mirror of
https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git
synced 2026-06-25 19:24:36 +03:00
efca3ec611
Mapped every skill to NIST CSF 2.0 subcategory IDs (GV/ID/PR/DE/RS/RC functions) based on subdomain and content analysis. Restores 11 skills corrupted during prior rebase, re-enriching with ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF, and CSF 2.0 fields. All 754 skills now carry structured mappings for all 5 security frameworks: - MITRE ATT&CK (in tags) - MITRE ATLAS v5.5 (atlas_techniques) - MITRE D3FEND v1.3 (d3fend_techniques) - NIST AI RMF 1.0 (nist_ai_rmf) - NIST CSF 2.0 (nist_csf)
407 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
407 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: performing-soc-tabletop-exercise
|
|
description: 'Performs tabletop exercises for SOC teams simulating security incidents through discussion-based scenarios to
|
|
test incident response procedures, communication workflows, and decision-making under pressure without impacting production
|
|
systems. Use when organizations need to validate IR playbooks, train analysts, or meet compliance requirements for incident
|
|
response testing.
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
domain: cybersecurity
|
|
subdomain: soc-operations
|
|
tags:
|
|
- soc
|
|
- tabletop
|
|
- exercise
|
|
- incident-response
|
|
- training
|
|
- nist
|
|
- playbook-validation
|
|
mitre_attack:
|
|
- T1566
|
|
- T1486
|
|
- T1078
|
|
version: '1.0'
|
|
author: mahipal
|
|
license: Apache-2.0
|
|
nist_csf:
|
|
- DE.CM-01
|
|
- DE.AE-02
|
|
- RS.MA-01
|
|
- DE.AE-06
|
|
---
|
|
# Performing SOC Tabletop Exercise
|
|
|
|
## When to Use
|
|
|
|
Use this skill when:
|
|
- Annual or semi-annual incident response testing is required (NIST, ISO 27001, PCI DSS compliance)
|
|
- New SOC analysts need exposure to major incident scenarios in a controlled environment
|
|
- Updated playbooks need validation before next real incident
|
|
- Cross-functional coordination (SOC, IT, Legal, PR, Executive) needs rehearsal
|
|
- Post-incident reviews reveal gaps requiring scenario-based training
|
|
|
|
**Do not use** as a replacement for technical purple team exercises — tabletop exercises test processes and decision-making, not technical detection capabilities.
|
|
|
|
## Prerequisites
|
|
|
|
- Exercise facilitator with incident response experience
|
|
- Participant list: SOC analysts (Tier 1-3), SOC manager, IT operations, Legal, HR, Communications
|
|
- Conference room or video call with screen sharing capability
|
|
- Printed or digital scenario injects with timed release schedule
|
|
- Evaluation scorecard for assessing participant responses
|
|
- Existing incident response plan and playbooks for reference during exercise
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Design Exercise Scenario
|
|
|
|
Create a realistic multi-phase scenario with escalating complexity:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
tabletop_exercise:
|
|
title: "Operation Dark Harvest — Ransomware Attack Scenario"
|
|
exercise_id: TTX-2024-Q1
|
|
date: 2024-03-22
|
|
duration: 3 hours (09:00-12:00)
|
|
classification: TLP:AMBER (internal use only)
|
|
|
|
objectives:
|
|
1: "Test SOC team's ability to detect and triage ransomware indicators"
|
|
2: "Validate escalation procedures from Tier 1 to incident commander"
|
|
3: "Assess cross-functional communication with Legal, PR, and Executive leadership"
|
|
4: "Evaluate containment decision-making under time pressure"
|
|
5: "Test backup recovery procedures and business continuity activation"
|
|
|
|
participants:
|
|
- role: SOC Tier 1 Analyst (2 participants)
|
|
- role: SOC Tier 2 Analyst (2 participants)
|
|
- role: SOC Manager / Incident Commander
|
|
- role: IT Operations Lead
|
|
- role: CISO (or delegate)
|
|
- role: Legal Counsel
|
|
- role: Communications / PR
|
|
- role: Business Unit Leader (Finance)
|
|
|
|
scenario_background: >
|
|
Your organization is a mid-size financial services company with 2,500 employees.
