[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AFY6CKMW3NAB7TY566J7N4":3,"skill-same:01M6AFY6CKMW3NAB7TY566J7N4":125},{"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":28,"publishedAt":46,"linkOnly":47,"markdownContent":48,"markdownBody":49,"frontMatter":50,"refName":66,"commitSha":67,"skillDirectory":68,"forksCount":69,"repositoryHtmlUrl":70,"repositoryHomepageUrl":71,"ownerHtmlUrl":72,"ownerBlogUrl":73,"ownerDescription":74,"updatedAt":75,"install":76,"resources":89},"01M6AFY6CKMW3NAB7TY566J7N4","performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment",null,"Conduct a NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 maturity assessment across the six core Functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), scoring organizational posture against the four Implementation Tiers (Partial, Risk-Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive) and producing an improvement roadmap. Use when benchmarking an organization's cybersecurity program maturity or preparing a CSF-based gap analysis and remediation plan.","mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","mukul975","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F42860185?v=4","01M6ADEQR8T5M4EEG6C67BQCWF","Mahipal","01M6ADJPMYWG1E5GM1FWBE3128",35925,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000031","产品经理","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45],"NIST","performing nist csf maturity assessment","nist csf","assessment","core","framework","governance","compliance","cybersecurity","risk-management","remediation","t1078","risk","analysis","csf","maturity-assessment","benchmarking","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\ndescription: Conduct a NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 maturity assessment across the six core Functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), scoring organizational posture against the four Implementation Tiers (Partial, Risk-Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive) and producing an improvement roadmap. Use when benchmarking an organization's cybersecurity program maturity or preparing a CSF-based gap analysis and remediation plan.\ndomain: cybersecurity\nsubdomain: compliance-governance\ntags:\n- compliance\n- governance\n- nist\n- csf\n- maturity-assessment\n- risk-management\nnist_csf:\n- GV.OC-01\n- GV.RM-01\n- GV.PO-01\n- ID.RA-01\n- GV.OV-01\nversion: '1.0'\nauthor: mahipal\nlicense: Apache-2.0\nmitre_attack:\n- T1078\n- T1530\n- T1685.002\n---\n# Performing NIST CSF Maturity Assessment\n\n## Overview\nThe NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, released in February 2024, provides a comprehensive taxonomy for managing cybersecurity risk through six core Functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. This skill covers conducting a maturity assessment against the CSF, using the four Implementation Tiers (Partial, Risk-Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive) to measure organizational cybersecurity posture and create improvement roadmaps.\n\n\n## When to Use\n\n- When conducting security assessments that involve performing nist csf maturity assessment\n- When following incident response procedures for related security events\n- When performing scheduled security testing or auditing activities\n- When validating security controls through hands-on testing\n\n## Prerequisites\n- Understanding of cybersecurity risk management principles\n- Access to NIST CSF 2.0 documentation and reference tool\n- Knowledge of organizational IT\u002FOT environment and security controls\n- Stakeholder access across business units for assessment interviews\n\n## Core Concepts\n\n### CSF 2.0 Functions (6 Functions, 22 Categories)\n\n| Function | Code | Categories | Purpose |\n|----------|------|-----------|---------|\n| **Govern** | GV | 6 | Establish and monitor cybersecurity risk management strategy |\n| **Identify** | ID | 3 | Determine current cybersecurity risk to the organization |\n| **Protect** | PR | 5 | Implement safeguards to prevent or reduce risk |\n| **Detect** | DE | 2 | Find and analyze possible cybersecurity attacks |\n| **Respond** | RS | 4 | Take action regarding detected cybersecurity incidents |\n| **Recover** | RC | 2 | Restore capabilities impaired by cybersecurity incidents |\n\n### Govern Function (New in CSF 2.0)\n- GV.OC: Organizational Context\n- GV.RM: Risk Management Strategy\n- GV.RR: Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities\n- GV.PO: Policy\n- GV.OV: Oversight\n- GV.SC: Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management\n\n### Implementation Tiers\n| Tier | Name | Description |\n|------|------|-------------|\n| Tier 1 | Partial | Ad