[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AF8E77G0CN7E9QXZWTY7EC":3,"skill-same:01M6AF8E77G0CN7E9QXZWTY7EC":130},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":38,"linkOnly":39,"markdownContent":40,"markdownBody":41,"frontMatter":42,"refName":71,"commitSha":72,"skillDirectory":73,"forksCount":74,"repositoryHtmlUrl":75,"repositoryHomepageUrl":76,"ownerHtmlUrl":77,"ownerBlogUrl":78,"ownerDescription":79,"updatedAt":80,"install":81,"resources":94},"01M6AF8E77G0CN7E9QXZWTY7EC","implementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping",null,"Implement MITRE ATT&CK coverage mapping to identify detection gaps, prioritize rule development, and measure SOC detection maturity against adversary techniques.","mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","mukul975","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F42860185?v=4","01M6ADEQR8T5M4EEG6C67BQCWF","Mahipal","01M6ADJPMYWG1E5GM1FWBE3128",36078,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"implementing mitre attack coverage mapping","mitre attack","soc","attack-navigator","gap-analysis","detection-coverage","t1566","t1078","detection","ATT&CK","detection-engineering","cybersecurity","navigator","mitre-attack","engineering","protocol","authentication","development","implement","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: implementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\ndescription: Implement MITRE ATT&CK coverage mapping to identify detection gaps, prioritize\n  rule development, and measure SOC detection maturity against adversary techniques.\ndomain: cybersecurity\nsubdomain: soc-operations\ntags:\n- mitre-attack\n- detection-coverage\n- gap-analysis\n- attack-navigator\n- soc\n- detection-engineering\nversion: '1.0'\nauthor: mahipal\nlicense: Apache-2.0\nnist_ai_rmf:\n- MEASURE-2.7\n- MAP-5.1\n- MANAGE-2.4\natlas_techniques:\n- AML.T0070\n- AML.T0066\n- AML.T0082\nd3fend_techniques:\n- Token Binding\n- Restore Access\n- Application Protocol Command Analysis\n- Password Authentication\n- Reissue Credential\nnist_csf:\n- DE.CM-01\n- DE.AE-02\n- RS.MA-01\n- DE.AE-06\nmitre_attack:\n- T1078\n- T1685.002\n- T1685.005\n- T1566\n---\n\n# Implementing MITRE ATT&CK Coverage Mapping\n\n## Overview\n\nMITRE ATT&CK coverage mapping gives SOC teams a structured, adversary-centric lens to evaluate detection capabilities. Enterprise SIEMs on average have detection coverage for only 21% of ATT&CK techniques (2025 CardinalOps report), with 13% of existing rules being non-functional due to misconfigured data sources. Systematic coverage mapping identifies gaps, prioritizes rule development, and tracks detection maturity over time. ATT&CK v18.1 (December 2025) is the latest version.\n\n\n## When to Use\n\n- When deploying or configuring implementing mitre attack coverage mapping capabilities in your environment\n- When establishing security controls aligned to compliance requirements\n- When building or improving security architecture for this domain\n- When conducting security assessments that require this implementation\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- Access to MITRE ATT&CK Navigator (https:\u002F\u002Fmitre-attack.github.io\u002Fattack-navigator\u002F)\n- Inventory of all active SIEM detection rules\n- MITRE ATT&CK technique mapping for each detection rule\n- Data source inventory (which log sources are ingested)\n- Understanding of adversary threat profiles relevant to your industry\n\n## Coverage Mapping Process\n\n### Step 1: Export Current Detection Rules\n\n```spl\n# Splunk ES - Export all active correlation searches with MITRE mappings\n| rest \u002Fservices\u002Fsaved\u002Fsearches\n| search disabled=0 action.correlationsearch.enabled=1\n| table title, search, action.notable.param.security_domain,\n    action.notable.param.severity, action.correlationsearch.annotations\n| eval mitre_techniques=mvfilter(match('action.correlationsearch.annotations', \"mitre_attack\"))\n```\n\n```kql\n\u002F\u002F Microsoft Sentinel - Export analytics rules with MITRE mapping\nSecurityAlert\n| summarize count() by AlertName, ProductName\n| join kind=inner (\n    resources\n    | where type == \"microsoft.securityinsights\u002Falertrules\"\n    | extend tactics = properties.tactics\n) on $left.AlertName == $right.name\n```\n\n### Step 2: Build the Coverage Matrix\n\n#### ATT&CK Navigator Layer Format\n\n```json\n{\n    \"name\": \"SOC Detection Coverage - 2025\",\n    \"versions\": {\n        \"attack\": \"16\",\n        \"navigator\": \"5.1\",\n        \"layer\": \"4.5\"\n    },\n    \"domain\": \"enterprise-attack\",\n    \"description\": \"Current detection coverage mapping\",\n    \"techniques\": [\n        {\n            \"techniqueID\": \"T1110\",\n            \"tactic\": \"credential-access\",\n            \"color\": \"#00ff00\",\n            \"comment\": \"2 active rules - Brute Force detection via EventCode 4625\",\n            \"score\": 75,\n            \"metadata\": [\n                {\"name\": \"rule_count\", \"value\": \"2\"},\n                {\"name\": \"data_sources\", \"value\": \"Windows Security Log, Linux Auth\"},\n                {\"name\": \"last_validated\", \"value\": \"2025-01-15\"}\n            ]\n        },\n        {\n            \"techniqueID\": \"T1059.001\",\n            \"tactic\": \"execution\",\n            \"color\": \"#00ff00\",\n            \"comment\": \"3 rules - PowerShell Script Block Logging\",\n            \"score\": 85\n        },\n        {\n            \"techniqueID\": \"T1055\",\n            \"tactic\": \"defense-evasion\",\n            \"color\": \"#ff0000\",\n            \"comment\": \"NO DETECTION - Requires Sysmon EventCode 8\u002F10\",\n            \"score\": 0\n        }\n    ],\n    \"gradient\": {\n        \"colors\": [\"#ff0000\", \"#ffff00\", \"#00ff00\"],\n        \"minValue\": 0,\n        \"maxValue\": 100\n    }\n}\n```\n\n### Step 3: Score Each Technique\n\n| Score | Color | Meaning | Criteria |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| 0 | Red | No Detection | No rules, missing data sources |\n| 25 | Orange | Minimal | Rule exists but not validated\u002Ftested |\n| 50 | Yellow | Partial | Rule works but limited coverage |\n| 75 | Light Green | Good | Validated rule with good data sources |\n| 100 | Green | Excellent | Multiple validated rules, tested with emulation |\n\n### Scoring Criteria Detail\n\n```\nScore = Data_Source_Score (0-25) + Rule_Quality_Score (0-25) +\n        Validation_Score (0-25) + Enrichment_Score (0-25)\n\nData_Source_Score:\n  25: All required data sources ingested and parsed\n  15: Primary data source available\n  5:  Partial data source coverage\n  0:  Required data sources not available\n\nRule_Quality_Score:\n  25: Rule uses CIM-compliant queries with proper thresholds\n  15: Rule works but may generate false positives\n  5:  Basic rule with no tuning\n  0:  No detection rule\n\nValidation_Score:\n  25: Validated with adversary emulation (Atomic Red Team)\n  15: Tested with synthetic data\n  5:  Logic reviewed but not tested\n  0:  Not validated\n\nEnrichment_Score:\n  25: Context-rich with asset, identity, and TI enrichment\n  15: Basic enrichment (asset lookup)\n  5:  No enrichment\n  0:  N\u002FA (no rule)\n```\n\n### Step 4: Identify Priority Gaps\n\n#### Gap Prioritization Framework\n\n```\nPriority = Technique_Prevalence x Impact x Feasibility\n\nTechnique_Prevalence (0-10):\n  - Based on MITRE Top Techniques report\n  - Frequency in your industry's threat landscape\n  - Observed in recent incidents\u002Fbreaches\n\nImpact (0-10):\n  - Damage potential if technique succeeds\n  - Difficulty of recovery\n  - Data sensitivity at risk\n\nFeasibility (0-10):\n  - Data source availability\n  - Rule complexity\n  - Engineering effort required\n```\n\n#### Top Priority Techniques to Cover (2025)\n\n| Technique | ID | Prevalence | Typical Gap Reason |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Command and Scripting Interpreter | T1059 | Very High | Requires script block logging |\n| Phishing | T1566 | Very High | Email gateway integration |\n| Valid Accounts | T1078 | High | Baseline behavior needed |\n| Process Injection | T1055 | High | Requires Sysmon or EDR |\n| Lateral Movement (RDP\u002FSMB) | T1021 | High | Network segmentation visibility |\n| Scheduled Task\u002FJob | T1053 | High | Event log collection |\n| Data