|
|
The SOC operates 24/7 with 6 analysts per shift using Splunk ES and CrowdStrike Falcon.
|
|
It is Friday afternoon at 3:45 PM. The weekend IT skeleton crew starts at 5 PM.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Create Timed Injects
|
|
|
|
Design scenario injects released at scheduled intervals:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
injects:
|
|
|
|
inject_1:
|
|
time: "T+0 (3:45 PM)"
|
|
title: "Initial Alert"
|
|
content: >
|
|
Splunk ES generates a notable event: "Shadow Copy Deletion Detected"
|
|
on FILESERVER-03 (10.0.10.50, Finance Department file server).
|
|
The alert shows: vssadmin.exe delete shadows /all /quiet
|
|
Source user: svc_backup (service account)
|
|
This is the first alert from this host today.
|
|
questions:
|
|
- "What is your initial assessment of this alert?"
|
|
- "What additional data would you query in Splunk?"
|
|
- "Is this a Tier 1 triage item or immediate escalation?"
|
|
|
|
inject_2:
|
|
time: "T+10 minutes"
|
|
title: "Escalating Indicators"
|
|
content: >
|
|
While investigating the first alert, two more alerts fire:
|
|
1. "Mass File Modification Detected" — 2,847 files renamed with .locked extension
|
|
on FILESERVER-03 within 5 minutes
|
|
2. "Suspicious PowerShell Encoded Command" on WORKSTATION-118 (10.0.5.118)
|
|
— same svc_backup account used
|
|
CrowdStrike shows process tree: explorer.exe > cmd.exe > powershell.exe -enc [base64]
|
|
questions:
|
|
- "What is your updated assessment? What incident severity would you assign?"
|
|
- "What immediate containment actions would you take?"
|
|
- "Who needs to be notified at this point?"
|
|
- "How do you determine if this is confined to these two hosts?"
|
|
|
|
inject_3:
|
|
time: "T+25 minutes"
|
|
title: "Scope Expansion"
|
|
content: >
|
|
Enterprise-wide Splunk search reveals:
|
|
- 7 additional hosts showing .locked file extensions
|
|
- All affected hosts are in the Finance VLAN (10.0.10.0/24)
|
|
- svc_backup account was used to RDP to all affected hosts starting at 3:30 PM
|
|
- A ransom note "README_UNLOCK.txt" found on all affected hosts
|
|
- Ransom note demands 50 BTC, includes Tor payment portal link
|
|
- IT reports the svc_backup password was changed 2 days ago (not by IT team)
|
|
questions:
|
|
- "This is now a confirmed ransomware incident. What is your incident classification?"
|
|
- "Walk through your containment strategy — what do you isolate and in what order?"
|
|
- "Should you shut down the Finance VLAN entirely? What are the trade-offs?"
|
|
- "When and how do you notify executive leadership?"
|
|
|
|
inject_4:
|
|
time: "T+45 minutes"
|
|
title: "Business Impact and External Pressure"
|
|
content: >
|
|
The CFO calls the SOC Manager directly:
|
|
"We are closing the quarter-end books this weekend. Finance absolutely needs
|
|
access to FILESERVER-03 by Monday morning or we miss SEC filing deadlines."
|
|
Additionally:
|
|
- Legal asks if customer PII was on any affected servers
|
|
- PR reports a journalist called asking about "cybersecurity issues at [company]"
|
|
- The ransom note deadline is 48 hours
|
|
- IT reports last verified backup of FILESERVER-03 is from Wednesday (3 days old)
|
|
questions:
|
|
- "How do you balance containment security with business pressure from the CFO?"