hoc, reactive; limited awareness of cybersecurity risk |\n| Tier 2 | Risk-Informed | Risk-aware but not organization-wide; approved but may not be policy |\n| Tier 3 | Repeatable | Formal policies; consistently implemented; regularly updated |\n| Tier 4 | Adaptive | Continuous improvement; real-time risk response; lessons learned integrated |\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Phase 1: Scoping and Preparation (Weeks 1-2)\n1. Define assessment scope (enterprise-wide vs. business unit)\n2. Identify stakeholders and schedule interviews\n3. Gather existing documentation (policies, procedures, architecture diagrams)\n4. Customize CSF Profile for organizational context\n5. Select assessment methodology (self-assessment, facilitated, third-party)\n\n### Phase 2: Current State Assessment (Weeks 3-6)\n1. Assess each CSF Category and Subcategory against Implementation Tiers\n2. For each subcategory, evaluate:\n   - Policy\u002Fdocumentation maturity\n   - Implementation completeness\n   - Automation level\n   - Measurement and metrics\n   - Continuous improvement evidence\n3. Score using tier criteria (1-4 scale)\n4. Document evidence supporting each tier rating\n5. Identify strengths, gaps, and improvement areas\n\n### Phase 3: Target State Definition (Weeks 7-8)\n1. Define target tier for each Function based on:\n   - Risk appetite and tolerance\n   - Industry requirements and benchmarks\n   - Regulatory obligations\n   - Available resources and budget\n2. Create Target Profile documenting desired maturity state\n3. Validate target state with executive leadership\n\n### Phase 4: Gap Analysis and Roadmap (Weeks 9-12)\n1. Compare Current Profile to Target Profile\n2. Prioritize gaps based on risk reduction potential\n3. Develop improvement roadmap with:\n   - Short-term quick wins (0-3 months)\n   - Medium-term improvements (3-12 months)\n   - Long-term strategic initiatives (12-24 months)\n4. Estimate resource requirements for each initiative\n5. Assign ownership and timelines\n\n### Phase 5: Implementation and Reassessment (Ongoing)\n1. Execute improvement roadmap initiatives\n2. Track progress against milestones\n3. Conduct periodic reassessments (annually recommended)\n4. Report maturity progress to leadership\n5. Adjust roadmap based on evolving threats and business changes\n\n## Key Artifacts\n- CSF Current Profile (by Function\u002FCategory\u002FSubcategory)\n- CSF Target Profile\n- Gap Analysis Report\n- Maturity Assessment Scorecard\n- Improvement Roadmap with Priorities\n- Executive Summary and Dashboard\n\n## Common Pitfalls\n- Assessing technology only without evaluating governance and people\n- Setting unrealistic target tiers without resource commitment\n- Treating assessment as one-time rather than continuous process\n- Ignoring the new Govern function in CSF 2.0\n- Not aligning CSF assessment with existing compliance requirements (ISO 27001, SOC 2)\n\n## References\n- NIST CSF 2.0: https:\u002F\u002Fcsf.tools\u002Freference\u002Fnist-cybersecurity-framework\u002Fv2-0\u002F\n- NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 (control catalog that maps to CSF)\n- NIST CSF 2.0 Quick Start Guides\n- CSF 2.0 Reference Tool: https:\u002F\u002Fcsrc.nist.gov\u002Fprojects\u002Fcybersecurity-framework\n","# Performing NIST CSF Maturity Assessment\n\n## Overview\nThe NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, released in February 2024, provides a comprehensive taxonomy for managing cybersecurity risk through six core Functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. This skill covers conducting a maturity assessment against the CSF, using the four Implementation Tiers (Partial, Risk-Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive) to measure organizational cybersecurity posture and create improvement roadmaps.\n\n\n## When to Use\n\n- When conducting security assessments that involve performing nist csf maturity assessment\n- When following incident response procedures for related security events\n- When performing scheduled security testing or auditing activities\n- When validating security controls through hands-on testing\n\n## Prerequisites\n- Understanding of cybersecurity risk management principles\n- Access to NIST CSF 2.0 documentation and reference tool\n- Knowledge of organizational IT\u002FOT environment and security controls\n- Stakeholder access across business units for assessment interviews\n\n## Core Concepts\n\n### CSF 2.0 Functions (6 Functions, 22 Categories)\n\n| Function | Code | Categories | Purpose |\n|----------|------|-----------|---------|\n| **Govern** | GV | 6 | Establish and monitor cybersecurity risk management strategy |\n| **Identify** | ID | 3 | Determine current