incident event documentation
Common Pitfalls
- Linear assumption: Adversaries don't always progress linearly — they may skip phases (weaponization already complete from previous campaign) or loop back (re-establish C2 after detection).
- Ignoring Phases 1 and 2: Reconnaissance and weaponization occur before the defender has visibility. Intelligence about these phases requires external sources (OSINT, threat intelligence).
- Missing insider threats: The kill chain was designed for external adversaries. Insider threats may skip directly to Phase 7 without traversing earlier phases.
- Confusing with ATT&CK tactics: The 7-phase kill chain and 14 ATT&CK tactics are complementary but not directly equivalent. Maintain distinction to prevent analytic confusion.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
verifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore
Verifies artifact signatures and SLSA provenance using Sigstore's cosign (verify, verify-attestation, verify-blob-attestation) and slsa-verifier (verify-artifact), enforcing keyless OIDC builder identity and source repo against SLSA Build levels. Use in CI/CD before deploying artifacts, when consuming third-party attestations, establishing a SLSA Build L3 pipeline, or confirming provenance during incident response or admission control.
validating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation
Verifies TPM 2.0 measured-boot integrity and remote attestation with tpm2-tools -- reading PCRs (tpm2_pcrread), replaying the boot event log, generating and checking signed quotes (tpm2_quote/tpm2_checkquote), and sealing secrets to a PCR policy. Use to confirm a system booted trusted firmware/kernel for Zero Trust device posture, detect boot-chain tampering via PCR drift, or build a golden-value baseline for fleet attestation.
validating-backup-integrity-for-recovery
Validates backup integrity through cryptographic hash verification, automated restore testing, corruption detection, and recoverability checks to confirm backups are reliable for disaster recovery and ransomware response. Use before relying on backups for recovery, when building post-backup validation pipelines, auditing backup infrastructure for compliance, or checking immutable/air-gapped backups for silent corruption or tampering.
triaging-windows-with-kape
Runs KAPE (Kroll Artifact Parser and Extractor) to collect targeted forensic artifacts (registry hives, $MFT, event logs, prefetch, browser data) via Targets and parse them with Modules wrapping Eric Zimmerman's EZ Tools (PECmd, MFTECmd, RECmd). Use during early incident containment/triage when full disk imaging is impractical but a defensible, parseable Windows artifact set is needed quickly, including at-scale remote collection.
triaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework
Triages and prioritizes vulnerabilities with CISA's Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization (SSVC) decision tree, weighing exploitation status (via the CISA KEV catalog and FIRST EPSS API), technical impact, automatability, and mission prevalence to output Track/Track*/Attend/Act decisions. Use when prioritizing vulnerability scan results (OpenVAS, Nessus, Qualys) for remediation planning beyond raw CVSS scores.
triaging-security-incident
Performs initial triage of security incidents using the NIST SP 800-61r3 and SANS PICERL frameworks, classifying incident type, assigning priority by business impact, and routing to the appropriate response team. Use when a SIEM/EDR alert needs human classification, concurrent alerts must be prioritized, or a user report or threat-intel IOC match requires initial incident categorization.