Encrypted for Impact | T1486 | High | File system monitoring |\n| Ingress Tool Transfer | T1105 | Medium | Network traffic analysis |\n\n### Step 5: Build Detection Roadmap\n\n```\nQuarter 1: Close Critical Gaps (Score 0, High Prevalence)\n  Week 1-2: Enable missing data sources\n  Week 3-4: Build and test rules for top 5 gap techniques\n  Week 5-8: Validate with adversary emulation\n  Week 9-12: Tune and operationalize\n\nQuarter 2: Improve Partial Coverage (Score 25-50)\n  - Upgrade existing rules with enrichment\n  - Add secondary detection methods\n  - Validate with purple team exercises\n\nQuarter 3: Mature Good Coverage (Score 50-75)\n  - Add behavioral analytics\n  - Implement detection-as-code pipeline\n  - Cross-technique correlation rules\n\nQuarter 4: Excellence (Score 75-100)\n  - Continuous testing with BAS tools\n  - Automated coverage regression testing\n  - Red team validation\n```\n\n## Automated Coverage Assessment\n\n### Data Source to Technique Mapping\n\n```python\n# Map available data sources to detectable techniques\nDATA_SOURCE_TECHNIQUE_MAP = {\n    \"Windows Security Event Log\": [\n        \"T1110\", \"T1078\", \"T1053.005\", \"T1098\", \"T1136\",\n        \"T1070.001\", \"T1021.001\", \"T1543.003\"\n    ],\n    \"Sysmon\": [\n        \"T1055\", \"T1059\", \"T1003\", \"T1547.001\", \"T1036\",\n        \"T1218\", \"T1105\", \"T1071\"\n    ],\n    \"Network Traffic (Firewall\u002FIDS)\": [\n        \"T1071\", \"T1048\", \"T1105\", \"T1572\", \"T1090\",\n        \"T1571\", \"T1573\"\n    ],\n    \"DNS Logs\": [\n        \"T1071.004\", \"T1568\", \"T1583.001\", \"T1048.003\"\n    ],\n    \"Email Gateway\": [\n        \"T1566.001\", \"T1566.002\", \"T1534\"\n    ],\n    \"Cloud Audit Logs\": [\n        \"T1078.004\", \"T1537\", \"T1530\", \"T1580\",\n        \"T1087.004\", \"T1098.001\"\n    ],\n}\n```\n\n## Reporting Dashboard Queries\n\n### Coverage Summary by Tactic\n\n```spl\n| inputlookup mitre_coverage_lookup\n| stats avg(score) as avg_score count(eval(score=0)) as no_coverage\n    count(eval(score>0 AND score\u003C50)) as partial\n    count(eval(score>=50 AND score\u003C75)) as good\n    count(eval(score>=75)) as excellent\n    count as total\n    by tactic\n| eval coverage_pct=round((total - no_coverage) \u002F total * 100, 1)\n| sort -coverage_pct\n```\n\n## References\n\n- [CyberDefenders - MITRE ATT&CK for SOC & DFIR Analysts](https:\u002F\u002Fcyberdefenders.org\u002Fblog\u002Fmitre-attack-framework\u002F)\n- [MITRE ATT&CK Navigator](https:\u002F\u002Fmitre-attack.github.io\u002Fattack-navigator\u002F)\n- [CardinalOps - SIEM Detection Coverage Report 2025](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.helpnetsecurity.com\u002F2025\u002F06\u002F09\u002Fsiem-detection-coverage\u002F)\n- [Datadog - Cloud SIEM MITRE ATT&CK Map](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.datadoghq.com\u002Fblog\u002Fcloud-siem-mitre-attack-map\u002F)\n- [Picus Security - MITRE ATT&CK Framework Guide](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.picussecurity.com\u002Fmitre-attack-framework)\n","# Implementing MITRE ATT&CK Coverage Mapping\n\n## Overview\n\nMITRE ATT&CK coverage mapping gives SOC teams a structured, adversary-centric lens to evaluate detection capabilities. Enterprise SIEMs on average have detection coverage for only 21% of ATT&CK techniques (2025 CardinalOps report), with 13% of existing rules being non-functional due to misconfigured data sources. Systematic coverage mapping identifies gaps, prioritizes rule development, and tracks detection maturity over time. ATT&CK v18.1 (December 2025) is the latest version.