cybersecurity risk to the organization |\n| **Protect** | PR | 5 | Implement safeguards to prevent or reduce risk |\n| **Detect** | DE | 2 | Find and analyze possible cybersecurity attacks |\n| **Respond** | RS | 4 | Take action regarding detected cybersecurity incidents |\n| **Recover** | RC | 2 | Restore capabilities impaired by cybersecurity incidents |\n\n### Govern Function (New in CSF 2.0)\n- GV.OC: Organizational Context\n- GV.RM: Risk Management Strategy\n- GV.RR: Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities\n- GV.PO: Policy\n- GV.OV: Oversight\n- GV.SC: Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management\n\n### Implementation Tiers\n| Tier | Name | Description |\n|------|------|-------------|\n| Tier 1 | Partial | Ad hoc, reactive; limited awareness of cybersecurity risk |\n| Tier 2 | Risk-Informed | Risk-aware but not organization-wide; approved but may not be policy |\n| Tier 3 | Repeatable | Formal policies; consistently implemented; regularly updated |\n| Tier 4 | Adaptive | Continuous improvement; real-time risk response; lessons learned integrated |\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Phase 1: Scoping and Preparation (Weeks 1-2)\n1. Define assessment scope (enterprise-wide vs. business unit)\n2. Identify stakeholders and schedule interviews\n3. Gather existing documentation (policies, procedures, architecture diagrams)\n4. Customize CSF Profile for organizational context\n5. Select assessment methodology (self-assessment, facilitated, third-party)\n\n### Phase 2: Current State Assessment (Weeks 3-6)\n1. Assess each CSF Category and Subcategory against Implementation Tiers\n2. For each subcategory, evaluate:\n   - Policy\u002Fdocumentation maturity\n   - Implementation completeness\n   - Automation level\n   - Measurement and metrics\n   - Continuous improvement evidence\n3. Score using tier criteria (1-4 scale)\n4. Document evidence supporting each tier rating\n5. Identify strengths, gaps, and improvement areas\n\n### Phase 3: Target State Definition (Weeks 7-8)\n1. Define target tier for each Function based on:\n   - Risk appetite and tolerance\n   - Industry requirements and benchmarks\n   - Regulatory obligations\n   - Available resources and budget\n2. Create Target Profile documenting desired maturity state\n3. Validate target state with executive leadership\n\n### Phase 4: Gap Analysis and Roadmap (Weeks 9-12)\n1. Compare Current Profile to Target Profile\n2. Prioritize gaps based on risk reduction potential\n3. Develop improvement roadmap with:\n   - Short-term quick wins (0-3 months)\n   - Medium-term improvements (3-12 months)\n   - Long-term strategic initiatives (12-24 months)\n4. Estimate resource requirements for each initiative\n5. Assign ownership and timelines\n\n### Phase 5: Implementation and Reassessment (Ongoing)\n1. Execute improvement roadmap initiatives\n2. Track progress against milestones\n3. Conduct periodic reassessments (annually recommended)\n4. Report maturity progress to leadership\n5. Adjust roadmap based on evolving threats and business changes\n\n## Key Artifacts\n- CSF Current Profile (by Function\u002FCategory\u002FSubcategory)\n- CSF Target Profile\n- Gap Analysis Report\n- Maturity Assessment Scorecard\n- Improvement Roadmap with Priorities\n- Executive Summary and Dashboard\n\n## Common Pitfalls\n- Assessing technology only without evaluating governance and people\n- Setting unrealistic target tiers without resource commitment\n- Treating assessment as one-time rather than continuous process\n- Ignoring the new Govern function in CSF 2.0\n- Not aligning CSF assessment with existing compliance requirements (ISO 27001, SOC 2)\n\n## References\n- NIST CSF 2.0: https:\u002F\u002Fcsf.tools\u002Freference\u002Fnist-cybersecurity-framework\u002Fv2-0\u002F\n- NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 (control catalog that maps to CSF)\n- NIST CSF 2.0 Quick Start Guides\n- CSF 2.0 Reference Tool: https:\u002F\u002Fcsrc.nist.gov\u002Fprojects\u002Fcybersecurity-framework\n",{"name":5,"tags":51,"author":53,"domain":37,"license":15,"version":54,"nist_csf":55,"subdomain":61,"description":7,"mitre_attack":62},[36,35,52,43,44,38],"nist","mahipal","1.0",[56,57,58,59,60],"GV.OC-01","GV.RM-01","GV.PO-01","ID.RA-01","GV.OV-01","compliance-governance",[63,64,65],"T1078","T1530","T1685.002","main","54a798831d2266a3ca61ce68a7acb80b81160d57","skills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment",4384,"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":77,"prompt":87,"zipAvailable":88},[78,81,84],{"tool":79,"command":80},"npx","npx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment",{"tool":82,"command":83},"bunx","bunx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment",{"tool":85,"command":86},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002FSKILL.md",true,[90,96,101,107,111,115,121],{"path":91,"resourceType":92,"resourceTypeDesc":93,"sizeBytes":94,"sourceHtmlUrl":95},"assets\u002Ftemplate.md","ASSET","资产文件",3100,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002Fassets\u002Ftemplate.md",{"path":97,"resourceType":97,"resourceTypeDesc":98,"sizeBytes":99,"sourceHtmlUrl":100},"LICENSE","许可证",11255,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002FLICENSE",{"path":102,"resourceType":103,"resourceTypeDesc":104,"sizeBytes":105,"sourceHtmlUrl":106},"references\u002Fapi-reference.