mirror of
https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git
synced 2026-08-03 01:10:18 +03:00
Initial commit - 611 cybersecurity skills across all subdomains
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: performing-ransomware-tabletop-exercise
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
Plans and facilitates tabletop exercises simulating ransomware incidents to test
|
||||
organizational readiness, decision-making, and communication procedures. Designs
|
||||
realistic scenarios based on current ransomware threat actors (LockBit, ALPHV/BlackCat,
|
||||
Cl0p), injects covering double extortion, backup destruction, and regulatory notification
|
||||
requirements. Evaluates participant responses against NIST CSF and CISA guidelines.
|
||||
Activates for requests involving ransomware tabletop, incident response exercise, or
|
||||
ransomware readiness drill.
|
||||
domain: cybersecurity
|
||||
subdomain: ransomware-defense
|
||||
tags: [ransomware, incident-response, tabletop-exercise, defense, preparedness]
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
author: mahipal
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Performing Ransomware Tabletop Exercise
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- Testing organizational ransomware response procedures annually or after major infrastructure changes
|
||||
- Validating decision-making processes for ransom payment, regulatory notification, and public disclosure
|
||||
- Training executives, IT, legal, PR, and operations teams on their roles during a ransomware incident
|
||||
- Meeting cyber insurance policy requirements for documented incident response testing
|
||||
- Identifying gaps in recovery playbooks, communication plans, and backup procedures
|
||||
|
||||
**Do not use** as a substitute for technical controls testing. Tabletop exercises validate procedures and decision-making, not technical detection or prevention capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
- Documented incident response plan (IRP) that participants should have read before the exercise
|
||||
- Identified exercise participants from: executive leadership, IT/security, legal, communications/PR, HR, operations, and external counsel
|
||||
- Facilitator who is independent from the IR team (to provide objective evaluation)
|
||||
- Ransomware scenario designed with injects that escalate over multiple rounds
|
||||
- Evaluation criteria aligned to NIST CSF Respond/Recover functions
|
||||
- Conference room or virtual meeting for 2-4 hours with no interruptions
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Design the Exercise Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
Build a realistic scenario based on current threat actor TTPs:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario Structure:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Phase 1: Initial Detection (30 min)
|
||||
- SOC receives alert for suspicious process execution on file server
|
||||
- EDR detects Cobalt Strike beacon on 3 workstations
|
||||
- Inject: External threat intel report links C2 IP to LockBit affiliate
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 2: Escalation (30 min)
|
||||
- Ransomware executes on 40% of servers during overnight hours
|
||||
- Ransom note demands $2M in Bitcoin with 72-hour deadline
|
||||
- Inject: Attackers contact media claiming data theft of customer PII
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 3: Decision Points (45 min)
|
||||
- Backup assessment reveals immutable copies are intact but primary backups encrypted
|
||||
- Legal advises on breach notification timeline (72 hours GDPR, varies by US state)
|
||||
- Inject: Threat actor publishes sample of stolen data on leak site
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 4: Recovery and Communication (45 min)
|
||||
- Recovery time estimate: 5-7 days from immutable backups
|
||||
- Insurance carrier engages negotiation firm
|
||||
- Inject: Major customer threatens contract termination without update within 24 hours
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario Variables to Customize:**
|
||||
- Threat actor group and known TTPs
|
||||
- Percentage of infrastructure encrypted
|
||||
- Whether backups are intact, partially compromised, or fully destroyed
|
||||
- Type of data exfiltrated (PII, PHI, financial, trade secrets)
|
||||
- Applicable regulatory frameworks (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, SEC rules)
|
||||
- Ransom amount and payment deadline
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Prepare Exercise Materials