|
|
- "What is your recommendation on ransom payment? Who makes this decision?"
|
|
- "What information does Legal need to assess breach notification obligations?"
|
|
- "How do you handle the media inquiry?"
|
|
- "Can you recover from the 3-day-old backup? What data is lost?"
|
|
|
|
inject_5:
|
|
time: "T+70 minutes"
|
|
title: "Forensic Discovery"
|
|
content: >
|
|
Tier 3 forensic analysis reveals:
|
|
- Initial access was via compromised VPN credentials (svc_backup)
|
|
- Credentials were found in a dark web dump from a third-party vendor breach
|
|
- Attacker had access for 5 days before deploying ransomware
|
|
- Evidence of data exfiltration: 15GB uploaded to Mega.nz over 3 days
|
|
- Exfiltrated data includes customer PII (SSN, account numbers) for 12,000 clients
|
|
- The ransomware variant is identified as LockBit 3.0
|
|
questions:
|
|
- "How does confirmed data exfiltration change your response?"
|
|
- "What are the regulatory notification requirements? (SEC, state breach laws)"
|
|
- "What is the timeline for customer notification?"
|
|
- "Should you engage external IR firm? Law enforcement?"
|
|
- "How do you handle the vendor who was the source of the credential compromise?"
|
|
|
|
inject_6:
|
|
time: "T+90 minutes"
|
|
title: "Recovery Decision Point"
|
|
content: >
|
|
You are now 6 hours into the incident. Status:
|
|
- All 9 affected hosts isolated
|
|
- Finance VLAN segmented from corporate network
|
|
- LockBit C2 domain blocked at firewall and DNS
|
|
- No decryptor available for LockBit 3.0
|
|
- Wednesday backup verified clean but 3 days of data missing
|
|
- CEO asks for a full situation briefing in 30 minutes
|
|
questions:
|
|
- "Prepare a 5-minute executive briefing. What do you include?"
|
|
- "What is your recovery plan and estimated timeline?"
|
|
- "What monitoring will you put in place during and after recovery?"
|
|
- "What immediate security improvements would you recommend?"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 3: Facilitate the Exercise
|
|
|
|
**Facilitator Guide:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
EXERCISE FACILITATION PROTOCOL
|
|
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
|
|
1. OPENING (10 min)
|
|
- State exercise objectives and ground rules
|
|
- Emphasize: "No wrong answers — this is about testing process, not individuals"
|
|
- Remind participants this is a simulation — no actual systems are affected
|
|
- Identify the exercise observer/scribe
|
|
|
|
2. INJECT DELIVERY (110 min)
|
|
- Present each inject on screen, allow 2 min reading time
|
|
- Ask guided questions to each role group
|
|
- Allow discussion but keep on timeline
|
|
- Inject additional pressure/complications as needed
|
|
- Record decisions, rationale, and gaps identified
|
|
|
|
3. DISCUSSION RULES
|
|
- Participants respond in-character (their actual role)
|
|
- Reference actual playbooks and procedures when available
|
|
- If participants are unsure, that IS the finding
|
|
- Facilitator may add "hot injects" if discussion stalls
|
|
|
|
4. CLOSING (40 min)
|
|
- Hot wash: Each participant shares one thing that went well, one gap
|
|
- Facilitator summarizes key findings
|
|
- Identify top 5 action items with owners and due dates
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 4: Evaluate Participant Responses
|
|
|
|
Score responses against expected outcomes:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
evaluation_criteria:
|
|
|
|
detection_and_triage:
|
|
expected: "Immediately recognize shadow copy deletion as ransomware precursor"
|
|
scoring:
|
|
excellent: "Correctly identified within 2 minutes, initiated proper escalation"
|
|