\n\n\n## When to Use\n\n- When deploying or configuring implementing mitre attack coverage mapping capabilities in your environment\n- When establishing security controls aligned to compliance requirements\n- When building or improving security architecture for this domain\n- When conducting security assessments that require this implementation\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- Access to MITRE ATT&CK Navigator (https:\u002F\u002Fmitre-attack.github.io\u002Fattack-navigator\u002F)\n- Inventory of all active SIEM detection rules\n- MITRE ATT&CK technique mapping for each detection rule\n- Data source inventory (which log sources are ingested)\n- Understanding of adversary threat profiles relevant to your industry\n\n## Coverage Mapping Process\n\n### Step 1: Export Current Detection Rules\n\n```spl\n# Splunk ES - Export all active correlation searches with MITRE mappings\n| rest \u002Fservices\u002Fsaved\u002Fsearches\n| search disabled=0 action.correlationsearch.enabled=1\n| table title, search, action.notable.param.security_domain,\n    action.notable.param.severity, action.correlationsearch.annotations\n| eval mitre_techniques=mvfilter(match('action.correlationsearch.annotations', \"mitre_attack\"))\n```\n\n```kql\n\u002F\u002F Microsoft Sentinel - Export analytics rules with MITRE mapping\nSecurityAlert\n| summarize count() by AlertName, ProductName\n| join kind=inner (\n    resources\n    | where type == \"microsoft.securityinsights\u002Falertrules\"\n    | extend tactics = properties.tactics\n) on $left.AlertName == $right.name\n```\n\n### Step 2: Build the Coverage Matrix\n\n#### ATT&CK Navigator Layer Format\n\n```json\n{\n    \"name\": \"SOC Detection Coverage - 2025\",\n    \"versions\": {\n        \"attack\": \"16\",\n        \"navigator\": \"5.1\",\n        \"layer\": \"4.5\"\n    },\n    \"domain\": \"enterprise-attack\",\n    \"description\": \"Current detection coverage mapping\",\n    \"techniques\": [\n        {\n            \"techniqueID\": \"T1110\",\n            \"tactic\": \"credential-access\",\n            \"color\": \"#00ff00\",\n            \"comment\": \"2 active rules - Brute Force detection via EventCode 4625\",\n            \"score\": 75,\n            \"metadata\": [\n                {\"name\": \"rule_count\", \"value\": \"2\"},\n                {\"name\": \"data_sources\", \"value\": \"Windows Security Log, Linux Auth\"},\n                {\"name\": \"last_validated\", \"value\": \"2025-01-15\"}\n            ]\n        },\n        {\n            \"techniqueID\": \"T1059.001\",\n            \"tactic\": \"execution\",\n            \"color\": \"#00ff00\",\n            \"comment\": \"3 rules - PowerShell Script Block Logging\",\n            \"score\": 85\n        },\n        {\n            \"techniqueID\": \"T1055\",\n            \"tactic\": \"defense-evasion\",\n            \"color\": \"#ff0000\",\n            \"comment\": \"NO DETECTION - Requires Sysmon EventCode 8\u002F10\",\n            \"score\": 0\n        }\n    ],\n    \"gradient\": {\n        \"colors\": [\"#ff0000\", \"#ffff00\", \"#00ff00\"],\n        \"minValue\": 0,\n        \"maxValue\": 100\n    }\n}\n```\n\n### Step 3: Score Each Technique\n\n| Score | Color | Meaning | Criteria |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| 0 | Red | No Detection | No rules, missing data sources |\n| 25 | Orange | Minimal | Rule exists but not validated\u002Ftested |\n| 50 | Yellow | Partial | Rule works but limited coverage |\n| 75 | Light Green | Good | Validated rule with good data sources |\n| 100 | Green | Excellent | Multiple validated rules, tested with emulation |\n\n### Scoring Criteria Detail\n\n```\nScore = Data_Source_Score (0-25) + Rule_Quality_Score (0-25) +\n        Validation_Score (0-25) + Enrichment_Score (0-25)\n\nData_Source_Score:\n  25: All required data sources ingested and parsed\n  15: Primary data source available\n  5:  Partial data source coverage\n  0:  Required data sources not available\n\nRule_Quality_Score:\n  25: Rule uses CIM-compliant queries with proper thresholds\n  15: Rule works but may generate false positives\n  5:  Basic rule with no tuning\n  0:  No detection rule\n\nValidation_Score:\n  25: Validated with adversary emulation (Atomic Red Team)\n  15: Tested with synthetic data\n  5:  Logic reviewed but not tested\n  0:  Not validated\n\nEnrichment_Score:\n  25: Context-rich with asset, identity, and TI enrichment\n  15: Basic enrichment (asset lookup)\n  5:  No enrichment\n  0:  N\u002FA (no rule)\n```\n\n### Step 4: Identify Priority Gaps\n\n#### Gap Prioritization Framework\n\n```\nPriority = Technique_Prevalence x Impact x Feasibility\n\nTechnique_Prevalence (0-10):\n  - Based on MITRE Top Techniques report\n  - Frequency in