|
||||
|
||||
Create the following documents for participants:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Exercise Overview Briefing** - Ground rules, objectives, scope, and participants
|
||||
2. **Situation Reports (SITREPs)** - One per phase, distributed as the exercise progresses
|
||||
3. **Inject Cards** - New information introduced at specific times to force decision-making
|
||||
4. **Decision Point Worksheets** - Structured forms for documenting group decisions
|
||||
5. **Evaluation Scorecard** - Criteria for assessing response quality
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Decision Points to Include:**
|
||||
- When to activate the incident response team
|
||||
- Whether to shut down systems or contain selectively
|
||||
- Whether to engage law enforcement (FBI IC3, CISA)
|
||||
- Whether to pay the ransom and under what conditions
|
||||
- When and how to notify regulators, customers, and the public
|
||||
- How to prioritize system recovery order
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Facilitate the Exercise
|
||||
|
||||
**Facilitator Responsibilities:**
|
||||
- Present each phase scenario and distribute SITREPs
|
||||
- Introduce injects at predetermined times to increase pressure
|
||||
- Ask probing questions to test decision-making reasoning
|
||||
- Ensure all participant groups contribute (prevent IT from dominating)
|
||||
- Document all decisions, rationales, and action items
|
||||
- Track time management (many teams lose time on early phases)
|
||||
|
||||
**Probing Questions by Phase:**
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 - Detection:
|
||||
- Who makes the call to declare an incident? What criteria trigger it?
|
||||
- How do we determine the scope of compromise from initial alerts?
|
||||
- Do we have the forensic capability to investigate or do we need external help?
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 2 - Escalation:
|
||||
- What is our communication plan for employees? Do they know not to turn on affected machines?
|
||||
- Have we isolated the network to prevent further encryption?
|
||||
- Who authorizes system shutdowns that impact business operations?
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 3 - Decision:
|
||||
- Under what conditions would we consider paying the ransom?
|
||||
- What are the legal obligations for notification at this point?
|
||||
- How do we handle the public leak of customer data?
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 4 - Recovery:
|
||||
- What is the recovery priority order? Is it documented or decided ad hoc?
|
||||
- How long until critical business operations resume?
|
||||
- What evidence preservation is required for law enforcement and insurance?
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Evaluate and Score Responses
|
||||
|
||||
Score each functional area against defined criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
| Evaluation Area | Score (1-5) | Criteria |
|
||||
|----------------|-------------|----------|
|
||||
| Detection & Escalation | | Timely incident declaration, proper chain of command |
|
||||
| Containment | | Network isolation, credential reset, scope assessment |
|
||||
| Communication - Internal | | Employee notification, executive briefing, documented decisions |
|
||||
| Communication - External | | Regulatory notification, customer communication, media response |
|
||||
| Recovery Planning | | Backup verification, recovery priority, RTO tracking |
|
||||
| Legal & Compliance | | Breach notification timelines, evidence preservation, law enforcement engagement |
|
||||
| Business Continuity | | Manual operations, customer impact mitigation, revenue loss estimation |
|
||||
| Payment Decision | | Structured framework, legal review, OFAC sanctions check |
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Document Findings and Remediation Plan
|
||||
|
||||
Produce an after-action report (AAR) within 5 business days:
|
||||
|
||||
**AAR Contents:**
|
||||
1. Exercise overview and objectives
|
||||
2. Scenario summary and injects
|
||||
3. Key decisions made and rationale
|
||||
4. Strengths observed
|
||||
5. Gaps identified with severity rating
|
||||
6. Remediation actions with owners and deadlines
|
||||
7. Comparison to previous exercise results (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Concepts
|
||||
|
||||
| Term | Definition |
|
||||
|------|------------|
|
||||
| **Tabletop Exercise (TTX)** | Discussion-based exercise where participants walk through a simulated incident scenario to test plans and procedures |
|
||||