adequate: "Identified after discussion, correct escalation path"
|
|
needs_improvement: "Did not recognize significance, delayed escalation"
|
|
|
|
containment_decision:
|
|
expected: "Isolate affected hosts via EDR, segment Finance VLAN, preserve evidence"
|
|
scoring:
|
|
excellent: "Immediate isolation, correct priority order, evidence preservation"
|
|
adequate: "Isolation performed but delayed or incomplete prioritization"
|
|
needs_improvement: "Considered powering off hosts (destroys evidence) or delayed isolation"
|
|
|
|
communication:
|
|
expected: "Timely notification chain: SOC Manager -> CISO -> Legal -> Executive"
|
|
scoring:
|
|
excellent: "Proper notification within defined SLAs, clear and concise briefings"
|
|
adequate: "Notifications made but slightly delayed or incomplete"
|
|
needs_improvement: "Key stakeholders not notified, unclear communication"
|
|
|
|
business_continuity:
|
|
expected: "Balance security containment with business recovery needs"
|
|
scoring:
|
|
excellent: "Realistic recovery timeline communicated, alternative workarounds proposed"
|
|
adequate: "Recovery discussed but timeline unclear"
|
|
needs_improvement: "Overcommitted on timeline or ignored business impact"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 5: Generate After-Action Report
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
after_action_report:
|
|
exercise: TTX-2024-Q1 "Operation Dark Harvest"
|
|
date: 2024-03-22
|
|
participants: 10
|
|
duration: 3 hours
|
|
|
|
executive_summary: >
|
|
The tabletop exercise tested the organization's ransomware response capabilities
|
|
across detection, containment, communication, and recovery phases. The SOC team
|
|
demonstrated strong technical triage skills but gaps were identified in cross-
|
|
functional communication and backup recovery procedures.
|
|
|
|
strengths:
|
|
- SOC analysts correctly identified ransomware indicators within first inject
|
|
- Containment decision-making was swift and technically sound
|
|
- Legal team was well-prepared on breach notification requirements
|
|
- IT operations had clear understanding of backup recovery procedures
|
|
|
|
gaps_identified:
|
|
- gap_1:
|
|
finding: "No documented procedure for notifying CISO after-hours"
|
|
risk: High
|
|
action: "Update escalation contacts with personal phone numbers and backup contacts"
|
|
owner: SOC Manager
|
|
due_date: 2024-04-05
|
|
|
|
- gap_2:
|
|
finding: "Backup recovery testing has not been performed in 6 months"
|
|
risk: Critical
|
|
action: "Schedule quarterly backup restoration drill"
|
|
owner: IT Operations Lead
|
|
due_date: 2024-04-15
|
|
|
|
- gap_3:
|
|
finding: "No pre-approved media holding statement for cyber incidents"
|
|
risk: Medium
|
|
action: "Draft and approve 3 holding statement templates with Legal"
|
|
owner: Communications Lead
|
|
due_date: 2024-04-10
|
|
|
|
- gap_4:
|
|
finding: "Service account (svc_backup) had Domain Admin privileges unnecessarily"
|
|
risk: Critical
|
|
action: "Audit all service accounts, implement least privilege"
|
|
owner: IT Security
|
|
due_date: 2024-04-01
|
|
|
|
- gap_5:
|
|
finding: "Unclear decision authority for ransom payment"
|
|
risk: High
|
|
action: "Document ransom payment decision tree with CEO/Board approval requirement"
|
|
owner: CISO
|
|
due_date: 2024-04-15
|
|
|
|
metrics:
|
|
overall_score: "72/100 (Adequate)"
|
|
detection: "85/100 (Excellent)"
|
|
containment: "80/100 (Good)"
|
|
communication: "60/100 (Needs Improvement)"
|
|
recovery: "65/100 (Needs Improvement)"
|
|
|
|
next_exercise: "TTX-2024-Q2 — Data Breach / Insider Threat Scenario (June 2024)"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 6: Track Remediation and Follow-Up