your industry's threat landscape\n  - Observed in recent incidents\u002Fbreaches\n\nImpact (0-10):\n  - Damage potential if technique succeeds\n  - Difficulty of recovery\n  - Data sensitivity at risk\n\nFeasibility (0-10):\n  - Data source availability\n  - Rule complexity\n  - Engineering effort required\n```\n\n#### Top Priority Techniques to Cover (2025)\n\n| Technique | ID | Prevalence | Typical Gap Reason |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Command and Scripting Interpreter | T1059 | Very High | Requires script block logging |\n| Phishing | T1566 | Very High | Email gateway integration |\n| Valid Accounts | T1078 | High | Baseline behavior needed |\n| Process Injection | T1055 | High | Requires Sysmon or EDR |\n| Lateral Movement (RDP\u002FSMB) | T1021 | High | Network segmentation visibility |\n| Scheduled Task\u002FJob | T1053 | High | Event log collection |\n| Data Encrypted for Impact | T1486 | High | File system monitoring |\n| Ingress Tool Transfer | T1105 | Medium | Network traffic analysis |\n\n### Step 5: Build Detection Roadmap\n\n```\nQuarter 1: Close Critical Gaps (Score 0, High Prevalence)\n  Week 1-2: Enable missing data sources\n  Week 3-4: Build and test rules for top 5 gap techniques\n  Week 5-8: Validate with adversary emulation\n  Week 9-12: Tune and operationalize\n\nQuarter 2: Improve Partial Coverage (Score 25-50)\n  - Upgrade existing rules with enrichment\n  - Add secondary detection methods\n  - Validate with purple team exercises\n\nQuarter 3: Mature Good Coverage (Score 50-75)\n  - Add behavioral analytics\n  - Implement detection-as-code pipeline\n  - Cross-technique correlation rules\n\nQuarter 4: Excellence (Score 75-100)\n  - Continuous testing with BAS tools\n  - Automated coverage regression testing\n  - Red team validation\n```\n\n## Automated Coverage Assessment\n\n### Data Source to Technique Mapping\n\n```python\n# Map available data sources to detectable techniques\nDATA_SOURCE_TECHNIQUE_MAP = {\n    \"Windows Security Event Log\": [\n        \"T1110\", \"T1078\", \"T1053.005\", \"T1098\", \"T1136\",\n        \"T1070.001\", \"T1021.001\", \"T1543.003\"\n    ],\n    \"Sysmon\": [\n        \"T1055\", \"T1059\", \"T1003\", \"T1547.001\", \"T1036\",\n        \"T1218\", \"T1105\", \"T1071\"\n    ],\n    \"Network Traffic (Firewall\u002FIDS)\": [\n        \"T1071\", \"T1048\", \"T1105\", \"T1572\", \"T1090\",\n        \"T1571\", \"T1573\"\n    ],\n    \"DNS Logs\": [\n        \"T1071.004\", \"T1568\", \"T1583.001\", \"T1048.003\"\n    ],\n    \"Email Gateway\": [\n        \"T1566.001\", \"T1566.002\", \"T1534\"\n    ],\n    \"Cloud Audit Logs\": [\n        \"T1078.004\", \"T1537\", \"T1530\", \"T1580\",\n        \"T1087.004\", \"T1098.001\"\n    ],\n}\n```\n\n## Reporting Dashboard Queries\n\n### Coverage Summary by Tactic\n\n```spl\n| inputlookup mitre_coverage_lookup\n| stats avg(score) as avg_score count(eval(score=0)) as no_coverage\n    count(eval(score>0 AND score\u003C50)) as partial\n    count(eval(score>=50 AND score\u003C75)) as good\n    count(eval(score>=75)) as excellent\n    count as total\n    by tactic\n| eval coverage_pct=round((total - no_coverage) \u002F total * 100, 1)\n| sort -coverage_pct\n```\n\n## References\n\n- [CyberDefenders - MITRE ATT&CK for SOC & DFIR Analysts](https:\u002F\u002Fcyberdefenders.org\u002Fblog\u002Fmitre-attack-framework\u002F)\n- [MITRE ATT&CK Navigator](https:\u002F\u002Fmitre-attack.github.io\u002Fattack-navigator\u002F)\n- [CardinalOps - SIEM Detection Coverage Report 2025](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.helpnetsecurity.com\u002F2025\u002F06\u002F09\u002Fsiem-detection-coverage\u002F)\n- [Datadog - Cloud SIEM MITRE ATT&CK Map](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.datadoghq.com\u002Fblog\u002Fcloud-siem-mitre-attack-map\u002F)\n- [Picus Security - MITRE ATT&CK Framework Guide](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.picussecurity.com\u002Fmitre-attack-framework)\n",{"name":5,"tags":43,"author":44,"domain":30,"license":15,"version":45,"nist_csf":46,"subdomain":51,"description":7,"nist_ai_rmf":52,"mitre_attack":56,"atlas_techniques":61,"d3fend_techniques":65},[32,24,23,22,21,29],"mahipal","1.0",[47,48,49,50],"DE.CM-01","DE.AE-02","RS.MA-01","DE.AE-06","soc-operations",[53,54,55],"MEASURE-2.7","MAP-5.1","MANAGE-2.4",[57,58,59,60],"T1078","T1685.002","T1685.005","T1566",[62,63,64],"AML.T0070","AML.T0066","AML.T0082",[66,67,68,69,70],"Token