| **Inject** | New information introduced during the exercise to change the scenario and force additional decision-making |
|
||||
| **SITREP** | Situation Report providing current status of the simulated incident at each exercise phase |
|
||||
| **After-Action Report (AAR)** | Post-exercise document capturing findings, gaps, strengths, and remediation actions |
|
||||
| **Double Extortion** | Ransomware tactic where attackers both encrypt data and threaten to publish stolen data unless ransom is paid |
|
||||
| **OFAC Check** | Verification that ransom payment recipient is not on the US Treasury OFAC sanctions list, which would make payment illegal |
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools & Systems
|
||||
|
||||
- **CISA Tabletop Exercise Packages (CTEPs)**: Free scenario packages from CISA designed for critical infrastructure sectors
|
||||
- **FEMA Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)**: Methodology for designing, conducting, and evaluating exercises
|
||||
- **Immersive Labs**: Platform providing interactive cyber crisis simulations with real-time scoring
|
||||
- **Tabletop Scenarios (from NCSC UK)**: Exercise in a Box tool providing free guided tabletop exercises
|
||||
- **Ransomware Readiness Assessment (CISA)**: Self-assessment tool for evaluating ransomware preparedness
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario: Healthcare System Double Extortion Exercise
|
||||
|
||||
**Context**: A 5-hospital healthcare system conducts an annual ransomware tabletop. Previous exercise revealed gaps in HIPAA breach notification and clinical system recovery priority. This year's scenario simulates a double extortion attack targeting the EMR system.
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
1. Design scenario based on Cl0p MOO (Managed Operations Operator) TTPs: exploitation of MOVEit vulnerability for initial access, data exfiltration of 500,000 patient records, followed by encryption of EMR database servers
|
||||
2. Participants: CISO, CIO, CMO (Chief Medical Officer), General Counsel, VP Communications, Director of Clinical Operations, Privacy Officer, External IR firm representative
|
||||
3. Phase 1 inject: EMR system down, emergency department diverting patients to neighboring hospital
|
||||
4. Phase 2 inject: HHS OCR (Office for Civil Rights) contacts organization about reports of patient data on dark web
|
||||
5. Phase 3 inject: Attacker provides decryption key sample for $3.5M, 48-hour deadline
|
||||
6. Key finding: Organization lacks documented criteria for ransom payment decision and had not pre-identified an OFAC-compliant payment mechanism
|
||||
7. Remediation: Establish payment decision framework, pre-engage ransomware negotiation firm, update HIPAA breach notification procedures with specific timelines
|
||||
|
||||
**Pitfalls**:
|
||||
- Designing unrealistic scenarios that do not reflect actual ransomware TTPs, reducing exercise credibility
|
||||
- Allowing technical teams to dominate the exercise while business and legal participants remain passive
|
||||
- Not testing the communication plan (many organizations discover their notification list is outdated during the actual incident)
|
||||
- Failing to follow up on remediation actions identified in the AAR, negating the exercise value
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Ransomware Tabletop Exercise - After Action Report
|
||||
|
||||
**Exercise Date**: [Date]
|
||||
**Facilitator**: [Name]
|
||||
**Scenario**: [Brief description]
|
||||
**Duration**: [Hours]
|
||||
**Participants**: [Count by department]
|
||||
|
||||
### Exercise Objectives
|
||||
1. [Objective] - Met / Partially Met / Not Met
|
||||
2. [Objective] - Met / Partially Met / Not Met
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Decisions Log
|
||||
| Time | Decision Point | Decision Made | Rationale | Assessment |
|
||||
|------|---------------|--------------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
|
||||
### Strengths Observed
|
||||
1. [Strength]
|
||||
|
||||
### Gaps Identified
|
||||
| Gap | Severity | Affected Area | Current State | Desired State |
|
||||
|-----|----------|--------------|---------------|---------------|
|
||||
|
||||
### Remediation Actions
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Deadline | Priority | Status |
|
||||
|--------|-------|----------|----------|--------|
|
||||
|
||||
### Comparison to Previous Exercise
|
||||
| Area | Previous Score | Current Score | Trend |
|
||||
|------|---------------|--------------|-------|
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user