|
|
|
|
```spl
|
|
--- Track action items from tabletop exercise
|
|
| inputlookup ttx_action_items.csv
|
|
| eval days_remaining = round((strptime(due_date, "%Y-%m-%d") - now()) / 86400)
|
|
| eval status_flag = case(
|
|
status="Completed", "GREEN",
|
|
days_remaining < 0, "RED — OVERDUE",
|
|
days_remaining < 7, "YELLOW — DUE SOON",
|
|
1=1, "GREEN"
|
|
)
|
|
| sort - status_flag, days_remaining
|
|
| table gap_id, finding, owner, due_date, days_remaining, status, status_flag
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Key Concepts
|
|
|
|
| Term | Definition |
|
|
|------|-----------|
|
|
| **Tabletop Exercise** | Discussion-based simulation where participants walk through incident scenarios without executing technical actions |
|
|
| **Inject** | Scenario update introducing new information, complications, or decisions for participants to address |
|
|
| **Hot Wash** | Immediate post-exercise debrief where participants share observations and initial lessons learned |
|
|
| **After-Action Report (AAR)** | Formal document capturing exercise findings, gaps, strengths, and remediation action items |
|
|
| **Facilitator** | Exercise leader who presents injects, guides discussion, and ensures objectives are met |
|
|
| **Decision Point** | Moment in the scenario requiring participants to choose between options with trade-offs |
|
|
|
|
## Tools & Systems
|
|
|
|
- **FEMA HSEEP**: Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program providing exercise planning methodology
|
|
- **Tabletop Exercise Framework (NIST SP 800-84)**: NIST guide for planning and conducting IT security exercises
|
|
- **Immersive Labs**: Platform for cybersecurity crisis simulation and tabletop exercise management
|
|
- **Infection Monkey**: Open-source breach simulation for technical validation of tabletop findings
|
|
- **Archer**: GRC platform for tracking exercise findings and remediation action items
|
|
|
|
## Common Scenarios
|
|
|
|
- **Ransomware Attack**: Multi-phase scenario testing detection, containment, ransom decision, and recovery
|
|
- **Data Breach**: Customer PII exposure testing notification requirements, legal obligations, and PR response
|
|
- **Supply Chain Compromise**: Third-party vendor breach impacting organizational systems and data
|
|
- **Insider Threat**: Employee data theft scenario testing HR, Legal, and security team coordination
|
|
- **Business Email Compromise**: CEO fraud wire transfer attempt testing financial controls and verification procedures
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
TABLETOP EXERCISE SUMMARY — TTX-2024-Q1
|
|
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
|
|
Scenario: Operation Dark Harvest (Ransomware)
|
|
Date: 2024-03-22 (09:00-12:00 UTC)
|
|
Participants: 10 (SOC: 5, IT: 1, Legal: 1, Comms: 1, Exec: 2)
|
|
Duration: 3 hours (6 injects delivered)
|
|
|
|
SCORES:
|
|
Detection & Triage: 85/100 Excellent
|
|
Containment: 80/100 Good
|
|
Communication: 60/100 Needs Improvement
|
|
Recovery Planning: 65/100 Needs Improvement
|
|
Overall: 72/100 Adequate
|
|
|
|
KEY FINDINGS:
|
|
[+] Strong: Ransomware indicators correctly identified immediately
|
|
[+] Strong: EDR isolation procedure well understood
|
|
[-] Gap: No after-hours CISO notification procedure
|
|
[-] Gap: Backup recovery untested for 6 months
|
|
[-] Gap: No pre-approved media statement templates
|
|
[-] Gap: Service account over-privileged (Domain Admin)
|
|
[-] Gap: Ransom payment decision authority undefined
|
|
|
|
ACTION ITEMS: 5 (Critical: 2, High: 2, Medium: 1)
|
|
NEXT EXERCISE: TTX-2024-Q2 (June 2024) — Insider Threat Scenario
|
|
```
|