Binding","Restore Access","Application Protocol Command Analysis","Password Authentication","Reissue Credential","main","54a798831d2266a3ca61ce68a7acb80b81160d57","skills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping",4414,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","https:\u002F\u002Fmahipal.engineer\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975","Mahipal.engineer","🔐 Cybersecurity | 💻 Dev | 📷 Street Photographer\r\n🎓 MSc | 📚 Research & AI Security","2026-08-31 12:32:44",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":82,"prompt":92,"zipAvailable":93},[83,86,89],{"tool":84,"command":85},"npx","npx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill implementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping",{"tool":87,"command":88},"bunx","bunx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill implementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping",{"tool":90,"command":91},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill implementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002FSKILL.md",true,[95,101,106,112,116,120,126],{"path":96,"resourceType":97,"resourceTypeDesc":98,"sizeBytes":99,"sourceHtmlUrl":100},"assets\u002Ftemplate.md","ASSET","资产文件",989,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002Fassets\u002Ftemplate.md",{"path":102,"resourceType":102,"resourceTypeDesc":103,"sizeBytes":104,"sourceHtmlUrl":105},"LICENSE","许可证",11255,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002FLICENSE",{"path":107,"resourceType":108,"resourceTypeDesc":109,"sizeBytes":110,"sourceHtmlUrl":111},"references\u002Fapi-reference.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",1446,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002Freferences\u002Fapi-reference.md",{"path":113,"resourceType":108,"resourceTypeDesc":109,"sizeBytes":114,"sourceHtmlUrl":115},"references\u002Fstandards.md",1164,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002Freferences\u002Fstandards.md",{"path":117,"resourceType":108,"resourceTypeDesc":109,"sizeBytes":118,"sourceHtmlUrl":119},"references\u002Fworkflows.md",977,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002Freferences\u002Fworkflows.md",{"path":121,"resourceType":122,"resourceTypeDesc":123,"sizeBytes":124,"sourceHtmlUrl":125},"scripts\u002Fagent.py","SCRIPT","脚本",7004,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002Fscripts\u002Fagent.py",{"path":127,"resourceType":122,"resourceTypeDesc":123,"sizeBytes":128,"sourceHtmlUrl":129},"scripts\u002Fprocess.py",9055,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-mitre-attack-coverage-mapping\u002Fscripts\u002Fprocess.py",[131,162,186,212,238,265],{"skillNo":132,"name":133,"nameZh":6,"description":134,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":135,"categories":136,"keywords":142,"publishedAt":38},"01M6AGDM3HJXTKXX15ZZ0ZVCJ3","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\u002FCD before deploying artifacts, when consuming third-party attestations, establishing a SLSA Build L3 pipeline, or confirming provenance during incident response or admission control.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fverifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore\u002FSKILL.md",[137],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[143,144,145,146,147,30,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161],"sigstore","provenance","slsa","verifying build provenance with slsa sigstore","security","incident response","identity","pr","code","artifacts","ci","supply-chain","pipeline","supply-chain-security","t1195","attestation","code-signing","cosign","keyless",{"skillNo":163,"name":164,"nameZh":6,"description":165,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":166,"categories":167,"keywords":169,"publishedAt":38},"01M6AGDGBPWYVZ2F11GFKJ4HZ9","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\u002Ftpm2_checkquote), and sealing secrets to a PCR policy. Use to confirm a system booted trusted firmware\u002Fkernel for Zero Trust device posture, detect boot-chain tampering via PCR drift, or build a golden-value baseline for fleet attestation.