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",1640,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002Freferences\u002Fapi-reference.md",{"path":108,"resourceType":103,"resourceTypeDesc":104,"sizeBytes":109,"sourceHtmlUrl":110},"references\u002Fstandards.md",3619,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002Freferences\u002Fstandards.md",{"path":112,"resourceType":103,"resourceTypeDesc":104,"sizeBytes":113,"sourceHtmlUrl":114},"references\u002Fworkflows.md",3626,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002Freferences\u002Fworkflows.md",{"path":116,"resourceType":117,"resourceTypeDesc":118,"sizeBytes":119,"sourceHtmlUrl":120},"scripts\u002Fagent.py","SCRIPT","脚本",7688,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002Fscripts\u002Fagent.py",{"path":122,"resourceType":117,"resourceTypeDesc":118,"sizeBytes":123,"sourceHtmlUrl":124},"scripts\u002Fprocess.py",17184,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-nist-csf-maturity-assessment\u002Fscripts\u002Fprocess.py",[126,153,177,203,229,252],{"skillNo":127,"name":128,"nameZh":6,"description":129,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":130,"categories":131,"keywords":133,"publishedAt":46},"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",[132],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[134,135,136,137,138,37,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152],"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":154,"name":155,"nameZh":6,"description":156,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":157,"categories":158,"keywords":160,"publishedAt":46},"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",[159],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[161,149,162,163,138,164,37,141,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176],"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":178,"name":179,"nameZh":6,"description":180,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":181,"categories":182,"keywords":187,"publishedAt":46},"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",[183,186],{"categoryNo":184,"categoryName":185,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[171,188,189,190,191,37,192,193,165,36,194,195,196,197,198,40,199,200,201,202],"backup","recovery","validating backup integrity for recovery","testing","infrastructure","validation","hash-verification","incident-response","ransomware","cryptocurrency","detection","t1490","immutable","disaster-recovery","restore-testing",{"skillNo":204,"name":205,"nameZh":6,"description":206,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":207,"categories":208,"keywords":210,"publishedAt":46},"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",[209],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[211,212,213,37,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,168,226,227,228],"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":230,"name":231,"nameZh":6,"description":232,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":233,"categories":234,"keywords":236,"publishedAt":46},"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",[235],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[237,34,238,37,239,240,241,242,38,243,244,245,246,39,41,247,248,249,250,251],"vulnerabilities","triaging vulnerabilities with ssvc framework","status","planning","CISA","vulnerability-management","nessus","qualys","openvas","cvss","vulnerability","api","prioritization","ssvc","decision-tree",{"skillNo":253,"name":254,"nameZh":6,"description":255,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":256,"categories":257,"keywords":259,"publishedAt":46},"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",[258],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[138,260,37,261,262,263,264,265,29,266,267,40,268,199,42,269,270,271,272,273],"triaging security incident","siem","file","ioc","soc","NIST-800-61","severity","edr","execution","classification","severity-classification","incident-triage","SANS-PICERL","SOC-operations"]