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvalidating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation\u002FSKILL.md",[168],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},[170,158,171,172,147,173,30,150,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185],"boot","TPM","validating tpm measured boot attestation","policy","verification","ZeRO","firmware","Tools","measured-boot","PCR","integrity","secrets","remote-attestation","tpm2-tools","integrity-verification","trusted-computing",{"skillNo":187,"name":188,"nameZh":6,"description":189,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":190,"categories":191,"keywords":196,"publishedAt":38},"01M6AGDCW0Y4FXZ3362GT1941M","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\u002Fair-gapped backups for silent corruption or tampering.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvalidating-backup-integrity-for-recovery\u002FSKILL.md",[192,195],{"categoryNo":193,"categoryName":194,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},[180,197,198,199,200,30,201,202,174,203,204,205,206,207,27,26,208,209,210,211],"backup","recovery","validating backup integrity for recovery","testing","infrastructure","validation","compliance","hash-verification","incident-response","ransomware","cryptocurrency","t1490","immutable","disaster-recovery","restore-testing",{"skillNo":213,"name":214,"nameZh":6,"description":215,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":216,"categories":217,"keywords":219,"publishedAt":38},"01M6AGD9GBG2KZ336AE763J3WH","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\u002Ftriage when full disk imaging is impractical but a defensible, parseable Windows artifact set is needed quickly, including at-scale remote collection.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-windows-with-kape\u002FSKILL.md",[218],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},[220,221,222,30,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,177,235,236,237],"windows","kape","triaging windows with kape","registry","browser","logs","windows-forensics","dfir","mft","mftecmd","data","prefetch","eric-zimmerman","digital-forensics","SET","collection","pecmd","artifact-collection",{"skillNo":239,"name":240,"nameZh":6,"description":241,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":242,"categories":243,"keywords":245,"publishedAt":38},"01M6AGD5PW5J4EVZM958WD74ZQ","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\u002FTrack*\u002FAttend\u002FAct decisions. Use when prioritizing vulnerability scan results (OpenVAS, Nessus, Qualys) for remediation planning beyond raw CVSS scores.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework\u002FSKILL.md",[244],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},[246,247,248,30,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264],"vulnerabilities","framework","triaging vulnerabilities with ssvc framework","status","planning","CISA","vulnerability-management","risk-management","nessus","qualys","openvas","cvss","remediation","risk","vulnerability","api","prioritization","ssvc","decision-tree",{"skillNo":266,"name":267,"nameZh":6,"description":268,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":269,"categories":270,"keywords":272,"publishedAt":38},"01M6AGD24TTQQM4CXG69E3B9TJ","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\u002FEDR alert needs human classification, concurrent alerts must be prioritized, or a user report or threat-intel IOC match requires initial incident categorization.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-security-incident\u002FSKILL.md",[271],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":140,"taxonomyTypeDesc":141},[147,273,30,274,275,276,21,277,278,279,280,26,281,208,282,283,284,285,286,287],"triaging security incident","siem","file","ioc","NIST-800-61","NIST","severity","edr","execution","analysis","classification","severity-classification","incident-triage","SANS-PICERL","SOC-operations"]